HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-1982 CITY COUNCILAGENDAAGENDA BILL NO. �p
DATE: November 5, 1982
CITY OF SARATOGA
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis
Initial: fJ
Dept. Hd.
C. A
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: GF -342 and C -201, Agricultural Preserve /Open Space Overlay District
Issue Summary
1. When the City rezoned the Northwestern Hillsides to NHR certain
Williamson Act parcels lost their agricultural zoning.
2. Staff was concerned that this could have jeopardized the status of
these contract parcels since they must be in designated agricultural
preserves. Also, Resolution No. 549 requires such parcels to be
rezoned "A" if they are otherwise zoned.
3. The Commission, at its meeting of 10/27/82, voted unanimously to
recommend that the City Council adopt an Agricultural Preserve/
Open Space Overlay District and designate those Williamson Act
parcels in the Northwestern Hillsides as in this district to resolve
this issue.
4. The process of creating an Overlay District and designating parcels
in this district is the same as a regular ordinance creation and
rezoning.
Recommendation
1. Establish.a time;for,.a.public. hearing on the adoption-of the Overlay
District and the designation of Williamson Act contract parcels as
parcels within this District.
2. At the public hearing the Council - should approve the Negative
Declaration and have the first reading of the Orihance after taking
public testimony.
3. The Council should also amend Resolution No. 549 to allow Williamson.
Ac "t"-contract parcels to be zoned Agricultural Preserve /Open Space
rather than just "A" Agriculture.
W'
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated
Exhibits /Attachrrn�ts
Exhibit A Staff'Report dated.l0 /20/82
Exhibit B - Negative Declaration
Exhibit Cl and C2 - Agricultural Preserve /Open
Exhibit D - Map of area affected (C -201)
Exhibit E - Planning Commission minutes dated
,Exhibi:t F - Resolution No. 549
Space Overlay Ordinances
10/13/82
Exhibit G - Resolution approving GF -342 and C -201 (Planning Commission)
Council Action:
11/17: Clevenger /Fanelli moved to set for public hearing 12/15 Passed 5 -0
12/15: Clevenger /Fanelli moved to introduce ordinance by title, waiving further reading.
Passed 5 -0.
1/5: Both ordinance adopted 5 -0 (NS 3.55 and NS3ZC -85).
� &61-6 i+ A
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 10/20/82
Commission Meeting: 10/27/82
SUBJECT C -201 and GF -342, Agricultural Overlay in the Northwestern
Hillsides for Williamson Act Parcels
At its Committee -of- the -Whole meeting of October 19, 1982 the
Planning Commission discussed two alternative means of creating
an agricultural overlay for.Williamson Act parcels which were
presented by the Deputy City Attorney. The consensus of the
Commission at that meeting was to use Alternative #1 which would
apply the overlay only to the Williamson Act parcels in the
Northwestern Hillsides Residential District rather than have the
overlay cover a broader area.
It should be noted that the overlay does not create any new land
use restrictions and merely indicates that the lands affected
must comply with their existing Williamson Act.contracts. The
overlay will ensure that as long as the affected parcels are
under Williamson Act contract they will be designated as agricultural
preserves on the zoning map.
Attached is a copy of the proposed overlay ordinance and the
resolution recommending approval to the City Council. Also
attached is a resolution recommending that the zoning map be amended
to show the Williamson Act parcels in the NHR District as part of
an agricultural preserve.
l sh"10 vre -
1. The proposed ordinance amendments are required to ensure that
existing Williamson Act contract lands are maintained in
agricultural preserves as required by State law.
2. The proposed zoning changes are required to achieve the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1
of Ordinance NS -3.
C -201 and GF -342 ,
October 20, 1982
Page 2
3. The amendments would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the areas affected by the amendment.
4. The amendments are.consistent:,with the goals and policies of
the General Plan and the Specific Plan for the area.
5. The amendments will not adversely affect the development of
the City of Saratoga.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the necessary
findings and adopt the resolutions recommending that the City Council
make the proposed amendments to the text and map of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Michael Fldres
Assistant Planner
MF /mgr
:.EIA -4 C �. File No:GF -342 & C -201
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration) i
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 -
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15080
through 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution .653-
of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will.have
no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Creat
Overlay District for those
the Northwestern Hillsides
Specific Plan for the area
are under.
ion of an Agricultural Preserve /Open Space
parcels under Williamson Act contract in
Residential District consistent with the
and the Williamson Act contracts the parcels
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Proposed amendments would not have a
significant effect on the bnvironment since the net effect of both
would be to maintain agricultural uses on certain parcels in the
Northwestern Hillsides. The project would create less impact than the
development impacts predicted in the E.I.R. for the Specific Plan for
this area and returns proper zoning to Williamson Act contract parcels.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 20th day of nrtnhPr 19R
R. S. ROBINSON, JR..
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND POLICY ANALYSIS
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
�xtF lbl'C L I
b
ORDINANCE NO. NS-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY
ESTABLISHING AN AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE /OPEN
SPACE OVERLAY DISTRICT ON CERTAIN LAND
PRESENTLY ZONED "A" OR "NHR ".
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
ordain as follows:
Article 3C is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3 of the City
of Saratoga to read as follows:
ARTICLE 3C. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE /OPEN SPACE
OVERLAY DISTRICT
Section 3C.1 - Purposes.
In addition to the objectives set forth in Section 1.1,
the Agricultural Preserve /Open Space Overlay District is included
in the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the following purposes:
(a) To satisfy legal requirements with respect to
the zoning classification of land on which Williamson
Act contracts may be executed and renewed, thereby
encouraging and preserving such contracts in accordance
with the policies set forth in the Saratoga General Plan
and the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan.
(b) To implement the open space element of the
Saratoga General Plan.
Section 3C.2 - Definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth in Section 1.5,
all of which are applicable to this Article, the following defini-
tions shall also apply to certain terms used herein:
(a) Williamson Act. The California Land Conserva-
tion Act of 1965, as set forth in Chapter 7 (commencing
with Section 51200) of Part 1, Division 1, Title 5 of
the California Government Code.
(b) Williamson Act Contracts. Agreements between
the City of Saratoga and the landowner executed pursuant
1.
Ito the Williamson Act and the rules and regulations
adopted by the City of Saratoga for the conduct of
proceedings thereunder.
(c) Agricultural Preserve. A parcel of area of
land devoted to either agricultural use, recreational
use, open space use or any combination of such uses, as
defined in Section 51201 of the Williamson Act.
(d) Open Space. A parcel or area of land which is
essentially unimproved and devoted to open space as
defined in Government Code Section 65560(b).
(e) AP /OS Overlay. The Agricultural Preserve /Open
Space Overlay District established by this Article.
(f) Underlying Zoning. The zoning classification
of a parcel or area of land in the absence of the AP /OS
Overlay District.
Section 3C.3 - Establishment of AP /OS Overlay District.
An Agricultural Preserve /Open Space Overlay District is
hereby established upon all parcels or areas of land designated
"AP /OS Overlay" on the Overlay Zoning Map approved as part of this
Ordinance and such lands are hereby designated as agricultural
preserves and open space lands, all such lands being subject to
Williamson Act contracts as of the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 3C.4 - Land Uses.
Each parcel or area of land within the AP /OS Overlay
District shall be used only for the purposes expressly permitted
under the terms of the Williamson Act Contract applicable to such
land.
Section 3C.5 — Termination of Overlav District Restriction.
Upon the effective date of any expiration or termination
of a Williamson Act contract covering any parcel or area of land
within the AP /OS Overlay District, such land shall automatically
be removed from the AP /OS Overlay District and shall thereafter be
classified solely according to the district of the underlying -
2.
a �
......._ ... .
zoning for such land. Nothing herein shall prevent the subsequent
execution of a new Williamson Act contract pertaining to such
land, in which event the land shall again be included within the
AP /OS Overlay District.
Section 3C.6 - Status of Existing Williamson Act Contracts.
. This Article shall not constitute or be interpreted as
causing any alteration, amendment or impairment of any Williamson
Act contract which has not expired or been terminated as of the
effective date of this Ordinance, and all such contracts are
hereby ratified, acknowledged and confirmed by the City of Saratoga
and declared to be in full force and effect.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases
may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after
its passage and adoption.
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held
on the day of 198_, by the following
vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
Attest:
City Clerk
3.
Mayor
li
C CA 10 E-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3,
THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REGARDING PARCELS WITH THE FOLLOWING APN
NU14BERS: 366 -5 -21, 366 -14 -6, 366- 14 -27, 503 -12 -1,
503- 12 -24, 503- 12 -25, 503- 13 -67, 503- 13 -68, 503- 17 -21,
503- 17 -23, AND 503 -17 -49 SHOWING THEM AS PART OF THE
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE /OPEN SPACE OVERLAY DISTRICT
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as
follows:
Section 1: Sectional Map #C -201 attached hereto and incor-
porated herein by reference is hereby adopted, and the Zoning Map of
the City of Saratoga adopted by Section 1.8 of the Ordinance NS -3 of
said City, together with any amendments thereto, is hereby changed
and amended by substituting the cross hatched area of the foregoing
Sectional District Map for that portion of the Zoning Map delineated
in and by that cross hatched portion of the Sectional District Map.
So much of the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga, together with any
amendments thereto, as in conflict with the adoption of the Sectional
Map is hereby superseded and repealed.
Section 2: This Ordinance reclassifies certain properties
shown on the attached sectional map by adding the designation of
Agricultural Preserve /Open Space Overlay District to the existing
Northwestern Hillsides Residential District designation. It shall
become operative on and after thirty (30) days from its date of
passage.
This Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time
required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of
1982, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
a '.ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
i�
0 0
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10/13/82
A -838 (cont.)
Exh�b�tE '�
Page 2
problems and also submitted a copy of the petition with the signatures in
favor of deleting the restriction in the CC&Rs for the adjacent subdivisions.
Discussion followed on the CC$Rs for the adjacent subdivisions and the pro-
cedure for changing them. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the only
involvement that the City may have is if there is a provision in the CC$Rs
that states that they should not be amended without the City's consent.
He added that the City can't initiate an amendment; the CC$Rs are between
the homeowners and the homeowners association. He stated that the matter
before the Commission at this time is the design review for the fence; the
actual application for the fence was already ruled upon by the Commission at
an earlier meeting.
Mrs. Joe spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that she was highly aller-
gic to animals and noted the problems that she had incurred.
Jack Tevis, 19607 Kenosha Court, stated that he lived in the adjacent sub-
division and they were fenced legally. He commented that the concept of
the Planned Community is fine, but it has not worked. He added that open
space means that it is open to dogs, kids, horseback riders, etc. He
stated that lie felt that Dr. Joe's application should be approved, since
everyone else in the area has fencing, and it would give them the oppor-
tunity to secure, protect and thereby properly utilize their property.
Mrs. Klein stated that the City Council had also recognized the fact that
the Planned Community concept was not working, and that is why they had
directed the Commission to study the Planned Community area if the fencing
is going to be changed.
Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A -838 per the Staff Report date'
9- 30 -82. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried una,
mously 7 -0. It was determined that the Planned Community area will be
studied at a later date, no later than February, and possibly along with
the General Plan.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. GF -341 - Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance by adding article 25 - Village
Overlay District to Ordinance NS -3 which would establish the
boundaries of the district (generally that area contained within
Saratoga Creek, Saratoga - Sunnyvale and Saratoga -Los Gatos Roads,
Oak Street and St. Charles and Sixth Streets), allow mixed uses
on properly designated lots with a use permit, modifying the list
of conditional uses to be allowed in the district, and by allowing
variations in development standards through the use permit process
per Article 18 of Ordinance NS -3; continued from September 22,
1982
Chairman Schaefer reported that it has been determined that a Specific Plan
will be done instead of a Village Overlay.
The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. No one appeared to address the
Commission. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The
motion was carried unanimously.
GF -342 - Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance by changing the minimum site area
C -201 - allowed in the A (Agriculture) District from 5 acres to 10 acres
and changing the minimum site area per dwelling unit from 2.5
acres to 10 acres. The City proposes to rezone certain parcels
in the Northwestern Hillsides to A (Agriculture) rather than NHR
(Northwestern Hillsides Residential). The parcels affected were
previously zoned A (Agriculture) and are under 1t'illiamson Act
contracts. Amendments will be per Article 18 of Ordinance NS -3
The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. No one appeared to address
Commission. It was directed that this matter be continued to the meeting
on October 27, 1982.
8. UP -522 - Cashin /Dean Turner, Request for Use Permit Approval to allow the
construction of a gas station in the C -N zoning district at the
corner of Prospect and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
It was reported that there had previously been a split vote on this item.
