The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-02-1989 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAV4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM +(a August 2, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SUBJECT: CHANGES TO ALLOCATIONS FOR FY 1989/90 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS Recommended Motion: Approve Change in Allocations for 1989/90 HCDA Funds to Utilize Additional Public Service Funding Report Summary: In January when the City Council made. allocations for the FY 1989/90 Community Development Block Grant funds, Saratoga was restricted to allocating a maximum of 150 of the funds for public service projects. Now that the County Board of Supervisors has made their final allocations, it has been determined that the total aggregate Block Grant funding is under the 15% public service limit and a small amount is available for reprogramming. The City of Saratoga has received approval from the County to reprogram $10,450 to the grant for SASCC operating support, which will make this year's $35,000 grant for this project 100% CDBG funded. The $10,450 will be deducted from the currently inactive fund established for possible future provision of below - market -rate housing units for low income seniors. With this reprogramming, the 1989/90 allocation will be as follows: 1. SASCC Operations $ 35,000 2. Housing Rehabilitation Administration 16,000 3. Housing Development of Low Income Seniors 97,860 Total Allocation $148,860 Fiscal Im acts: Use of all CDBG funds for the SASCC grant will result in a saving of $10,450 of general funds. Attachments: 1. Transfer Control Record Motion and Vote: Approve rec:onvended change in allocations for 1989 -90 HCDA funds to utilize additional_ public service funding. Passed 4 -0 - -1 (Peterson absent). i"I Program Year 15th Transfer No. 1 roject /Activity Current Amount of Revised Project /Activity TO Current lame f/ Allocation Transfer ( -) Allocation Name Amount of Revised. .. //_ Allocation Transfer M Allocation Housing Development $108;;310 `(10,450) $97,860 Senior Coord:`Courici Low Income Senio s $241550 $10,450 $35,000 "•.,' SA 89 -11 SA 89 -31 For County Staff Use Only A S.rJurisdiction /agency has approved the above transfer of funds and submitted necessary documentation to justify the transfer Y/N Date - B. Does transfer require CAC, CC, and B/S approval -- -Y /N 1. If yes, B/S approval Date 2. If No, transfer approved by project Representative Signature Date Transfer reflected on CCR and prog - ram ledger Signature Date r SAR ATOG� TY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 16&) MEETING DATE: August 2, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM'- CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: MID - PENINSULA HOUSING COALITION REQUEST FOR LOAN OR.GRANT OF $100,000 of CDBG FUNDS Recommended Motion: Approve Deferred Loan of $100,000 of CDBG Funds to Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition for Multi - Family Project in the City of Campbell. Summary: For fourteen years, the City of Saratoga has been a participant in the federally funded Community Development Block Grant Program through Santa Clara County. Due to increasingly tight federal and county restrictions on expenditure: of the funds, the high cost of housing in Saratoga, and.a number of other factors, the City has built up a surplus of funds beyond what we have been able to allocate for projects in Saratoga. Through participation in the program, Saratoga has made a commitment to give high priority to the provision of affordable housing throughout Santa Clara County. Staff has been seeking alternative ways in which to use the City's excess funds so that there will be some benefit to local residents rather than have the funds revert to the federal government. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the deferred loan to Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition using excess funds from prior years which are restricted for use for housing rehabilitation. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: July 24, 1989, letter from Fran Wagstaff, Executive Director, Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition Motion and Vote: Approve deferred loan of $100,000 of Coalition for Multi- Famioly Project by staff. Passed 5-0. 06. CDBG Funds to Mid- Peninsula Housing in the City of Campbell as reccunxaiided. r'V {4 If � fr /) 1:3777 1-1ZtTFV'r \1_1:.AVI-:Nt 'I I Z .VI'( A.(:.A1- 1H)IZNL \!); >O7U 14()8) 867 :34:313 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger August 2, 1989 David Moyles Donald Peterson To: City Council Francis S/UlZrilan From: Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition Request for Loan or Grant of $100,000 of CDBG Funds Recommended Action: Approve deferred loan of $100,000 of CDBG funds to Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition for multi - family project in the City of Camp- bell. Background: The City of Saratoga has been asked to make a grant or a deferred loan of $100,000 of our unobligated Community Development Block Grant funds from prior years to the Mid - Peninsula Housing Coali- tion, a non - profit organization which plans to acquire and up- grade rental properties in the City of Campbell. This request was made because Saratoga has funds earmarked for housing reha- bilitation which we are unable to use and this is an opportunity to assist in the provision of low income housing in a neighboring community. As a participant in the federal CDBG program through the Urban County, Saratoga is committed to give highest priority to the provision of affordable housing. Through the grant or loan of funds for this project, Saratoga will receive credit for the provision of housing units in our annual Housing Assistance Plan, and Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition is willing to give rental preference to families who live or work in Saratoga in proportion to the extent of the share of funding. Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition is the owner - operator of the Saratoga Court low income housing complex on Cox Avenue and is a well established organization with an excellent reputation for their work in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The proposed project in the Campbell redevelopment area has received approval and a grant of $125,000 from the Santa Clara County competitive pool of CDBG funds and will also get significant funding from Campbell. Subject: Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition Request for Loan or Grant of $100,000 of CDBG Funds August 2, 1989 Page Two Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition has proposed that the financing from the City of Saratoga be in the form of a grant which would be refundable in the event the development ceases to house low and moderate income households, which is similar to the agreement for Saratoga Court. Alternatively, financing could be in the form of a deferred loan, with payments beginning after a period of ten years. It has been increasingly difficult -in the past several years for Saratoga to spend its annual HCD allocation and we are now find- ing ourselves facing a possible "use it or lose it" situation. It is expected that the Department of Housing and Urban Development will soon change regulations to limit the funds that an agency can carry over year to year and if this is the case, Saratoga will be required to use accumulated funds or give the money back to the program. Tightening restrictions and the high cost of housing in Saratoga severely limit our ability to fund projects other than a few single family residence rehabs, removal of barriers to the handi- capped, or public services. Although the amount of Block Grant allocations has decreased yearly, we have built up a large re- stricted fund which can only be used for the rehabilitation of housing for the benefit of low . income people. Of this fund, $197,000 is "on the books" with the county, and can not be drawn down until we have exhausted the revolving loan account which the City uses to fund our housing rehabilitation program (SHARP). In recent years, the rate at which old loans have been paid back into the revolving account has exceeded expenditures for new loans. The account has become self- sustaining, increasing by a net gain of $91,000 in 88/89. In addition to the rehab funds, in the past two years Saratoga has set aside close to $140,000 to fund the possible provision of below market rate housing units for low and moderate income seniors if there is an opportunity to do so in future develop- ment. We have been advised that we will not be able to use these funds in a project such as that proposed for the Paul Masson property because of the difficulty in ensuring that there would be a long term benefit to low income persons. The inflated costs of acquiring property in Saratoga have thus far been prohibitive to the non - profit developers who would be eligible to use this type of assistance. The prospect of being able to utilize these funds in Saratoga in the near future is not promising, which is another reason to look at alternative ways to put our CDBG money to work on a regional basis. Subject: Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition Request for Loan or Grant of $100,000 of CDBG Funds August 2, 1989 Page Three Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a deferred loan rather than a grant to Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition. Although Sarataoga has accumulated CDBG funds in excess of our current needs, in ten years when the Coalition proposes to begin repayment our position may have changed. In the meantime the Coalition will have been able to use the $100,000 as a required match for other funding sources available to them. The project in Campbell appears to be a very good use of CDBG money in serving a broader geographic area. Carolyn King I / Assistant to the City Manager jm MID - PENINSULA HOUSING COALITION 430 Sherman Avenue Suite 200 Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone (415) 327 -9280 July 24, 1989 Carolyn King City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Carolyn, U 1989 Thank you for meeting with Sharon Teeter, Marian Gushiken and myself to discuss the acquisition and rehabilitation project which is being planned in the City of Campbell. DESCRIPTION OF SHARMON PALMS PROJECT This development promises to provide some of the few affordable rentals for families in the Saratoga - Campbell area. The current residents, who would not be displaced, are 90% very low income working families. The neighborhood is fully integrated with approximately one third white, black and Asian households. Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition will acquire a minimum of 60 two bedroom units in 1989 -1990. These will be rehabilitated to correct code deficiencies and deferred maintenance. Phase One, comprising 36 units, is either acquired or in escrow. For this phase, the following resources are committed: City of Campbell CDBG $180,000.00 Campbell Redevelopment Agency $460,000.00 Santa Clara County CDBG $125,000.00 HUD Rental Rehab $50,000.00* Wells Fargo Bank Financing $1,800,000.00 CITY OF SARATOGA FINANCING REQUEST Despite these substantial commitments, the project will still require $312,687 to be used as matching funds for the Rental Rehabilitation program. We plan to apply for the State of California Housing and Community Development Department for the acquisition shortfall of $110,394. * Plus tentative commitment for the balance required. Carolyn King July 24, 1989 Page 2 The enclosed "Sources and Uses of Funds" describes our financing shortfalls, and the reason we are requesting consideration of a loan of $100,000.00 from the City of Saratoga's CDBG rehab program. BENEFIT TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA We recognize the unusual nature of this request, however we see the Sharmon Palms development serving a broader geographic area which includes the City of Saratoga. Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition is prepared to formalize this benefit to the residents of Saratoga by giving preference to families who either live or work in Saratoga in the marketing of future vacancies, to the extent buildings are financed with City of Saratoga funds. This offer is contingent on approval by the City of Campbell, and on standard non - discriminatory treatment of applicants. PROPOSED FINANCING TERMS We propose the financing from the City of Saratoga be in the form of a grant which would be refundable in the event the development ceases to house low and moderate income households. Alternately, the financing could be in the form of a deferred loan. Payments could not begin for a minimum of ten years, since any cash flow prior to that date will be required as payment for the City of Campbell financing. I will be at your disposal if you have questions regarding this proposal. Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition very much appreciates the assistance which the City of Saratoga has provided to our organization in the past, and we hope you will give this present request your favorable consideration. Sincerely Fran Wagstaff FW -0076 FINANCING SCHEDULE with City of Saratoga CDBG SHARMON PALMS REVITALIZATION PROJECT Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition no 6/6/89 ----- %- ---- ----- ------ -- 200.000-------- 07/24/89 no --6/6/89 7/20/89 751 no 7/20/89 FN:saratg yes USE: 989 2-222----- yes USE: 775 yes -------- 9/30/89 ACWISITION ----------50,907 __, REHAB 89, 000----- 89.00- - -5 ---------------- Purchase SOURCES Campbell ------0------ 0 __°........ . ..... = .... ==.__= .... __.= ...................." Holding, SOURCES ___.._._ °'_____'= '____________' Tax Credit Oate of Address Eligible Purchase Price 3 Fees Vells Redev. City County Sponsor s Fees & Rehab Relocation) Rehab Rental Cit Campbell Redev. Saratoga Sponsor's Fargo Agency CDBG CDBG Equity Coat Costs I Totals I Rehab CDBG I Agency CDBG Funds 949 ----------------------------------- no 6/6/89 ----- %- ---- ----- ------ -- 200.000-------- 739 ----------------------------------- no --6/6/89 7/20/89 751 no 7/20/89 975 ----------------------------------- yes 7/20/89 989 2-222----- yes 7/20/89 775 yes -------- 9/30/89 PHASE_ I_ SUBTOTAL - (7- b(dgs_)' == 964 yes 9/30/89 ----------------------------------- "?__ -yes 9/30/89 == GRAND TOTAL (9 bldgs.) 291,870 291,870 289,000 289,000 289,000 289,000 289,000 2,028,740 289,000 2000 2,89,606,740 200,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- 0 29,370 62,500 0 -- 200.000-------- ---0------29.370 _0 62,500 0 200,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- 54,826 34,174 --------- 0 - --- 0 200,000 ------------------------------------- 54,853 34,147 0 U --200,000 89,000 ----------50,907 __, 200,000 --200-0-------- 89, 000----- 89.00- - -5 ---------------- 200,000 89,000 ------0------ 0 -----0-----------0 0 ---- 0 1_400_000 = == =.376, 679.. = == 127_061===== 125_000 0 200,000 19,000 0 0 70,000 - 200,000 = 48 606 . ° _0 - - 40_394= 1,800,000 444,285= 127,061 125,000 _ == 110,394 State of CA Housing and Community Development- -CA Housing Rehab Program Current shortfall 110,394 48,969 46,470 89;004 86,473 86,247 20,000 84,235 3,900 3,600 ---- ------ 6,636 4,400 6,660 ---- ------ 6,000 6,900 52,869 50,070 95,722 93,273 92,907 26,000 93,135 _463_6 70, 19'D00 0 3 976 82,255 97,090 643 025 6,960 --- 2222 --- 89,215 2222-- ° 6 =060 --- 103x150 53,316 6%,341 25,000 --------------------------------------------------------- 27,869 0 0 25,000 --------------------------------------------------------- 25,070 0 0 42,000 --------------------------------------------------------- 