2 -
�X�filoe��
RESOLUTION NO. 549
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR
INITIATING, FILING AND PROCESSING REQUESTS
TO ESTABLISH AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES
( IL I5A1M23 N ACT)
WHEREAS California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The
Williamson Actj authorizes cities to establish agricultural
preserves, for the purpose of defining the boundaries of those
agricultural areas within which the city will be willing to
enter into land conservation contracts pursuant to said Act,
in order, amongst other things, to maintain the agricultural
economy of the state and to prevent the premature and unnecessary
conversion of land from agricultural uses, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of this City finds that it can
assist the maintenance of the State's agricultural economy and
avoid conversion of land from agricultural uses by establishing
agricultural preserves and entering into agreements with land
owners as authorized by said Act, and
WHEREAS, said Act directs cities to state by resolution
the procedures for initiating, filing and processing requests
for the establishment of such agricultural preserves,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga
hereby resolves as follows:
The establishment of an agricultural preserve may be
initiated either by motion of the City Council, or upon an appli-
cation therefor by the land owner or land owners of the property
within the proposed preserve, as hereinafter set forth. The
following procedures are hereby established for the initiating,
filing and processing of all requests to establish such preserves:
1. All requests for establishing an agricultural preserve
initiated by other than "motion of the City Council shall be upon
written application signed by all of the owners of the lands in-
cluded within the confines of the proposed preserve, and filed with
the City Clerk on forms approved by the City Council, which shall
include the following data:
(a) Names and addresses of all owners;
(b) A statement of the location, ownership, size, and
area of all the property, and of all the present
agricultural uses of the property together with
any and all other uses conducted thereon;
(c) Assessor's parcel numbers;
(d) A request that the property be established as an
agricultural preserve for the purpose of enabling
the applicant to enter into a land conservation
contract with the City;
(e) In the event the property or some part thereof is
in a zoning district other than A (agriculture), a
request to initiate a change of zoning to A zoning
district;
-1-
(f) Such other data or information as may be
required by the approved form;
In addition, each application shall be accompanied by the following
documents:
(a) Two (2) copies of a legal description of all
properties;
�b) Four (4) copies of assessor's maps;
c) A completed income analysis sheet for delivery
to the Santa Clara County Assessor;
(d) Two (2) completed land conservation contracts in
a form approved by the City Council, covering
all or some substantial portion of the property
within the proposed agricultural preserve, each
properly executed and acknowledged by the property
owner;
(e) A filing fee in the sum of $ 25.00 together
with an additional filing fee of $200.00 if the
application also includes a request to rezone to
"A' zoning district.
2. Upon receipt of the application, the City Clerk shall
check the same for the adequacy and completeness of all documentation
required thereon and documents to be included therewith, and upon
determining the same as properly executed and complete, he shall
then:
(a) Forthwith submit the application and accompanying
data to the City's Planning Department, who shall
report thereon to the City Council within thirty
(30) days thereafter, and which report shall in-
clude a statement as to whether or not the proposed
preserve is consistant with the General Plan;
(b) He shall set a public hearing on the application
before the City Council, publishing notice of the
same once in a newspaper of general circulation
at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing,
and sending a copy of said notice, postage prepaid,
to all applicants who have their addresses set
forth on "the application.
3. At the time and place of the public hearing on the
application, the City Council shall hear all persons interested
therein, and thereafter may either terminate said proceedings,
or may by resolution establish all or any portion of the lands
included in the application as an agricultural preserve. Said
public hearing may be continued from time to time, and in no
event shall the City Council adopt a resolution establishing an
agricultural preserve until it has either received a report on the
application from the Planning Department, or until the expiration
of thirty (30) days from the date said matter was submitted to
said Planning Department in the event said department fails to
report thereon.
Each resolution establishing an agricultural preserve shall
contain a finding of compatible uses within the preserve, and shall
set forth such uniform rules for administering that preserve as may
be deemed advisable and necessary by the City Council.
4. At any time at or after adopting a resolution estab-
lishing an agricultural preserve, the City Council may authorize
C "I -2-
the Mayor of said City to enter into a land conservation
agreement with any owner or owners of land within said agri-
cultural preserve, and said authorization may, but need not,
be included as a part of the resolution establishing the
preserve.
5. Anything to the contrary hereinabove not withstanding,
the City .Council may abandon any proceedings for the establishment
of an agricultural preserve at any time after the filing of an
application therefor or initiation of the same on the Council's
own motion, by minute'or other resolution, which resolution shall
set forth the reasons for such abandonment.
r
6. Attached hereto and marked, respectively, Exhibits "A"
and'$ ", are forms for the,application for creation of an
agricultural preserve and for land conservation contract, which
forms are hereby specifically referred to and approved as official
forms of this City.
7. The City Clerk shall cause a duplicate original of each
land conservation agreement to be recorded with the Santa Clara
County Recorder within 20 days.after the completed execution of
the same, and shall file a copy of the same with the Santa Clara
County Assessor. Within 30 days after adoption of this Resolution,
the City Clerk shall file a sample copy of the hereinabove approved
form of contract with the State Director of Agriculture.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly
passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga
at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of October ,
1970, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Robbins, Smith, Dwyer, Sanders, Drlo?,,
NOES: None
ABSENT: 1VoRe
Mayor
I
ATTEST:
C/Af Clerk
I
C11— - -3-
RESOLUTION NO. GF -342
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
WHEREAS, an application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
has been initiated by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga,
and
WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing on said proposed
amendment, which public hearing was held at the following time and
place to -wit: At the hour of 7:30 P.M. on the 27th day of October,
1982 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California;
and thereafter said hearing was closed, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration of the proposed amendment
as it would affect the zoning regulations and General Plan of the
City of Saratoga, and after review of a Negative Declaration prepared
for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission
has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed
amendment attached hereto and marked Exhibit "C" should be affirmatively
recommended to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached
hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the
City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the
Zoning Ordinance of the City, and that the Report of Findings of this
Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked
Exhibit "B ", be and the same is hereby approved, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send
a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed
Amendment and Report of Findings and a summary of hearings held by
this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance
with State Law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 27th day of October,1982 by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Hlava, Monia, Nellis, Schaefer and
Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT: Commissioner Crowther
Chairman of the Planni Commission
ATTEST:
1
i
y�
Secretary to t e Planning Commission
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS:
GF -342
C -201
1. The proposed ordinance amendments are required to ensure that
existing Williamson Act contract lands are maintained in
agricultural preserves as required by State Law.
2. The proposed zoning changes are required to achieve the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section
1.1 of Ordinance NS -3.
3. The amendments would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the areas affected by the amendment.
4. The amendments are consistent with the goals and policies
of the General Plan and the Specific Plan for the area.
5. The amendments will not adversely affect the development of the
City of Saratoga.
RESOLUTION NO. C -201
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
WHEREAS, the Commission held a Public Hearing on said proposed
amendment, which Public Hearing was held at the following time and
place to -wit: At the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 27th day of October,
1982 at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga,
California; and thereafter said hearing was closed, and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it
would affect the zoning regulation plan of the City of Saratoga, and
after consideration of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project
and brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain
findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached
hereto and marked Exhibit "A" should be affirmatively recommended to
the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached
hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City
Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning
Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this
Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit
"B ", be and the same is hereby approved, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send
a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed
Amendment and Report of Findings and a summary of hearings held by
this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance
with State Law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 27th day of October,1982, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Hlava, Monia, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT: Commissioner Crowther
Ch Airman of the PlaAning Commission
.ATTEST:
Secr a y
;
CITY OF SARNTOGA
AGENDA BILL NO.
&TE: November 5, 1982
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis
Initial:
Dept. Hd.�
C.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: GF -342 and C -201, Agricultural Preserve /Open Space Overlay District
Issue Summary
1. When the City rezoned the Northwestern Hillsides to NHR certain
Williamson Act parcels lost their agricultural zoning.
2. Staff was concerned that this could have jeopardized the status of
these contract parcels since they must be in designated agricultural
preserves. Also, Resolution No. 549 requires such parcels to be
rezoned "A" if they are otherwise zoned.
3. The Commission, at its meeting of 10/27/82, voted unanimously to
recommend that the City Council adopt an Agricultural Preserve/
Open Space Overlay District and designate those Williamson Act
parcels in the Northwestern Hillsides as in this district to resolve
this issue.
4. The process of creating an Overlay District and designating parcels
in this district is the same as a regular ordinance creation and
rezoning.
Recommendation
�. Establish a time for a public.hearing on the adoption of the Overlay
District and the designation of Williamson Act contract parcels as
parcels within this District.
2. At the public hearing the Council.should approve the Negative
Declaration and have the first reading of the Orinance after taking
public testimony.
3. The Council should also amend Resolution No. 549 to allow Williamson
Act contract parcels to be zoned Agricultural Preserve /Open Space
rather than just "A" Agriculture.
Fiscal Facts
None anticipated
Exhibits /Attachments
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
r�
U
- Staff.Report dated 10 /20/82
- Negative Declaration
- Agricultural Preserve /Open Space Overlay Ordinance
- Map of area affected (C -201)
- Planning Commission minutes dated 10/13/82
- Resolution No. 549
- Resolution approving GF -342 and C -201 (Planning Commission)
C C Ex1�;6�tA
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 10/20/82
Commission Meeting: 10/27/82
SUBJECT: C -201 and GF -342, Agricultural Overlay in the Northwestern
Hillsides for Williamson Act Parcels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
At its Committee -of- the -Whole meeting of October 19, 1982 the
Planning Commission discussed two alternative means of creating
an agricultural overlay for Williamson Act parcels which were
presented by the Deputy City Attorney. The consensus of the
Commission at that meeting was to use Alternative #1 which.would •
apply the overlay only to the Williamson Act parcels in the
Northwestern Hillsides Residential District rather than have the
overlay cover a broader area.
It should be noted that the overlay does not create any new land
use restrictions and merely indicates that the lands affected
must comply with their existing Williamson Act contracts. The
overlay will ensure that as long as the affected parcels: are
under Williamson Act contract they will be designated as agricultural
preserves on the zoning map.
Attached is a copy of the proposed.overlay ordinance and the
resolution recommending approval to the City Council. Also
attached is a resolution recommending that the zoning map be amended
to show the Williamson Act parcels in the NHR District as part of
an agricultural preserve.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed ordinance amendments are required to ensure that
existing Williamson Act contract lands are maintained in
agricultural preserves as required by State law.
2. The proposed zoning changes are required to achieve the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 •
of Ordinance NS -3.
C -201 and GF -342 \ .
October 20, 1982
Page 2
• 3. The amendments would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the areas affected by the amendment.
4. The amendments are consistent:with the goals and policies of
the General Plan and the Specific Plan for the area.
5. The amendments will not adversely affect the development of
the City of Saratoga.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the necessary
findings and adopt the resolutions recommending that the City Council
make the proposed amendments to the text and map of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Michael Flores
Assistant Planner
• MF /mgr
EIA -4
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
File No:GF -342 & C -201
E"Abi£B'
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15080
through 15083 of the California Administrative.Code, and Resolution 653 -
of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will.have
no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Creation of an Agricultural Preserve /Open Space
Overlay District for those parcels under Williamson Act contract in
the Northwestern Hillsides Residential District consistent with the
Specific Plan for the area and the Williamson Act contracts the parcels
are under.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Proposed amendments would not have a
significant effect on the envibonment since the net effect of both
would be to maintain agricultural uses on certain parcels in the
Northwestern Hillsides. The project would create less impact than the
development impacts predicted in the E.I.R. for the Specific Plan for
this area and returns proper zoning to Williamson Act contract parcels.
•
Executed at Saratoga, California this 20th day of 0.tnh., 191"
R. S. ROBINSON, JR.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND POLICY ANALYSIS
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
•
c
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3,
THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REGARDING PARCELS WITH THE FOLLOWING APN
NUMBERS: 366 -5 -21, 366 -14 -6, 366- 14 -27, 503 -12 -1,
503- 12 -24, 503- 12 -25, 503- 13 -67, 503- 13 -68, 503- 17 -21,
503- 17 -23, AND 503 -17 -49 SHOWING THEM AS PART OF THE
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE /OPEN SPACE OVERLAY DISTRICT
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as
follows:
Section 1: Sectional Map nC -201 attached hereto and incor-
porated herein by reference is hereby adopted, and the Zoning Map of
the City of Saratoga adopted by Section 1.8 of the Ordinance NS -3 of
said Citv, together with any amendments thereto, is hereby changed
and amended by substituting the cross hatched area of the foregoing
Sectional District Map for that portion of the Zoning Map delineated
in and by that cross hatched portion of the Sectional District Map.
So much of the Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga, together with any
amendments thereto, as in conflict with the adoption of the Sectional
Map is hereby superseded and repealed.
Section 2: This Ordinance reclassifies certain properties
shown on the attached sectional map by adding the designation of
• Agricultural Preserve /Open Space Overlay District to the existing
Northwestern Hillsides Residential District designation. It shall
become operative on and after thirty (30) days from its date of
passage.
is
This Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time
required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of
1982, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
r_�
t
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10/13/82
A -833 (cont.)
� Exhob�tE
Page 2
problems and also submitted a copy of the Petition with the signatures in
favor of deleting the restriction in the CC$Rs for the adjacent subdivisions
Discussion followed on the CC&Rs for the adjacent subdivisions and the pro-
cedure for changing them. The Deputy Citv Attorney stated that the only
involvement that the City may have is if there is a provision in the CC &Rs
that states that they should not be amended without the City's consent.
fie added that the City can't initiate an amendment; the CC,ks are between
the homeowners and the homeowners association. He stated that the matter
before the Commission at this time is the design review for the fence; the
actual application for the fence was already ruled upon by the Commission at
an earlier meeting.
Mrs. Joe spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that she was highly aller-
gic to animals and noted the problems that she had incurred.
Jack Tevis, 19607 Kenosha Court, stated that he lived in the adjacent sub-
division and they were fenced legally. He commented that the concept of
the Planned Community is fine, but it has not worked. lie added that open
space means that it is open to dogs, kids, horseback riders, etc. He
stated that lie felt that Dr. Joe's application should be approved, since
everyone else in the area has fencing, and it would give them the oppor-
tunity to secure, protect and thereby properly utilize their property.
Mrs. Klein stated that the City Council had also recognized the fact that
the Planned Community concept was not working, and that is whv they had
directed the Commission to study the Planned Community area if the fencing
is going to be changed.
Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A -838 per the Staff Report dated
•
9- 30 -82. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried Link
mously 7 -0. It was determined that the Planned Community area will be
studied at a later date, no later than February, and possibly along with
the General Plan.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. GF -341 - Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance by adding Article 25 - Village
Overlay District to Ordinance NS -3 which would establish the
boundaries of the district (generally that area contained within
Saratoga Creek, Saratoga - Sunnyvale and Saratoga -Los Gatos Roads,
Oak Street and St. Charles and Sixth Streets), allow mixed uses
on properly designated lots with a use permit, modifying the list
of conditional uses to be allowed in the district, and by allowing
variations in development standards through the use permit process
per Article 18 of Ordinance NS -3; continued from September 22,
1982
Chairman Schaefer reported that it has been determined that a Specific Plan
will be done instead of a Village Overlay.
The public hearing was opened at 3:00 p.m. No one appeared to address the
Commission. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The
motion was carried unanimously.
7. GF -342 Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance by changing the minimum site are;
0-201 - allowed in the A (Agriculture) District from 5 acres to 10 acres
and changing the minimum site area per dwelling unit from 2.S
acres to 10 acres. The City proposes to rezone certain parcels
in the Northwestern Hillsides to A (Agriculture) rather than NHR
(Northwestern Hillsides Residential) . The parcels affected were
previously zoned A (Agriculture) and are under '„illiamson Act
contracts. Amendments will he per Article 13 of Ordinance NS -3
The public hearing was opened at 3:00 p.m. No one appeared to address
•
Commission. It was directed that this matter be continued to the meeting
on October 27, 1982.
8. UP -S22 - Cashin /Dean Turner, Request for Use Permit Approval to allow the
construction of a gas station in the C -N zoning district at the
corner of Prosnect and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
It was reported that there had Previously been a split vote on this item.
•
- - 2 -
M
C
RESOLUTION NO. 549
C �
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR
INITIATING, FILING AND PROCESSING REQUESTS
TO ESTABLISH AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES
( IL I1231) ACT)
WHEREAS California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The
Williamson Actj authorizes cities to establish agricultural
preserves, for the purpose of defining the boundaries of those
agricultural areas within which the city will be willing to
enter into land conservation contracts pursuant to said Act,
in order, amongst other things, to maintain the agricultural
economy of the state and to prevent the premature and unnecessary
conversion of land from agricultural uses, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of this City finds that it can
assist the maintenance of the State's agricultural economy and
avoid conversion of land from agricultural uses by establishing
agricultural preserves and entering into agreements with land
owners as authorized by said Act, and
WHEREAS, said Act directs cities to state by resolution
the procedures for initiating, filing and processing requests
for the establishment of such agricultural preserves,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga
hereby resolves as follows:
The establishment of an agricultural preserve may be
initiated either by motion of the City Council, or upon an appli-
cation therefor by the land owner or land owners of the property
within the proposed preserve, as hereinafter set forth. The
following procedures are hereby established for the initiating,
filing and processing of all requests to establish such preserves:
1. All requests for establishing an agricultural preserve
initiated by other than motion of the City Council shall be upon
written application signed by all of the owners of the lands in-
cluded within the confines of the proposed preserve, and filed with
the City Clerk on forms approved by the City Council, which shall
include the following data:
(a) Names and addresses of all owners;
(b) A statement of the location, ownership, size, and
area of all the property, and of all the present
agricultural uses of the property together with
any and all other uses conducted thereon;
(c) Assessor's parcel numbers;
(d) A request that the property be established as an
agricultural preserve for the purpose of enabling
the applicant to enter into a land conservation
contract with the City;
(e) In the event the property or some part thereof is
in a zoning district other than A (agriculture), a
request to initiate a change of zoning to A zoning
district;
-1-
•
•
r'
(f) Such other data or information as may be
required by the approved form;
In addition, each application shall be accompanied by the following
documents:
(a) Two (2) copies of a legal description of all
properties;
�b) Four (4) copies of assessor's maps;
c) A completed income analysis sheet for delivery
to the Santa Clara County Assessor;
(d) Two (2) completed land conservation contracts in
a form approved by the City Council, covering
all or some substantial portion of the property
within the proposed agricultural preserve, each
properly executed and acknowledged by the property
owner;
(e) A filing fee in the sum of $ 25.00 together
with an additional filing fee of $200.00 if the
application also includes a request to rezone to
"A' zoning district.
2. Upon receipt of the application, the City Clerk shall
check the same for the adequacy and completeness of all documentation
required thereon and documents to be included therewith, and upon
• determining the same as properly executed and complete, he shall
then:
(a) Forthwith submit the application and accompanying
data to the City's Planning Department, who shall
report thereon to the City Council within thirty
(30) days thereafter, and which report shall in-
clude a statement as to whether or not the proposed
preserve is consistant with the General Plan;
(b) He shall set a public hearing on the application
before the City Council, publishing notice of the
same once in a newspaper of general circulation
at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing,
and sending a copy of said notice, postage prepaid,
to all applicants who have their addresses set
forth on the application.
3. At -the time and place of the.'public hearing on the
application, the City Council shall hear all persons interested
therein, and thereafter may either terminate said proceedings,
or may by resolution establish all or any portion of the lands
included in the application as an agricultural preserve. Said
public hearing may be continued from time to time, and in no
event shall the City Council adopt a resolution establishing an
agricultural preserve until it has either received a report on the
application from the Planning Department, or until the expiration
of thirty (30) days from the date said matter was submitted to
said Planning Department in the event said department fails to
report thereon.
Each resolution establishing an agricultural preserve shall
contain a finding of compatible uses within the preserve, and shall
set forth such uniform rules for administering that preserve as may
be deemed advisable and necessary by the City Council.
4. At any time at or after adopting a resolution estab-
lishing an agricultural preserve, the City Council may authorize
C"I - -2-
\i
the Mayor of said City to enter into a land conservation
agreement with any owner or owners of land within said agri-
cultural preserve, and said authorization may, but need not,
be included as a part of the resolution establishing the
preserve.
5. Anything to the contrary hereinabove not withstanding,
the City.Council may abandon any proceedings for the establishment
of an agricultural preserve at any time after the filing of an
application therefor or initiation of the same on the Council's
own motion, by minute or other resolution, which resolution shall
set forth the reasons for such abandonment.
6. Attached hereto and marked, respectively, Exhibits "A"
and'$", are forms for the application for creation of an
agricultural preserve and for land conservation contract, which
forms are hereby specifically referred to and approved as official
forms of this City.
7. The City Clerk shall cause a duplicate original of each
land conservation agreement to be recorded with the Santa Clara
County Recorder within 20 days.after the completed execution of
the same, and shall file a copy of the same with the Santa Clara
County Assessor. Within 30 days after adoption of this Resolution,
the City Clerk shall file a sample copy of the hereinabove approved
form of contract with the State Director of Agriculture.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly
passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga
at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of October ,
1970, by the following vote:
AYES
Councilmen Robbins, Smith, Dwyer, Sanders, E'rH--t
i
NOES: None
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Citif Clerk
-3-
•
Lam_
I
F
i
PESOLUTION NO. CF-342
Zf:SOLUTIO:N RECM-1MENDIiNG PROPOSED APLENDMENT TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
W_ r
c
WHEREAS, an application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
has been initiated by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga,
and
WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing on said proposed
amendment, which public hearing was held at the following time and
place to -wit: At the hour of 7:30 P.M. on the 27th day of October,
1982 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California;
and thereafter said hearing was closed, and
NZIEREAS, after careful consideration of the proposed amendment
as it ;oould affect the zoning regulations and General Plan of the
City of Saratoga, and after review of a Negative Declaration prepared
for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission
has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed
amendment attached hereto and marked Exhibit "C" should be affirmatively
recommended to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached
hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the
City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the
Zoning Ordinance of the'City, and that the Report of Findings of this
Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked
Exhibit "B ", be and the same is hereby approved, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send
a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed
Amendment and Report of Findings and a summary of hearings held by
this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance
with State Law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 27th day of October,1982 by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bolger, lilava, Monia, Nellis, Schaefer and
Siegfried
NOES: None
1. ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Crowther
Chairman of the Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary to
the'Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO. C -201
RESOLUTION RECONI,IENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
WHEREAS, the Commission held a Public Hearinq on said proposed
amendment, which Public Hearing was held at the following time and
place to -wit: At the hour of 7:30 p.m. on the 27th day of October,
1982 at the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga,
California; and thereafter said hearing was closed, and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it
would affect the zoning regulation plan of the City of Saratoga, and
after consideration of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project
and brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain
findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached
hereto and marked Exhibit "A" should be affirmatively recommended to
the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached
hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City
Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning
Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this
Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit
"B ", be and the same is hereby approved, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send •
a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed
Amendment and Report of Findings and a summary of hearings held by
this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance
with State Law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 27th day of October,1982, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Hlava, `lonia, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT: Commissioner Crowther
\TT; ?ST:
Scci-ctaty
Ch irman of the Planning Commission
0
•
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS:
GF -342
l C -201
1. The proposed ordinance amendments are required to ensure that
existing Williamson Act contract lands are maintained in
agricultural preserves as required by State Law.
2. The proposed zoning changes are required to achieve the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in Section
1.1 of Ordinance NS -3.
3. The amendments would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the areas affected by the amendment.
4. The amendments are consistent with the goals and policies
of the General Plan and the Specific Plan for the area.
5. The amendments will not adversely affect the development of the
City of Saratoga.
0
w
AGEIZrN BILL NO. 3458
CI'I': OF Si RJ'd)=
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: November 3 1982
C. A t
D�ART:L1T- Community Development C. Mg .
SUBJEC`r: RESOLUTION REQUESTING COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT REIMBURSEMENT
FOR BUS DAMAGE
Issue SL--=ary
County Transit buses are causing unanticipated damage to City streets
throughout the County. The Municipal Public Works Officers are suggesting
that the District participate in the maintenance cost because of this. The
participation would be related to the differential between the design load -:
and the actual loading imposed by the transit vehicles.
Recccrirendation
Adopt Resolution No. requesting reimbursement from County Transit
District for pro rata share of repair and maintenance.
Fiscal Imoacts
Revenue into Gas Tax Fund
Etchibits /Atta& rr nts
Resolution No.
Ccuncil �.c tion
11/3: Mallory. /Fanelli waved to adopt resolution 2025. Passed 3 -2 (Clevenger, Callon opposed).
t
RESOLTUION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DISCUSSING
THE DP24AGE DONE TO SARATOGA STREETS BY SANTA
CLARA COUNTY TRANSIT BUSES AND REQUESTING SAID
DISTRICT TO REIMBURSE ON A PRO RATA SHARE WITH
CITY TO REPAIR AND MAINTAIN SAID DAMAGED STREETS
WHEREAS Santa Clara County Transit does provide bus service
to the citizens within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS Santa Clara County Transit District uses the local
streets of the City to provide said service; and
WHEREAS County Transit buses do impose heavier loads and more
repetitions than many of the local streets were designed to handle;
this over use of the streets is causing substantial structure damage
to these local streets.
WHEREAS the City of Saratoga is having to expend funds each
year to repair damage done to the travel way as a result of these
heavy repetious loads and the total estimated expenditures County
wide exceed $2,000,000;
WIiEREAS the fourteen other local jurisdictions are also
suffering similar substantial damage by County Transit buses to
their streets;
WHEREAS the fifteen local jurisdictions have prepared a
joint evaluation of the cumulative damage to all local City streets
and have jointly developed a pro rata cost sharing formula attached
hereto as Exhibit A between the Cities and County Transit to share
the cost of repairs of damage done by County Transit buses;
WHEREAS the County Transit District.does receive 1/2 percent
sales tax to operate and maintain a transit system which includes
the streets upon which the buses operate;
WHEREAS the City of Saratoga feels that the Santa Clara Transit
District must share in the cost of maintaining and repairing of the
extraordinary damage done to its streets by County Transit buses;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga that the Santa Clara County Transit District adopt
said attached cost sharing formula and annually appropriate districts
share of the amount required to repair and maintain the City streets
which are a part of the operating expense of the County Transit system.
ADOPTED this day of 1982 by the following
vote:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
. I —r
MAYOR
SY:lb 2/25/81
A POLICY ESTABLISHING THE SHARING OF COSTS
FOR LOCAL STREET FAILURES DUE TO PUBLIC
BUS ROUTES
Local agencies in Santa Clara County are incurring pavement failures on
streets used for public bus routes. Many of these streets were constructed
utilizing design loads (Traffic Index) which did not anticipate concentrated
repetitive heavy wheel loads usually associated with public transportation bus
operation.
Increasing ridership indicates that more buses will be incorporated in the
transportation system. Local agencies are concerned with the high maintenance or
reconstruction cost which is anticipated to occur as local streets become subjected
to increasing bus traffic.