0 0 50,000 3,722 42,000 --42,000------- 0 ----0----- 0 ------0-------- 50,000 1,273 --------------------------------------------------------- ----------50,907 --13- �-----------0------- - -5 ---------------- 42,000 0 14,215 ----11,500 36,920 - 231_000asa� =52,939 15_715 == =100 ,000 = = == 104_322_ 42,000 0 0 47,215 --42, 000----------- 0----------- 0-------- - - - - -- ----61,150 315,000 52,939 . ° = == 15,715 = = = == 100,000 = = == 212,687 000,000> + <212,687>= <312,687: ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Rental Rehab maximum loan limit of $10,500 per unit an 739, 751, 975, 989, 775, 964 and 952 Shannon Palms Lane 2. Redevelopment Agency funds are OK to use in projects utilizing Rental Rehab funds SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. lfl AGENDA ITEM: / MEETING DATE: August 2, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Consultant Agreement for Community Open Space Needs Survey Recommended Motion: Approve agreement, authorize budget adjustment. Report Summary: The Survey Review Committee has interviewed the one consulting firm, Moore Iacofano Goltsman, who submitted a proposal in response to the City's RFP for a Community Open Space Needs Survey. The Committee is unanimous in its recommendation of approval of the agreement with this firm. The contract amount would be $25,835, which is $10,835 more than the budgeted amount; a budget adjustment is also therefore recommended. Fiscal Impacts: Budget adjustment of $10,835 to planning department account 2026/4510. Dtt�nhmcrt�. Motion and Vote: Memo from Planning Director with attachments. • ogu,ff 09 0&MZU00Z 1:3777 FRULI'VALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (10£3) £367 - :3.1:3£3 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: July 24, 1989 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Consultant agreement for Community Open Space Needs Survey BACKGROUND At its June 7, 1989 meeting, the City Council approved an RFP for the Community Open Space Needs Survey. The RFP was sent to thirteen consulting firms from which we received one proposal (attached) from the firm of Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG). Staff's review of the proposal indicated that the firm was very capable of performing the survey; we convened the Survey Review Committee to interview the consultant and finalized the recommended scope of work at a meeting held on July 19. The Review Committee consists of Mayor Clevenger, Planning Commissioner Ann Marie Burger, Parks and Recreation Commissioner Mark Pierce, myself and Associate Planner Valerie Young. After interviewing MIG's project coordinator, James Oswald, the Review Committee is unanimous in its recommendation that the City Council approve the contract with MIG. SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET As shown in the proposal, two alternative methods for conducting the survey are offered, a door -to -door survey and a newsletter survey. The Review Committee recommends the use of a door -to -door survey for a variety of reasons (greater response rate, more personal approach, opportunity for residents to express views in greater detail, etc.) all of which will result in a superior survey product. The Review Committee also believes that the Community Focus Group Session, Task 1.2, is an important part of the survey; the focus group will consist of 10 -15 Saratoga residents, who will be selected by the Review Committee to represent the broad range of viewpoints in the community, and will provide significant input on the format and content of the survey questions. The Review Committee further recommends that Optional Tasks 5.0 and 6.0 (Presentation and Slides) remain optional in the agreement with the consultant, pending the outcome of the survey results. Memo to City Council July 24, 1989 Page two The contract amount with MIG is $25,835, which includes $1220 for Optional Tasks 5.0 and 6.0. The FY89 -90 budget allocates $15,000 for this project, so the Council will need to authorize a budget adjustment of $10,835 if it approves the contract with MIG. Staff's original estimate of $15,000 reflected rates for telephone rather than door -to -door surveys, and did not include some of the features offered by MIG, such as the Focus Group Session. Staff believes the contract amount accurately reflects the current going rate for this type of project. RECOMMENDATION There are two recommendations for this project: 1) Approve consultant agreement with Moore Iacofano Goltsman. 2) Authorize budget adjustment of $10,835. S eph n E lie. Planning (Director Attachments: 1) Proposal from MIG 2) Consultant agreement • • • • • Planning Design ommunications anagement July 6, 1989 Stephen Emslie, Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Emslie: Based on your request for proposal, we have described below a scope of work, es- timated budget and schedule. City of Saratoga Community Open Space Needs Survey Scope of Work, Estimated Budget and Schedule The purpose of the survey is four -fold: (i) identify Saratoga residents' current and future open space needs so that General Plan policies, programs and services can more closely reflect community values and concerns; (ii) assess residents' willingness to pay for open space lands and services; (iii) determine residents' receptivity to alternative open space funding strategies; and (iv) determine what residents think is a reasonable amount or rate to pay for �80h Street acquisition and /or preservation of open space lands and services. The survey 94710 Y CA will gather the opinions of a representative cross - section of Saratoga residents. 