The purpose of this policy is to assign the maintenance and reconstruction
cost for streets used for bus routes. Cost responsibility is based on the Traffic
Index by which the street was designed. The Traffic Index (T.I.) is a measure of
the capability of the roadway structural pavement section to withstand repetitive
heavy wheel loads. The higher the index, the greater the ability of the roadway to
withstand the number of repetitions of heavy wheel load.
EXISTING BUS STOP AREAS:
Repair of pavement, curb and gutter, driveway and monolithic sidewalk
damaged by bus operations shall be borne eighty percent (80 %) by the Santa Clara
County Transit District (SCCTD) and twenty percent (20 %) by the Local Agency. Repair
or complete reconstruction, if necessary, shall be consistent with the projected
wheel loads imposed by the bus operation. Repair responsibility is based on the
premise that the existing bus stop areas were designed as parking space for light
vehicles and occasional delivery trucks, not for repetitive heavy wheel load of buses.
care. t A
NEW BUS STOP AREAS:
Prior to establishing new bus stop areas, the SCCTD shall carefully study
the existing pavement structural section and the base soil to evaluate the adequacy
for the projected bus wheel loads. The study shall be coordinated with the Local
Agency's Engineering Department. Results of the study shall be forwarded to the
Local Agency's Engineering Department along with pertinent recommendations regarding
upgrading or reconstruction, to accommodate the projected wheel loads. The SCCTD
shall bear eighty percent (800%) of the proposed cost, and the Local Agency shall
pay the remaining twenty percent (20 %).
EXISTING TRAVEL LANES OF BUS ROUTES:
Cost sharing for the repair of pavement damaged in streets of bus routes
shall be determined in relation to the design T.I. of the existing street. Due
consideration shall be given to the amount of pavement damage caused by various
types of heavy vehicles other than public buses. However, because most Local Agency's
streets are designed for a specific T.I. or projected wheel load, the subsequent
addition of a public bus system on local streets has resulted in an increased T.I.,
thus shortening the useful life of the streets. Table 1 designates the relative
financial responsibility of the SCCTD and the Local Agency toward the repair and /or
reconstruction for the T.1.'s listed:
TABLE
Financial Responsibility
Traffic Index SCCTD Local Agency
i 8.5 -0- 100 %
7.6 - 8.5 12.5% 87.5%
6.6 - 7.5 30 % 70 %
5.6 - 6.5 52.5% 47.5%
5.5 80 % 20 %
- 2 -
PROPOSED BUS ROUTES:
Prior to increasing bus traffic on existing routes or establishing new
bus routes, the SCCTD shall conduct a study of the existing pavement structural
section and the base soil to determine the adequacy of the roadway for the
anticipated bus traffic wheel loads. Upgrading or reconstruction, if necessary,
shall be performed prior to the use of the street for buses. The SCCTD share of
upgrading or reconstruction shall be determined in accordance with Table I.
BUS ROUTES ON PROPOSED STREETS:
On new streets planned for construction which the SCCTD proposes to use
as a bus route, the SCCTD shall provide the Local Agency the T.I. necessary to
accommodate the anticipated 20 year wheel loads. The Local Agency shall determine
the increased structural pavement sections, if any, necessary to accommodate the
T.I. provided by the SCCTD and the T.I. planned by the Local Agency without bus
traffic. The differential construction cost for the additional structural section
necessary to accommodate the bus traffic shall be borne by the SCCTD.
Improvement features to specifically accommodate the bus system, when
requested by the SCCTD, shall be borne solely by the SCCTD. Such specific bus
improvement features may include, but not be limited to, turn -outs, passenger
shelters, and special passenger loading areas.
- 3 -
E;E =� F�S'•a ri =� €i
Qq
a
�6j� i1 c � <E�ft33ii�c�i�
eq�;°sx:EYU�, -c.
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CI'T'Y COUNCIL
DATE: 10 -29 -82
COUNCIL MEETING: 11-03-82
SUBJECT: Bus Damage to Local Streets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1980 the Public Works Officials of the several cities in
Santa Clara County became concerned about the adverse effects
the County Transit buses were having on local streets. It was
apparent that the streets on which the buses were routed were
showing much more distress than adjacent similar streets without
such loading. This was especially true at bus stops.
A committee was appointed to review this matter and to suggest
a course of action. As a result of their study they recommended
that the County Transit District participate in the maintenance
costs and in the costs to construct new streets which will have
bus routes on them. They have suggested that Traffic Index (T.I.)
be the parameter for determining pro rata cost sharing. Traffic
Index is a measure of the capability of the roadway structural
pavement section to withstand repetitive heavy wheel.loads. The
higher the index, the greater the ability of the roadway to with-
stand the repetitive heavy loads.
While there are other methods of pro rating cost, the Public
Works Officials agreed with the committee that Traffic Index was
appropriate. Each City Engineer has returned to his city to
obtain direction from the City Council relative to this matter.
The damage in Saratoga is not great so far; however, it could
accelerate at any time.
I recommend that you adopt the proposed resolution calling for
Transit District sharing in these costs.
RSS:cd
i
Robe: t.S. Shook
Director of Community Development
CITY OF SARATOGA
i 2
AGENDA BILL NO. Q
DATE: November 3, 1982
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty
C. Mgr.
Amendment to Agreement Ad.justina Percentaae Distribution of
SUBJECT =Court Ordered Accounts Receivable under Penal Code Section 1463
Issue SuTmary
A portion of the City's revenues come from general Court fines and reimbursement
of bail. While not a significant source of revenue, Gourt fines nonetheless help
to.offset the cost of law enforcement. In assessing large fines, Courts often
allow scheduled payments over time. However, due to work overloads, the Courts
are unable to monitor payments and do not enforce collections. To remedy this
problem, the County proposes to transfer collection responsibility from the
Courts to the Department of Revenue. Since the basic responsibility belongs to
the Courts, the County is not obligated to provide the service to eacYr jurisdictior
However, the County is offering the service "at cost" to each City plus a 200
split in revenues. The County claims that there would remain a net increase of
$300,000 per year to all the cities under this distribution. By prior agreement,
Saratoaa currently shares 11p o of Court fines with the County_. The attached
ammendment would modify tha aareement..
Recommendation
Approve the amendment (attached) and authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of
the City.
Fiscal I=acts
Some increase in revenues anticipated due to more energetic collection efforts
on Court accounts receivable.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Memo from Assistant County Executive 5/28/82
2. Amendment to Aareement under Penal Code 1463
Council Action
11/3: Clevenger/1"9oyles moved to approve agreement and authorize Mayor to sign. Passed 5 -0.
N
County of Santa Clara
California
May 28, 1982
TO: CITY MANAGERS
FROM: Phil BatcheloT,
Assistant County Executive
�• Office of the County Executive
CCounty Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
299 -2424 Area Code 408
SUBJECT: Accounts Receivable Collections in Municipal Court
At the City Managers' Meeting on Thursday, May 20, 1982, the subject of accounts
receivable in Municipal Court was discussed. It was the overwhelming feeling of
those present that it would be cost beneficial to both the cities and the County
to transfer collection responsibility for accounts receivable from the Court to
the Department of Revenue.
During the meeting it was pointed out that there was currently over 33,000 out-
standing accounts, valued at 6.9 million dollars. This backlog continues to
grow as over 15,000 new accounts are added annually.
Due to the fact that no automated collection system is used by the court, there
is little likelihood that this unfavorable situation will do anything but deter-
iorate. The severe fiscal problems that have faced the County in past years
necessitated diverting staff that previously worked on collection follow -up, to
other areas considered to be of higher priority by the courts.
This has resulted in no formal billings being sent out and no follow -up work
being done on any delinquent accounts. The massive cuts facing the County for
1982 -83, will reduce staff even more in these collection areas which, in turn,
will result in even greater reductions in revenues for both the cities and the
County.
In order to see what could be done to remedy the situation, the Revenue and
Systems Agency was asked to study the accounts receivable function in Muni
Court. Attached is a brief summary of their findings. The study concluded that
there would be an increase in revenues for both the cities and the County if the
function were transferred from the Court to the Department of Revenue (DOR),
where professional collection personnel would be available.
To provide the necessary resources for such a function we recommend that program
costs be deducted from the amount collected and the remaining revenue be distri-
buted, 80% to the City and 20% to the County. If this program is implemented by
the DOR, it is estimated that an additional $600,000 will be available for
distribution to the cities, over and above the reduced service level forecast
for 1982 -83. It should be pointed out that this would be an increase of
$300,000 over the current level of revenue being realized by the cities.
If your city desires to participate in this intensified collection program by
agreeing to an 80/20 split after costs have been deducted from total receipts,
please have the attached amendment signed by your City Council and returned by
June 21, to: Revenue and Systems Agency, c/o Emma Rock, 70 West Hedding Street,
11th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110. If there are questions regarding this process,
please contact the Director of the Department of Revenue, Rich Atkinson, at
299 -3422.
cc: Sally Reed, County Executive
An Equal Opportunity Employer
-i
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ADJUSTING PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION
OF COURT ORDERED ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE UNDER PENAL CODE SECTION 1463
THIS AGREEMENT IS MADE AND ENTERED INTO this day of ,
1982, by and between the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a political subdivision of the State of
California, hereinafter referred to as "County ", and the CITY OF
a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City ". '
WHEREAS, the parties have entered into an Agreement, dated ,
providing for a percentage distribution of fines and forfeitures pursuant to Penal Code
Section 1463, and providing for the recovery of the County's costs in collecting
delinquent parking citations; and the parties wish to provide by mutual agreement for
the distribution of fines and forfeitures processed and collected by the County through
court ordered accounts rerei.vable,
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Pursuant to subparagraph (c) of Paragraph (1) of Section 1463 of the Penal Code
of the State of California, County and City agree that the County percentage of fines
and forfeitures as set forth in said subparagraph (c) of Paragraph (1) of Section 1463
shall be allocated as to court ordered accounts receivable according to the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth.
2. The total cost of collection by the County of all court ordered accounts
receivable which are assigned to County for collection shall be deducted from the amount
collected before distribution is made in accordance with the distribution formula set
forth in Paragraph (3). The cost of collection shall include, but not be limited to,
salaries and benefits for County employees, transportation, postage, forms, supplies,
computer processing cost, and equipment.
3. The monies remaining after the total cost of collection of such accounts by the
County is deducted shall be distributed twenty percent (20 %) to the County, and eighty
percent (80 %) to the City.
4. This agreement modifies Section 1463 as to the dist.ributicn of fines and
forfeitures collected from court ordered accounts receivable only. Other fines and
forfeitures collected, including but not limited to moving citations, shall be
distributed as provided by Section 1463 as then in effect.
5. This agreement may be cancelled by either party upon thirty (30) days written
notice.
6. All other terms and conditions of the original Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.
7. This agreement will become effective immediately upon execution by both parties.
IN WITNESS WiEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as
of
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
ATTEST: DONALD M. RAINS, Clerk
Board of Supervisors Susanne Wilson
Chairperson, Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY OF
4ep,,t-y County Counsel
ATTEST: By
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
.:Yp
Deputy City Attorney
AGf1'WA BILL NO. .3152
CITY OP SL�I;zjluoaN
Initial:,
Dept. fid. Cam'
DATE: November 3, 1982 C. Atty.
DEPr'1FZ=r: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Amendment to Chapter 2, Article I of City Code re: Split Votes
Issue SL=ary
The existing City Code regarding split votes of the Planning Commission or
City Council requires that it be considered at the next meeting where the
full body is present. This has resulted in some long delays while waiting
for a meeting where the full body is present.
The proposed ordinance would allow a quorum to decide the matter at the next
regular meeting. If at that meeting.a second tie vote develops the matter
shall be deemed denied.
Recomnendation
The Planning Commission recommends enacting the ordinance pertaining to
status of rejected motions and evenly split votes.
Fiscal Imoa.cts
None
EY.hibits /Attachments
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. Existing Code
Council Action
11/3: Mallory /Clevenger moved to read by title only, waiving further reading. Passed 5 -0.
11/17: Fanelli /Mallory moved to read Ord. 38.108 by title only, waiving further reading,
and adopt. Passed 5 70.
J
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE I,
SECTION 2 -1.1 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE,
PERTAINING TO STATUS OF REJECTED MOTIONS
AND EVENLY SPLIT VOTES
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
ordain as follows:
Section 1: Chapter 2, Article I, Section 2 -1.1 of the
Saratoga City Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
"Section 2 -1.1. Status of Rejected Motions and Evenly
Split Votes By Planning Commission and City Council.
The failure of passage of any motion before either
the Planning Commission or the City Council, which
motion relates to any action or proceeding from which
any appeal may be taken or any judicial review had
thereof, shall be deemed to be a denial of the motion
for all purposes of commencement of the running of any
applicable statute of limitations, subject to the
following:
(a) A motion failing by reason of an evenly split
vote by the Planning Commission shall be agendized and
voted upon at the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission at which a quorum is present, unless, within
ten (10) calendar days after the date on which the split
vote is taken, the applicant files an appeal to the City
Council, in which event, the split vote shall be deemed
a final denial by the Planning Commission of the requested
action. If no appeal to the City Council is filed and
the motion fails for any reason (including an evenly
split vote) at the subsequent meeting of the Planning
Commission, then the same shall at that time be deemed a
final denial by the Planning Commission of the requested
action.
(b) A motion failing by reason of an evenly split
vote by the City Council shall be agendized and voted
upon at the next regular meeting of the City Council at
which a quorum is present. If the motion fails for any
reason (including an evenly split vote) at the subsequent
meeting of the City Council, then the same shall at that
time be deemed a final denial by the City Council of the
requested action.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage.
The foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and
after the waiting time required by law was thereafter passed and
1.
J
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Saratoga held on the day of 1982, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Attest:
City Clerk
2.
MAYOR
c. 2 -1.1
Administration
§ 2 -1.1
=umber w itkiin normal hearing di�,tdce of the other, at fre time and place tab -
� •,d 1);,,.6rdinance or resolution: for regular meetings ,or at such other t me and
;;ace ss authorized by law foyl`special meetings, for,,;tne purpose of ajeting in their
capacity as the legislative body of the ci 7n the case of t4e'city council;
�c�i in their official capacity as the planning cgrission in t'ne ,ease of the plan-
-:.,; commission. U:}hss otherwise authorized by law to be;h`eId ir. private, alb/'
each meetings shallrlie open to the public No other gather ng.of the person �w^Kio
constitute the city"` council or planning6mmission or airy "portion thereof shall be
considered a mteting. �"
any � hon or decision re #fired by law to be 'taken or made at a meeting shall
N- inv� fd and of no force apd effect if the sazrie is not taken or ztfade at a meeting
as d :fined in this section=`' •``
.f" ,
This section shw;fl not prevent less than a quorum, atfi� erwise gathered the
lime and place a4dfor the purpose,,of conducting a meting, from adjour ng from
::.^:e to time irpr4ccord with law,uhtil a quorum is pr_e�sent. r`
If at ny time the legi �ture of the state o he final decision Of an appel�e
courtthe state should efine a meeting of city council or a planni" corn -
^i $on other than as et forth in this.sectiVn, such legislative or finali4dicial
linition shall thereafter supersede the de 'nition in this sec '-- gam- -----
Sec. 2 -1.1. Status of rejected motions for affirmative action
by city council or planning commission
The failure of passage of any motion by either the city planning commission or
i:e city council, which motion is made to grant any variance, use or, other permit,
approval of design eview, a l gn approval of subdivision map or site approva. or made
to grant any affirmative relief from which any appeal may be taken or any judicial
?view had thereof, shall be deemed to be a denial thereof for all purposes of the
co;rmencement of the running of any applicable statute of limitations, subject to
t} e following:
(a) A rejected motion shall not be considered a denial if, on motion to recon-
sider thereafter made at the same meeting, the motion passes, and
(b) A motion failing by reason of an evenly split vote shall be subject to re-
consideration at the next regular meeting of the body at which the motion was
originally made and at which all members of such body are present, and if at
such subsequent regular meeting, no such motion for reconsideration is made or
If made such motion fails for any reason (including an evenly split vote), then the
same shall at that time be deemed to be a denial of the requested affirmative action.
(Ord. No. 38.6, § 1.)
C111"Z or sA u;=�-'
��
AGEIDA BILL NO. Initial: Dept. Hd.
DATE: November 3, 1982
DEPAIrn,L�T: Community Development
C. Atty.
C. Mgr:
SUBJECT: ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 21072 COMER DRIVE, HONG
Issue SuTmary
In the fall of 1981, the City became aware that the above property had been
graded, and retaining walls built without permits. Some of their improvements
are within an Open Space Easement. Furthermore, the swimming pool fencing
had been removed. Several contacts with the owner have not resulted in
any action to abate. Should the owner continue to refuse to abate this'
nuisance the City would, after appropriate legal action, hire a contractor
to remove the retaining walls and filled material, plant for erosion
control and fence the swimming pool.
ReccmTnandation
1. Hold Public Hearing
2. Declare a Public Nuisance
3. Direct City Attorney to take appropriate legal action if not'aYated
within 30 days.
Fiscal Imoacts
All.costs are recoverable from property owner
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Memo dated October 21, 1982
2. Notice of Abatement Hearing
3. Sketch of property
Ccuncil Action
11/3: Mallory /Clevenger moved to declare public nuisance as to each of three code
violations in staff report and to give Hong until December 15 to take appropriate
action to abate the nuisance or apply for encroachment permit. Passed 5 -0.
�IE?�IOR�NDt1'�I
uguw @2 0&M&'9QX5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: Director of Colmmunity Development
FROM: Senior Inspector
SUBJECT: 21072 Comer Drive, Hong, Code Violations
DATE: 10/21/82
In the Fall of 1981 the City received a citizen complaint about grading and
retaining wall construction at 21072 Comer Drive. An investigation was made
and a STOP WORK ORDER was issued on October 26, 1981. At that time approxiately
75 feet of redwood retaining wall has been constructed, and backfilled with
material removed from a slope on the property.
The wall.bas a maximum height of approximately 5 feet and requires a building
permit as well as a design by a registered engineer. The wall appears under
designed and is showing some distress. Several hundred cubic yards of material
were removed from the slope above the house and placed behind the retaining
wall, thereby, creating a flat pad in the vicinity of the existing swimming
pool. This grading requires a regular grading permit. During this operation,
the swimming pool fencing was removed. The following violations exist:
1. Section 302 of the Uniform Building Code. Retaining wall constructed
without permits.
2. Section-3.40.2 code of the City of Saratoga (Grading Ordinance). Grading
of more than 50 cubic yards of earth without a permit.
3. Tract 5693 Scenic Easement. Construction of a structure within a Scenic
Easement.
4. Section 3.50, Code of the City of Saratoga (swi_tr=g pool fencing).
Failure to provide fencing around a swimming pool.
Since the issuance of the STOP WORK ORDER, three letters have been sent
requesting and finally demanding that the owners take care of these violations.
To date no action has been taken by the Hangs.
Should the City Council declare this a public nuisance and should the owner
still not abate this nuisance, the City could then physically abate the nuisance.
The cost of this abatement would then becom a lien on the property.
Lich
0991W
1:3777 F'RUITVALE
AVENUE
• SAR.ATOG:\'. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867-:3-1138
OFFICE: Cmm mitt' Development
October 21, 1982
Phil and Jeannie Hong
21072 Comer
Saratoga, CA. 95070
Dear Mr. Hong:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
Virginia Fanelli
John Mallory
David Moyles
Pursuant to Section 1 -7.1 through 1 -7.4 -1 of the Code of the City
of Saratoga, California, you are hereby notified that a.hearing will
be held on November 3, 1982 at 8:00 p.m. to consider the abatement
of the following public nuisance located at 21072 Comer Drive, Saratoga,
California. A.P.N. 503 - 017 -062.
1. Grading in excess of 50 cubic yards of earth without a
grading permit, a violation of Section 3 -40 of the Code
of Saratoga.
2. Construction of one or more retaining walls without a
building permit, a violation of Section 3.8 of the Code
of Saratoga.
3. Failure to provide fencing around a swimming pool, a
violation of Section 3.50 of the Code of Saratoga.
The City Council will consider at this hearing whether or not a
public nuisance exists and may direct any such public nuisance to
be abated, all costs of such abatement will become a lien attached
to the property on which such nuisance is maintained and other persons
or property pursuant of Section 1 -7.1 of the Code of Saratoga.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Harison
Senior Inspector
RHH /bc
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
Mr. & Mrs. Porcelli
Mr. & Mrs. Norling
2107 C Opt E R_
L C11I11 OF si lz d1cG*�
AGENW BILL NO.
DATE: NnvPmhpr 3, 1982
D At'YI':L�iVr:
Community ty Deve1 opment
SUB'M -cr: MODIFICATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF
Issue SL^rmary
Initial:
Dept. fki.
C. Att,
C. M
ITO RD. & MARSHALL LN.
We have received two (2) proposals for the above work, which will
enable school buses going to Marshall Lane School to negotiate the
turn safely within the proper traffic lanes. The proposals are as.
follows:
Cushman Construction Co.: $3,172.00
Mc Carthy & Spiesman: $3,700.00
Recommendation
Award to Cushman Construction Company the contract for the modification
of the northwesterly corner of Quito Road and Marshall Lane, based on
their proposal of #3,172.00. Appropriate this amount from Gas Tax Fund.
Upon approval of this informal proposal the property owner at that
location will be contacted, advising him to remove, relocate, and
salvage any and all landscaping, fencing and sprinklers from the
area of the construction.
Fiscal Imoacts
The cost of this modification is to come from the Gas Tax budget.
Etchibits /AttachTcnis
1. Plan- showing proposed work
2. Proposal
Council Potion
11/3: Fanelli /Clevenger moved to approve Resolution 1099.1 increasing appropriations and
amending budget to make repairs to intersection and to award the contract to Cushman
Construction Company in the amount of $3,172.00. Passed 5 -0.
394
IdA of
val-les
INV
enZ
IV
r V%W
Al
50
394
IdA of
val-les
INV
enZ
IV
r V%W
Al
Page No. of Pages
Arr>eptanre of f roposal —The above prices, specifications
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature
to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Date of Acceptance:
Signature
Inc.. Groton, Mass
FORM 118 -3 COPYRIGHT 1980 - Available from , 01 a50
CUSHMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OAT 2,"--.'; 1982
Contractor License #257750
2200 Blossom Crest Way San Jose, California 95124 CUOiMPAU R DEVELOPMENT
(408) 356 -3443
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO
PHONE
CITY OF SARATOGA
T6ATE
867 -3438
October 21 1982
STREET
JOB NAME
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Job # 1246
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE
JOB LOCATION
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Corner of Quito Road and Marshall Lane
ARCHITECT
DATE OF PLANS
JOB PHONE
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
To dig out and_pave.back with six. inches. asphalt.,. approximately 650 sq...ft. . ..... ... ...._ ..............._ . ..........
_ _._.. ..FOR _THE _ SUM OF:... $3,172..00 ........:.... _.........._..... ._ ... ...
_... - . ............. ....
If.City..can provide close location to.dispose.of excavated.,aaterials,,.a credit of $165-00 ....
will be given._ ............ ...... _._ ... .. ......... ..............
Bid good for thirty days, then subject to increase based on any material cost increases.
Bid.price...does.not include. any permits,,,bonds,,,fees or engineering., If, bid.is..accepted,
please .sign and, return.. the....carbon_ copy... ......
............ .. ...._ . . .........
......... _ ................................................................................................................. ............................... _ ........... ............................... _ ........ ...... ..................... ....._ .. .................. ..................... .._........................... .
.. ...... . ........ .._...._... .......... ................. .... I ..... ...... ... ... .................. . ... .... _.._.._..................._.............. ... ................... ........... _......_..._........_........ ... .... ................ ..._......_.... .......... ... _ .................... ._. ... ........ ......_................... .
. ......... ............ ........._.............._ ............ ..... . .... .... ..................... . ........ ... .................. _.__........,............._.......... .................. ..._..__..._............... ................ ... ..... ........ ....... .. _..................... .......... ................ ........... ..._.......................... .
.. ................. .......... ..._.. ,......... _..........__.... _ _...........:.................. . ....... .._ ...._.......................... . ....... .........._..._ . .... .... ......._................ ........._. .......... .......... _....................................... ............................
WP FPopou hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
SEE ABOVE dollars ($ ).
Payment to be made as follows:
IN FULL UPON COMPLETION OF WORK.
All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike
Authorized
manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifica-
be become Signature
tions involving extra costs will executed only upon written orders, and will an
extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents
or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Note: This proposal may be
Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. withdrawn by us if not accepted within days.
Arr>eptanre of f roposal —The above prices, specifications
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature
to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Date of Acceptance:
Signature
Inc.. Groton, Mass
FORM 118 -3 COPYRIGHT 1980 - Available from , 01 a50
C1,rZ or S1'%RA1'rc'%
A=-DA BILL NO. Initial:
Dept. Fki.
DA'L'E: November 3, 1982 C. At
DERAnr:T2'7T: Community p
Develo ment C. Mgr. /
------- — -----
- - - - -- ------- --------------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - --
SUB.7ECr: RECONSTRUCTION AND OVERLAY OF ALLENDALE AVENUE AND COX AVENUE
Issue SL°imary
On July 7, 1982, the City Council awarded to Piazza Construction Company
the contract for the Reconstruction and Overlay of Allendale Avenue and
Cox Avenue for the bid amount of $185,867.65. During the course of
construction there were a few soft areas.encountered on Allendale which
were taken care with extra excavation .and ng.with.A.C. which resulted
in'an :overrun of approximately $13,000. Also a major unstable -area was
encountered on Allendale Avenue at Harieigh Drive -= necessitating Change
Order No. 1 (not to exceed $14,000).
Recd e datien
Approve the final acceptance and file the Notice of Completion.on the
above project.
Fiscal Imcacts
The final cost of the project came to $211,720.04 including the
additional excavation and plugging as well as the Change Order No. 1
(which came to $ 11,941.83) The cost of this project comes from the
Capital Improvement Budget.
Etchibits /Attach ry- -nis
1. Final Progress Payment
2. Notice of Completion
Council Action
11/3: Mallory /Clevenger moved to approve Notice of Completion-and order filing.
Passed 5 -0.
REC0,VS77RUC7-101V
jF ' O1i5RLAV OF
PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE
Q6.250.co
2,205.96
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT:.QLLENOALE AvE
1� COX A,--E.
104479-93
108.5
so ar sand
7yOP i�Z/.-z-
31ur{aBc- e 4sa
Course
Ocf 20,19,9Z
NO. 2 - Fii�a/
CITY OF SARATOGA
CONTRACTOR: P /AZZ4 CONSTRUCT /O/V C
PATE: EST.
/,920.ZZ
13777 FRUITVALE AVE.
ADDRESS:
P. O. Box
23550
Coubl /-.YP /OW TiaffiC
=� St.•.�111
FROM: Seef 198Z TO: OCf. 7,1:98Z-
SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070
48Z.ZS
Sar! Jose,
C4 /i orni4 95153
3,Z1S
WRK.DONE
WRK.
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
%WORK
O. /Z
ZZ0.20
O
/,835
UNIT
0.. /Z
ITEM
BID ITE
QUANTITY
PRICE I
J
TOTAL
PREVIOUS
THIS EST.
WRK.DONE
PRICE
DUE
DONE
REMARKS
00
/X, 0
l
840
J ZO
/68.00
0
840
840
0.20
168.00
E'cadwoy Excauaf ����
I. q��p Rcn>oua/
2,600
/-+_._fA9
37,:;' -16.00
26'00
/28.05
2728.0
/4{.40
39283.92
/04.i
.10 Safi, areas
encountereq'
Paih71 & osswa11X-s
S
60.00
300.00
a
5
5
60.00
r' iorA7o 1.
77y, a- '_?
2 a"re- La.Urse
91500
27.50
Q6.250.co
2,205.96
/593.31
3799.27
27.50
104479-93
108.5
so ar sand
7yOP i�Z/.-z-
31ur{aBc- e 4sa
Course
/,800
27.50
- - - --
49SfO.00
O
11920.22
/,920.ZZ
27.50
52806.05
/067
a e sou s e
to
/ 6
Coubl /-.YP /OW TiaffiC
=� St.•.�111
3,2/5
0. /S
48Z.ZS
0
3,Z15
3,Z1S
a/5..
482.25
/�0
A/!,. ;-le 51, "a' L.�e
/,835
O. /Z
ZZ0.20
O
/,835
1,835
0.. /Z
220.20
/L 0
G Stri'Jir,
460
0• zo
80.00
O
¢00- _. _
4Gb
O. ZO
00
/X, 0
7 00"
840
J ZO
/68.00
0
840
840
0.20
168.00
/!,b O
Paih71 & osswa11X-s
S
60.00
300.00
a
5
5
60.00
364
/00,0-
Lum Sun,
465, OU
O
1007
/0O%
Zane S4,n
Q65.
/00.0
OjuCrJ�erl
/� %ref /i�qS
350
Z. 75
962.50
0
543
543
2.75
/,493,25
revrour/ an -
/.sS l PinOrked % rres
00 �o
f-
p
S ah f
94/.
are
u n s4a, b le -5, u b o -b
8.3
5„ A1/endo% d ve
FChange Order #/
B4Se
p M h
feria�s
c /4 o 00� 00
O
7iir,� On
o
~
-- - - --
2I/ 720.43
/ �� 97
___
RECORD PAYMENTS
/99 567 9S
-�•� -
TOTAL DUE
OF PREVIOUS
21,172-04
`{5 -
Ab. 1
91118Z
LESS
10ro RETENTION
�9�548.39
45Z_ 2
� 9¢3
L
TOTAL
PAYMENT
7 Z
Made By:
E Dorsey
LE'SS
PREVIOUS
PAYMENTS
8293.51
n_
Checked
By rAYMZNT DUE THIS
EST. 102,254.88
TOTAL:
� 8Q 293.5/
p rov��gd b�:
%1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
City of Saratoga
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
Nana F_ City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
ndY_ Saratoga, CA. 95070
c„ a
c;'y L
—
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
11�itP of Tomp1Ption j
I�
DfirP is herebygiven that ......I ............... . the undersigned, . J Wayne Dernetz
...........
............................... .................................................................................................. ...............................
............................. (the agent oft* the owner....... of th............. certain lot............ piece..............., or I�
parcel ............. of land situated in the ... City.Of • Saratoga............ ............................... County of
.............................................. ............................... State of California, and described as follows, to -wit:
RECONSTRUCTION AND OVERLAY I;I
Ili
OF III
ALLENDALE AVENUE AND COX AVENUE I
I I,
LI
I i'I
h
�I
i'
That ....................................................... ............................... I
. , as owner...... o said land, did, on the
................................................ ............................... f III
day of ..... Au cat} st ...... ............................... 19 ...a.2.......... , enter into a contract with .........................
Piaz? a.. C. P.?}. S. tLIG. t] 0. 1 .................................................................... ............................... for
Re C.P.I?.St �.LlG.t7 P.A... 4nd..Q.V.Qx.lay... ..............................
.......... QR;7 .. AV.. e)a 1AQ ................................................................................................ ...............................
................................................................................................................................ ...............................
upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the
......... ............................... county of .................................. ............................... , Slate of California, on II
'I
the................ ............................... day of ................. ............................... , 19 ............;
That on the .................... sevejitll............. day of ........ O. ctcbex......................... 19 ...82.... l
the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ...................
Piazza Construction . Company . ... ••,.... .,,..,.•.•,•.••.,.,,.•,.••••• .................. ...............................
That the name ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said property are as follows:
City of Saratoga j
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA. 95070
I
i
l
and the nature of ........ ............................... title to said properly is ........................ ...............................
................................................................................................................................. .................I............. II
................................................. ...............................
............................................ ...............................
City of „Saratoga.,...., Owner............ I�
.Sl'ATF, OF CALIFORNIA
ss. By ............... ...............................
/;,,,,,uts a, ..... J. Wayne Dernetz Agent
............ ............................... ......................: ri....................................................... ...............................
being duly sworn............ t7A... L11Y. i1q...?... 4' t .................. ............................... ..........................sans:
li
I um .d9 .e.nt/the agent ofl the owner...... of the property described in the foregoing, notice. I have If,
read the f0reoingr notice and know the contents thereof, and the ,same is true of aiy ()wrl knowledge.
Subscribed and .shorn to before in(! this
.......................... (lay of...................... 19....... I ................................................. ...............................
1
................................................ ...............................
Delete words in brackets if owner signs.
t —,
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGL:\,'DA BILL NO. 2)
Initial:
Dept. xd.
DATE: November 3, 1982 C. Atty.
DEPAi:I',=. Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT= FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL SDR 1525, HOLIDAY DRIVE
Issue SLm ary
1. This is an addition to existing house
2. All requirements for City Departments and other Agencies have_
been met.
Reccnmendaticn
r
Adopt resolution 1525 -02 attached
Fiscal Imoacts
None
E:111bit s /Attach7ments
1. Copy of Tentative Map Approval
2. Resolution No. 1525 -02
3. Location Map
4. Status report for Building Site Approval
5. Report to Planning Commission
Council Action
11/3: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 1525 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Donald L. Harris
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
The 8,025 square feet Parcel shown as lot 11 of Block 7 of tract
22 recorded in book 40 of Maps, Page 55 and 56 in the Santa Clara
County Recorder's Office and submitted to the City Engineer, City
of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual 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 3rd day of November
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
19 82 ,
amikLm
n
1
�J
,1 l
G
I
e
u
z
JAG
AQ
C/F
/C
9,4
9c
o`
A
L
Avl
►Af[O Ti•ww�.
rAf [O ►V[iL0 I(
O
r
O
•[o LA00
/E
d
AV [,
I
r �
� r
•
= t i
r Mc co AyE
J
t J0
� r
o • •
of
e AVC.
Y Y
• [
< r
Av. O •
M[TL[w
cr
•
i
J I
DEC � C
AVE
LOCATION MAP
SCR 15 2 5
W A
[
[s ^•oA
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- 1525, Donald L. Harris
(have) (lax=) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on Oct. 13, 1982
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required
items:
Offer of Dedication N.A
Record of Survey or Parcel Map Existing
Storm Drainage Fee N/A Date Submitted
All Required Improvement Bonds N/A Date
All Required Inspection Fees N/A Date
Building Site Approval Agreement N7A Date
Park and Recreation Fee N/A Date
Date Submitted N.A
Date Submitted - - - --
N/A Receipt #
Submitted N/A Receipt# N/A
Submitted A Receipt# N/A
Signed
Submitted N/A Receipt# N/A
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(A�&gAAMWA) (Final) Building Site Approval for Donald L. Harris
SDR- 1525 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
Ro ert S. S oo
Director of Community Development
C
C C.,�
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 10/7/82
Commission Meeting: 10/13/82
SDR -1525, Donald L.. Harris, 13475 Holiday Drive
SUBJECT Tentative Building Site-Approval - 1 Lot (Over 50% Expansion).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Grant of Approval for Tentative Building-Site Approval for an over
50% expansion within a 5 year time period.
�. PARCEL SIZE: 8,025,sq. ft.
ZONING: R -1- 10,000
SITE DATA:
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density
Residential
SITE SLOPE: 1.9%
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: 15" Elm & 25" Redwood to be retained
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: Within the last five years, the applicant has added 725 sq. ft.
onto an existing 1,451 sq. ft. house. He now proposes to add a 300 sq. ft.
carport which causes the square footage of the additions to exceed 50% of
the original square footage.
SETBACKS: Front: 25' Sides: 7'6" and 9'11" (Site has a nonconforming width
of 75').
Rear: 25'8"
HEIGHT: Single -story
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 300 sq. ft. garage; 2,176 sq. ft. existing.
FLOOR AREA: 2,900 sq. ft. allowed with 2,476 sq. ft. proposed
Report to Planning Co ssion
SDR -1525, Donald L. Harris
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: Less than 60% allowed
COLORS & MATERIALS: To match existing
10/7/82
Page 2
DRIVEWAY & CIRCULATION: Existing driveway to be used with this proposal
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 Categorical Exemption was prepared relative to the environmental impact of
this project. Said determination date: September 13, 1982.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1525 (Exhibit
"B" filed 8/3/82) 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 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 - 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.
III. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
Approved:
Kathy Kerdu
Planner
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda 10/13/82
c
w
AGu11DA BILL NO. 35
CI'I "Z OF S1,1;Ydr -GN
Initial:
Dept. F1d.
DATE: _November 3, 1982 C. Att,
DEPAFiT.'T: Community Development C. Mgr.
------- — ----- — --- — ------ --f -- — ----- —
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. MV REMOVING STOP SIGN ON GLEN-BRAE DR. AT VIA REAL DR.
-------------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------- - - - - --
Issue SL-- mary
With Congress Springs School closing and its students transferring
to Argonaut School, the Saratoga School District requested the City
to install school crosswalks across Cumberland Drive at Charters Avenue
along with making the intersection a 4 -way stop (M.V. 155 - Oct. 2,0, 1982).
With Congress Springs School closed, the school crosswalks serving it
were eliminated. With the school closed and no longer a need it was
'determined that the stop signs on Glen Brae Drive at Via Real Drive
were no longer needed.
Recc=endation
Adopt Resolution No. MV - Resolution Removing the stop signs on
Glen Brae Drive at Via Real Drive.
Fiscal Imcacts
t
City Maintenance Services Crew's time to remove signs and markings.
Exhibits /Attachr r_nis
1. Location Map
2. Resolution No. MV-
Ccuncil Action
11/3: Approved Resolution MV-156 on Consent Calendar.
SC,4L Eo
Existing Sfo,o Sign
To Be Re~ved
RESOLUTION NO. MV -
RESOLUTION REMOVING STOP SIGNS ON GLEN BRAE
DRIVE AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH VIA REAL DRIVE
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION I: The following portion of Section I of Resolution No.
MV -100 (adopted September 17, 1975) is hereby rescinded
and no longer in effect:
Name of Street
Glen Brae Drive
Description
All vehicles traveling on Glen Brae
Drive both northbound and southbound
shall stop before entering or crossing
the intersection thereof with Via
Real Drive.
The remainder of said Resolution No. MV -100 not in conflict with
this resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs
and pavement markers are removed.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on
day of , 1982, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO 611
DATE: November 5, 1982
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis
Initial: (2,W. /
Dept. Hd. _
C. Atty.�
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Revision to Ordinance No. NS -3.47, Design Review Ordinance
Issue Summary
1. The revision of the Design Review Ordinance was identified as a
priority item by both the Planning Commission and City Council at their
joint meeting.
2. The Commission has worked on a revision of the Ordinance which would
allow a 20% variation in allowable floor area standards without a
variance and made some other modifications to increase flexibility.
3. At its meeting of November 10, 1982 the Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recorinend that .this ordinance be adopted by the City Council.
RecomTendation
1. Conduct the public hearing.
2. Vote on the Negative Declaration.
3. Have the first reading of the ordinance.
4. If the Council feels that significant modifications to the ordinance
are required then the ordinance should be continued to a study session.
5. Public hearing date should then be continued to a specific date.
Fiscal Imoacts
No significant impacts although a minor drop in permit review fees due
to fewer variance applications is expected.
Exhibits /Attachments
Exhibit A - Negative Declaration
Exhibit B - Revised Design Review Ordinance
Exhibit C - Commission Resolution recommending adoption
Exhibit D - Staff report dated 11/1/82
Exhibit E - Memo from Chairman of the Planning Commission
Council Action
11/17: Consensus to continue pub! _ic hearing to 12/1.
Consensus to direct Fanelli to work with staff and whomever else she wishes to
present revised ordinance at study session 11/23.
12/1: Moyles /Mallory moved to introduce revised ordinance by title only, waiving further
reading, and continue public hearing to 12/15. Passed 3 -0.
12%15: Clevenger /Moylds moved-to amend to allow residents to appeal in non - public hearings.
Callon/Mallory moved to approve Negative Declaration.
Fanelli- Moyles moved to read, amended ordinance by title only, waiving further
rParlincr_ making finrlinrrc ac fniinrl in Romr+- r -F Fir . r7;,,r. - —A -A-4- n-A co All
EXHIBIT B
REPORT OF FINDINGS
1. The proposed amendments to Ordinance No. NS -3.47 are required
to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance prescribed
in Section 1.1.
2. The proposed amendments to Ordinance No. NS -3.47 are in con-
formance with the General Plan and are necessary to its
implementation.
AMENDED
ORDINANCE NO. NS 3.47
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REQUIRING
DESIGN REVIEW OF CERTAIN ONE- FAMILY DETACHED
MAIN STRUCTURES OR MAJOR ADDITIONS THERETO AND
CERTAIN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND ESTABLISHING
STANDARDS FOR THE APPROVAL THEREOF
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain
as follows:
Section 1: Statement of Policies and Findin gs
It is the policy of the City of Saratoga to review the
construction of one - family detached residential structures and
_ major additions thereto and certain accessory structures under
circumstances where such structures or major additions would
constitute an invasion of privacy, unreasonable interference with
views, light and air, and create adverse impact upon the aesthetic
character of neighboring residential structures. It is also the
policy of the City of Saratoga to preserve natural topography,
promote the construction of energy efficient residential structures,
to minimize the coverage of residential structures upon building
sites, and to insure that the objectives of the General Plan are
_. met through Design Review.
The City Council finds that effective implementation of the
foregoing policies requires review and revision of existing zoning
ordinances regulating the height,.set -backs and.bulk of one - family
detached main and accessory structures and revision of existing
procedures and standards for Design Review.
Section 2: Purpose
The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish a set of
criteria, objectives and procedures to be followed with respect to
the design review of any proposed one - family detached main structure
or major addition thereto, and certain accessory structures, and
to ensure that new development occurs in a manner which is consistent
with the policies of the General Plan.
Rev. 10/20/82 1.
nm1
Section 3: Definitions
For the purposes of this Ordinance, certain words and terms
used herein shall be defined as follows:
(a) The term "site" shall have the same meaning as set forth
in Section 1.5, subparagraph "ss" of Ordinance NS -3.
(b) The term "main structure" shall have the same meaning as
set forth in Section 1.5, subparagraph "aaa" of Ordinance NS -3.
(c) The term "accessory structure" shall have the same
meaning as set forth in Section 1.5, subparagraph "zz" of Ordinance
NS -3, provided such structure is enclosed on at least three sides.
(d) The term "multi -story structure" shall have the same
meaning as set forth in Section 1.5, subparagraph "aaa -1" of
Ordinance NS -3.
(e) The term "hillside lot" shall mean any site having an
average slope of ten percent (10 %) or greater.
(f) The term "basement" shall mean that portion of a structure
located entirely below the natural grade or finish grade, whichever
is lower, except for the top of such basement which may extend to
not more than two feet (21) above the natural grade or finish
grade, whichever is lower.
(g) The "height" of a structure shall be measured by a
vertical line from the highest point of the roof to either the
natural grade or the finish grade (excluding basements), whichever
distance is greater; provided, however, that chimneys, flagpoles,
radio and television aerials, solar panels and other mechanical
appurtenances may be erected to a height not more than twenty -five
feet (251) above the maximum height permitted under the regula-
tions applicable to the zoning district wherein the structure is
located. The method of measuring "height" for single family
residential and accessory structures, as set forth herein, shall
supersede the definitions contained in Sections 3A.26(c) and 14.8
of Ordinance NS -3, and the exceptions set forth herein shall
supersede the provisions contained in Section 14.9 of Ordinance
Rev. 10/20/82 2.
NS -3.
(h) The "slope" of a site shall be calculated in accordance
with the provisions of Section 13.9 -2(c) of Ordinance NS -60.
(i) The term "allowable floor area" shall mean the total
usable square footage of the main structure plus any accessory
structure having a size in excess of 250 square feet permitted for
the zoning district and the site under Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of
this Ordinance. The total square footage shall include all
interior area within the exterior walls of the structure capable
of being used or converted to use, having a height of at least
seven feet from the floor to ceiling, including the garage, but
excluding basements.
(j) The term "approving authority" shall mean the Planning
Commission of the City of Saratoga.
(k) The term "appellate body" shall mean the City Council of
the City of Saratoga.
(1) The term "major addition" shall mean either or both of
the following, whichever may be applicable:
(1) A major addition in size, which is defined as any
addition to an existing main structure which, when added to
the interior usable square footage of the existing main
structure plus any accessory structure in excess of 250
square feet, equals or exceeds the allowable floor area for
the district and the site.
(2) A major addition in height, which is defined as the
conversion of a single story residential structure to a
multi -story residential structure.
(m) The term "impervious cover" shall mean any structure, or
hard surface which substantially impairs the natural permeability
of the soil, including, but not limited to, solid surface decks,
patios, accessory structures, swimming pools, recreation courts,
and paved driveways and parking areas.
(n) The term "in- fill" shall mean a structure to be con-
structed on a site surrounded by developed lots in at least three
out of four northern, southern, eastern or western directions.
Rev. 10/20/82 3.
ti ''isgre,r
c �c
Section 4: General Guidelines for Design Review
Where Design Review is required for any one - family detached
main structure, or major addition thereto, or any accessory
structure, the approving authority shall find that the proposed
structure satisfies the following criteria:
(a) The height, elevations and placement on the site of-the -
proposed main or accessory structure or major addition shall be
considered with reference to the nature and location of residen-
tial structures on adjacent lots in order to avoid unreasonable
interference with views and privacy, while considering also the
topographic and geologic constraints imposed by particular building
site conditions.
(b) The natural landscape shall be preserved insofar as
practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes
shall be minimized and shall be in keeping with the general
appearance of neighboring developed areas.
(c) Due regard shall be given to orientation of the proposed
main or accessory structure or major addition to the immediate
neighborhood in order to minimize the perception of excessive
bulk.
(d) The proposed main or accessory structure or major
addition will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with
existing residential structures located within five hundred feet
(5001) and within the same zoning district, and shall not unreasonably
impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor unreasonably
impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy.
In the case of a proposed main or accessory structure or major
addition which exceeds twenty -two feet (221) in height, the
approving authority may consider, in addition to any other mitiga-
tion measures, a requirement for increase in any one or more of
the standard set -backs by ten percent (10 %) for each foot in
height in excess of twenty -two feet (22'), or such other increased
set -backs as the approving authority may deem appropriate under
the circumstances, such increased set -backs to be imposed only
Rev. 10/20/82
4.
with respect to that portion of the structure in excess of twenty -two
feet (22') in height.
(e) The proposed site development or grading plan shall
incorporate current grading and erosion control standards used by
the City of Saratoga.
(f) Where the proposal involves in -fill situations, accessory
-
structures having a size in excess of 250 square feet, or major
additions, design emphasis should be placed on compatibility of
bulk with adjacent structures, minimizing obstruction of views,
and minimizing privacy impacts on adjacent property owners.
Furthermore, designs should incorporate the natural features of
the site.
(g) On exposed hillside lots, structures should be encouraged
to follow the natural contours of the site with the emphasis on
minimal grading, minimum impervious cover, and maximum erosion
protection. Variety in design should be encouraged in order to
avoid monotony of regularly spaced buildings of uniform height.
I
(h) On wooded hillside lots, multi -story structures may be
encouraged in order to minimize grading and vegetation removal.
The use of decks should be encouraged to provide usable open
space, but the decks should not encroach on adjoining properties
in terms of privacy.
(i) The proposed structure should be designed to optimize
the use of natural elements, such as solar radiation, wind and
landscaping for heating, cooling and ventilation.
Section 5: Standards for Development of Residential Structures
(a) Unless otherwise approved pursuant to Section 6 of this
Ordinance, the total square foot floor area of one - family detached
main structures and major additions thereto, plus any accessory
structures having a size in excess of 250 square feet, shall
comply with the following standards:
District Allowable Floor Area
R- 1- 10,000 2,900 sq. ft. plus 60 of site area in excess of
10,000 sq. ft.
Rev. 10/20/82 5.
.: ."�
R -1- 12,500
3,400 sq. ft.
plus 6% of site area in excess of
12,500 sq. ft.
R -1- 15,000
3,600 sq. ft.
plus 6% of site area in excess of
15,000 sq. ft.
R -1- 20,000
4,000 sq. ft.
plus 6% of site area in excess of
20,000 sq. ft.
R -1- 40,000
5,700 sq. ft.
plus 6% of site area in excess of
40;000 sq. ft.
HC-RD and
NHR 5,200 sq. ft.
plus 6% of site area in excess of
43,560 sq. ft., not to exceed a
maximum of 10,000 sq. ft.
(b)
Unless otherwise approved pursuant to Section 6 of this
ordinance,
the total percentage of impervious cover of one - family
detached main structures and
major additions thereto, plus any
accessory
structure having a
size in excess of 250 square feet,
shall comply with the following standards:
Districts
Maximum ,% of Impervious Cover
R -1- 10,000
60% of site area
R -1- 12,500
55% of site area
R -1- 15,000
50% of site area
R -1- 20,000
45% of site area
R -1- 40,000
35% of site area
HC -RD and NHR
15,000 sq. ft., or 25% of site
area, whichever is less
(c) .In the case of a site having a total square footage
which is.less than the minimum lot size for the zoning district
wherein the site is located, the allowable floor area and the
maximum percentage of impervious cover shall be determined by
those standards set forth in Sections 5(a) and 5(b) above applicable
to the next lowest zoning district for which the minimum lot size
does not exceed the total square footage of the site; provided,
however, the proposed structure shall adhere to the standard
set -backs for the district wherein the site is located. For
example, if a site is 14,000 square feet in total area and located
within an R -1- 20,000 district, the standards applicable to an
R -1- 12,500 district shall be utilized for design review of any
main structure or major addition or accessory structure having a
size in-excess of 250 square feet to be constructed upon such
Rev. 10/20/82 6.
M-3--Z-7, _ - ,
11
site. In the case of any site having less than 10,000 square
feet, wherever located, the allowable floor area shall not exceed
29% of the site area and the maximum percentage of impervious
cover shall not exceed 60% of the site area.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.7 of Ordinance
NS -3, the minimum rear yard set -backs for any one - family detached- - -- -
multi -story structure or major addition in height to be constructed
in an R -1 district shall be as follows:
District Minimum Rear
Yard Set -back
R -1- 10,000 35 feet
R -1- 12,500 35 feet
R -1- 15,000 40 feet
R -1- 20,000 45 feet
R -1- 40,000 60 feet
(e) In the case of any proposed one - family detached multi-
story main structure, or a major addition in height, to be constructed
upon a site which is non - conforming for the district in terms of
depth or width, the provisions of Section 14.3 of Ordinance NS -3
shall not be applicable and the proposed multi -story structure or
major addition in height shall comply with the standard set -back
requirements for the district wherein the site is located.
(f) The maximum height of any one - family detached main
structure shall be thirty feet (301) to the highest point of the
roof, as measured in accordance with Section 3(g) of this Ordinance.
Section 6: Variations from Standards
The Planning Commission shall have authority, but not the
obligation, to increase by not more than twenty percent (20%), or
to decrease, the standards for allowable floor area specified in
Sections 5(a) or 5(c), and to increase by not more than five
percent (5 %), or to decrease, the standards for impervious cover
specified in Sections 5(b) or 5(c), if the Commission finds that
the proposed main or accessory structure or major addition satisfies
the criteria set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance.
If a proposed main or accessory structure or major addition
exceeds any of the standards for allowable floor area set forth in
Rev. 10/20/82 7.
Sections 5(a) or 5(c) by more than twenty percent (20 %) or exceeds
any of the standards for impervious cover set forth in Sections
5(b) or 5(c) by more than five percent (5 %), or if a proposed
multi -story main structure or major addition in height does not
comply with the requirements of Section 5(d) or 5(e), or if the
height of a proposed main structure or major addition does not..
comply with the standard specified in Section 5(f), a variance
shall be required pursuant to Article 17 of Ordinance NS -3, and
the findings required under Section 17.6 of Ordinance NS -3 shall
be made in addition to the finding that the proposed structure or
major addition satisfies the criteria set forth in Section 4 of
this Ordinance.
Section 7: Requirement for Design Review
In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be
issued for the construction of any one - family detached main
structure or major addition thereto, or any accessory structure
having a size in excess of 250 square feet, in any residential
district until such structure has received Design Review Approval:
(a) A single story main or. accessory structure or major
addition having a height in excess of twenty -two feet (22').
(b) A multi -story main or accessory structure or major
addition having a height in excess of twenty -six feet (26').
(c) Any main structure or major addition to be constructed
upon a hillside lot.
(d) Any main structure or major addition which does not meet
the standards set forth in Section 5 of this Ordinance.
site.
(e) Any main structure to be constructed upon an in -fill
(f) Any accessory structure having a size in excess of 250
square feet which, when added to the size of the main structure
plus any other. existing or proposed accessory structure on the
site having a size in excess of 250 square feet, will exceed any
of the standards for allowable floor area or impervious cover set
forth in Sections 5(a), 5(b) or 5(c) of this Ordinance.
Rev. 10 /20/82 8.
(g) Any expansion in size to the second story of a multi-
story main or accessory structure.
(h) Whenever design review is specifically required under
the terms or conditions of any tentative or final subdivision map,
building site approval, use permit, variance or conditional
re- zoning.
(i) Whenever, in the opinion of the City's Department of
Community Development, there is uncertainty as to whether a
proposed structure complies with the standards of this Ordinance
or it reasonably appears that the proposed structure will have a
substantial adverse impact upon the neighborhood or the natural
environment.
Section 8: Application Requirements
Each application for Design Review approval shall be accom-
panied by the following exhibits:
(a) Site Plan showing property lines, easements and dimen-
sions, structure setbacks, building envelope, topography, location
of all trees over twelve inches (12 ") in diameter, and areas of
dense vegetation and creeks.
- (b) A statement of energy conserving features proposed for
the project. Such features may include, but are not limited to,
use of solar panels for domestic hot water or space heating,
passive solar building design, insulation beyond that required
under State law, insulated windows, or solar shading devices.
Upon request, the applicant shall submit a solar shade study if
determined necessary by City staff or the approving authority.
(c) Elevations of the proposed structures showing exterior
materials, roof materials and window treatment.
(d) Cross sections for all projects located on a hillside
lot.
(e) Grading and drainage plans, including cross sections if
the structure is to be constructed on a hillside lot.
(f) Floor plans that indicate total floor area.
(g) Roof plans.
Rev. 10/20/82 9.
(h) Landscape and irrigation plans, when requested by the
City staff or the approving authority. Design review approval may
be conditioned upon the approval of such plans prior to issuance
of a building permit.
(i) Such additional exhibits as may be required by Staff or
the Planning Commission.
All exhibits shall be drawn to scale, dated and signed by the
person preparing the exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted
shall consist of two (2).sets drawn on sheets 18" x 28" in size
and.ten (10) sets on sheets 11" x 18" in size.
Section 9: Public Hearings
A public hearing shall be required for design review approval
of a one - family detached main structure or major addition thereto,
or accessory structure having a size in excess of 250 square feet,
in each of the following cases:
(a) Where a proposed single -story main or accessory structure
or major addition will exceed twenty -two feet (22') in height.
(b) Where a proposed multi -story main or accessory structure
or major addition will exceed twenty -six feet (26') in height.
(c) Where a proposed main structure is classified as an
in -fill situation, as defined in Section 3(n) of this Ordinance.
(d) Where the proposed improvement is a major addition in
height, as defined in Section 3(1)(2) of this Ordinance.
(e) Where`a proposed main or accessory structure or major
addition will exceed the standards for allowable floor area or
impervious cover as set forth in Sections 5(a), 5(b) or 5(c) of
this Ordinance.
(f) Where an expansion in size is being made to the second
story of a multi -story main or accessory structure.
Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten
(10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the
hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and
place of the hearing to all persons whose names appear on the
latest adopted tax roll of Santa Clara County as owning property
Rev. 10/20/82 10.
within five hundred feet (500') of the boundaries of. the site upon
which the structure or major addition is to be constructed.
Notice of the public hearing shall also be published in a news-
paper having general circulation in the City of Saratoga not later
than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing.
Section 10: Appeal
(a) Upon the denial by the Planning Commission of a Design
Review application which does not require a public hearing, the
applicant shall have the right to appeal such decision to the City
Council.
(b) Upon the granting or denial by the Planning Commission
of a Design Review application which requires a public hearing,
either the applicant or any other interested person shall have the
right to appeal such decision to the City Council.
(c) The appeal shall be taken by filing with the City Clerk
a written notice thereof within ten (10) days from the granting or
denial of Design Review Approval by the approving authority. The
i
notice of appeal shall be signed by the appellant and shall set
forth all of the grounds for the appeal, and shall be accompanied
by a filing fee to cover the administrative cost of handling the
appeal. Upon receipt of a notice of appeal and filing fee, the
City Clerk shall set the appeal for hearing before the appellate
body at its next regular meeting that falls not less than ten (10)
days after the date of filing the notice of appeal. The appellate
body shall conduct a noticed public hearing de novo on all Design
Review Appeals where a public hearing was required to be conducted
by the approving authority pursuant to Section 9 of this Ordinance.
The City Clerk shall give notice of the appeal in the same manner
as provided in Section 9 of this Ordinance.
(d) The appellate body may affirm, reverse or modify the
decision of the approving authority, and may refer the matter back
to the approving authority for further action as may be directed
by the appellate body.
Rev. 10/20/82 11.
Section 11: Repeal of Other Ordinances
This Ordinance shall supersede Urgency Ordinance 3E -16,
Section 3.7 -2 of Ordinance NS -3 (commonly known as the "Multi -
Story Ordinance "), Sections 3.16 and 16 -15 of Ordinance NS -3
(relating to conversion permits), and the coverage standards as
set forth in Section 3.7 of Ordinance NS -3, and the same are
hereby repealed and declared to be of no further force or effect
as of the effective date of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall
also supersede Article 13 of Ordinance NS -3 to the extent that
such Article applies to single - family detached main structures or
major additions thereto. The references in Article 13 as contained
in Sections 3.12 and 3A.23(c) of Ordinance NS -3 shall be deemed to
refer to this Ordinance.
Section 12: Exceptions
This Ordinance shall not apply to any one - family detached
main structure or major addition which has received design review
approval prior to August 15, 1981, nor shall this Ordinance apply
to any major addition in height for which a conversion permit has
been issued pursuant to Section 16.15 of Ordinance NS -3 prior to
August 15, 1981; provided, however, that in the event an appeal
has been taken from such design review approval or issuance of a
conversion permit, the provisions of this Ordinance may be applied
to the proposed structure or major addition which is the subject
of the appeal.
Section 13: Replacement of Destroyed Structures
In the event an existing one - family detached main structure
having a floor area or percentage of impervious cover in excess of
the standards set forth in Sections 5(a), 5(b) or 5(c) of this
Ordinance is damaged or destroyed as a result of fire or other
calamity or by act of God, the structure may be replaced with a
new structure having a maximum floor area, a maximum percentage of
impervious cover, and a maximum height no greater than the original
structure and set -backs no less than the original structure.
Rev. 10/20/82 12.
Design review approval pursuant to this Ordinance shall be required
for the proposed replacement structure, but the requirements of
this Section 13 shall be applied in lieu of the standards set
forth in Sections 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d) and 5(e) of this Ordinance.
The provisions of this Section 13 shall supersede any inconsistent
provisions as may be contained in Section 15.8 of Ordinance NS -3.
Section 14: Lapse of Design Review Approval
Design Review approvals issued pursuant to this Ordinance
shall expire eighteen (18) months after the date of approval in
the event a building permit has not been obtained within such
period of time for construction of the structure or major addition
as finally approved. The approving authority may, in its discre-
tion, extend the expiration date provided herein for an additional
period or periods of time not exceeding a total of twenty -four
(24) months, upon written application for extension filed prior to
the expiration date. Should the approving authority deny any
application for extension, the applicant shall have the right to
appeal such decision to the appellate body within ten (10) days
after the date of denial.
In the event a building permit is issued and thereafter
expires, the design review approval pursuant to which the permit
was issued shall also expire as of the date of expiration of the
building permit.
Section 15: Partial Invaliditv
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City
Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have
passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence,
clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be
held invalid or unconstitutional.
Rev. 10/20/82 13.
T' - "717 �17
Section 16: Effective Date
This Ordinance takes effect thirty (30) days after its
passage and adoption.
The foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of .Saratoga held
on the day of 198 by the following
vote:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Rev. 10/20/82 14.
?r-
MAYOR
C
RESOLUTION NO. GF -328.1
ex 6 f 6it C
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMENDED ORDINANCE
REQUIRING DESIGN REVIEW OF CERTAIN ONE- FP21ILY
DETACHED MAIN STRUCTURES, AND MAJOR ADDITIONS
THERETO AND CERTAIN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND
ESTABLISHING STANDARDS ROR THE APPROVAL THEREOF
WHEREAS, on July 15, 1981, the City Council of the City of
Saratoga adopted Ordinance No. NS -3.47 entitled "An Ordinance of the
City of Saratoga Requiring Design Review of Proposed One - Family
Residential Structures and Major Additions Thereto, and Establishing
Standards for the Approval Thereof;" and
WHEREAS, during the period in which Ordinance No. NS -3.47
has been in effect, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Design
_ Review applications and associated variance application resulting
from this ordinance and has determined that certain changes should
be made therein in order to create greater flexibility in the review
process, maintain consistency with the General Plan and the declared
policies and objectives of the City of Saratoga; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared and approved
a proposed ordinance entitled: " An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga
Requiring Design Review of Certain One - Family Detached Main Structures
or Major Additions Thereto and Certain Accessory Structures, and
Establishing Standards for the Approval Thereof ", a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as the "Design
Review Ordinance "); and
WHEREAS, a noticed public hearing was conducted by the
Planning Commission on November 10, 1982 at which time any person
desiring to comment upon the proposed Design Review Ordinance was
given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration of the proposed Design
Review Ordinance the Plannina Commission has made certain findings,
a report of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and is of the
opinion that such ordinance should be recommended to the City Council
for adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the'City of Saratoga that the proposed Design Review Ordinance, in
the form of Exhibit A attached hereto, be and the same hereby is
affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the Cite of Saratoga
for adoption; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Planning
Commission is hereby authorized and directed to send a copy of this
resolution, together with a copy of the proposed Design Review
Ordinance, to the City Council for further action and adoption
pursuant to State law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
1982, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
µ ,
ecretary
Chairman, Planning Corvnission
C �
EXHIBIT B
.REPORT OF FINDINGS
1. The proposed amendments to Ordinance No. NS -3.47 are required
to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance prescribed
in Section 1.1.
2. The proposed amendments to Ordinance No. NS -3.47 are in con-
formance with the General Plan and are necessary to its
implementation.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 11/1/82
Commission Meeting: 11/10/32
SUBJECT- Revision to Design Review Ordinance, NS -3.47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
At its Committee -of- the -Whole meeting of October 19, 1982 the
Commission reached consensus on the revisions to be made to the
Design Review Ordinance. The major changes to the Ordinance are
as follows:
1. Inclusion of accessory structures over 250 square feet
in the size in the calculation of allowable floor area
as well as any interior space with a 7' clearance from
floor to ceiling (Section 3(i)).
2. Requiring Design Review for accessory structures under
certain conditions. (Section 7(a) and (b)).
3. Increasing the maximum base allowable floor area from
5,200 square feet to 5,700 square feet in the R -1- 40,000
District (Section 5 (a)) .
4. Increasing the amount allowable floor area can vary from
the standards without a variance application and at the
discretion of the Commission from 5% to 20 %, if the
criteria in Section 4 of the Ordinance are complied with
(Section 6).
5. Allow a 5% variation from impervious coverage standards
without a variance and at the discretion of the Commission
if the criteria in Section 4 are complied with. (Section 6).
6. Requiring Design Review for any expansion in size of the
second story of a multi -story main or accessory structure
(Section 7(g) and Section 9(f)).
7. Allowing the staff of the Community Development Department
to have a proposed structure or addition go through the
Design Review process where it is uncertain the structure
or addition complies with the requirements of the
ordinance or it appears that it will have a substantial
adverse impact on the neighborhood or natural environment.
(Section 7(i)).
The remainder of the amendments to the ordinance are intended to
clarify the intent of the ordinance. For example, only accessory
structures enclosed on 3 sides are to be included in allowable
' Revision To Desig &eview
Ordinance is
November 1, 1982
Page 2
floor area calculatings. Perhaps the most impartant clarification
is that the Commission must find that the proposed structure
satisfies the criteria listed in Section 4. The remaining amend-
ments were minor.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed amendments to Ordinance No. NS -3.47 are required
to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance prescribed
in Section 1.1.
2. The proposed amendments to Ordinance No. NS -3.47 are in
conformance with the General Plan and are necessary to its
implementation.
RECOMMENDATION
If the Commission determines that the proposed wording of the
Ordinance revision is acceptable, then the findings listed above
should be made and the attached resolution recommending approval
of the revision should be forwarded to the City Council.
Mike Flores
Assistant Planner
b1F /mgr
r.
REPORT
Exh16if L=
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 11 -12 -82
COUNCIL MEETING:
SUBJECT* GF- 328/NS -3.47 - Design Review Ordinance
At the Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 1982 the
Commission adopted Resolution GF -328, recommending the Design
Review Ordinance, as amended. The Planning Commission review
evolved in a very strong consensus, and I feel that it is the
best compromise coming from the Commission. However, I do not
feel that it is in the best interests of the community at large
and recommend that the following two areas be carefully reviewed
and modified by the City Council.
(1) I am not in favor of adding the accessory structures unless
they are at least over 600 sq. ft.; however, if they are of
a two -story design they should have a public hearing.
(2) I am in favor of removing the limits in the R -1- 20,000 zoning
district and above as a part of the ordinance; however, the
figures should be used as guidelines to trigger public hearings.
(As discussed at the Joint City Council /Commission meeting).
LS:cd
Louise Schaefer
Chairman, Planning C mmission