15/845 -7549 Other Offices ashington DC leigh NC We are pleased to submit this proposal in response to your request for a Community Open Space Needs Survey. Our firm is experienced in all types of surveys including in- person interview, mail -out and telephone methods. We recently completed a door -to -door community survey to assess park and recreation needs of residents in the Laguna Niguel Community Ser- vices District. We are also in the process of completing a community survey for the City of Hollister in connection with their park and recreation Master Plan and a mail -out ques- tionnaire for the City of Mountain View North Bayshore Lands Study. In addition, we have conducted door -to -door surveys for the General Plan Revisions for the cities of San Rafael, Pleasant Hill and Santa Barbara, neighborhood plans (East San Rafael) and individual park site Master Plans (Pickleweed Park). With professional staff possessing backgrounds in both planning and social science, we can provide an efficient survey process with a high level of sensitivity to the planning is- sues being addressed in the City of Saratoga Community Open Space Needs Survey. Based on your request for proposal, we have described below a scope of work, es- timated budget and schedule. City of Saratoga Community Open Space Needs Survey Scope of Work, Estimated Budget and Schedule The purpose of the survey is four -fold: (i) identify Saratoga residents' current and future open space needs so that General Plan policies, programs and services can more closely reflect community values and concerns; (ii) assess residents' willingness to pay for open space lands and services; (iii) determine residents' receptivity to alternative open space funding strategies; and (iv) determine what residents think is a reasonable amount or rate to pay for �80h Street acquisition and /or preservation of open space lands and services. The survey 94710 Y CA will gather the opinions of a representative cross - section of Saratoga residents. 15/845 -7549 Other Offices ashington DC leigh NC r City of Saratoga Page 2 Community Open Space Needs Survey Proposal jTask 1: Survey Issues Identification Task 1.1 Conduct Survey Issues Identification Meeting with staff and the Review Committee. CONSULTANT will conduct one (1) meeting with City Planning staff and the Review Committee to identify the range of issues to be addressed in the Community Survey. Results from the meeting will be summarized in a brief memorandum and used in structuring the draft survey instrument. Task 1.2 Conduct Community Focus Group Session CONSULTANT will conduct one (1) survey issues focus group with City residents to identify the range of topics and issues to be addressed in the Community Survey and to test potential question format. Results from the focus groups will be summarized in a brief memorandum and used in structuring the draft survey instrument. Task 2: Survey Instrument Design Task 2.1 Design Survey Instrument CONSULTANT will translate the topic areas and issues identified in Task 1 into questionnaire format and will prepare a draft of the survey instru- ment for comments, review and approval. Task 2.2 Review Draft Instrument with Review Committee CONSULTANT will meet with the Review Committee to review the draft survey instrument. Task 2.3 Pilot Test Draft Survey Instrument a A pilot survey will be conducted to test survey length, question 9 phraseology and response quality. The final survey instrument will then be developed with staff and Review Committee input and approval. Task 2.4 Develop Survey Sample Profile A stratified sample will be devised based on owner /renter status, geographical location, age, and other socio- economic and geographical variables considered to be of prime importance by staff for planning pur- poses, to ensure balanced community representation and generalizability of survey findings. City of Saratoga Page 3 Community Open Space Needs Survey Proposal Task 3: Survey Implementation- Option 1 (Door -to =Door) The survey will be administered door -to -door to a stratified sample of com- munity residents. The estimated sample size is 400. The survey will have twenty -five (25) close -ended questions and five (5) open -ended ques- tions. The maximum length of interviews will be approximately 15 - 20 minutes. CONSULTANT will deploy its own survey team and will monitor the data collection procedure to ensure consistency and reliability (we as- sume that the method of administration would be door -to -door, face-to- face interviews). Survey Implementation- Option 2 (Newsletter /Survey) The survey will be included in a four (4) page newsletter which will be mailed out to all residents or inserted into a local newspaper which serves the entire community. Residents will complete the survey and mail it back using the self- addressed mailer included as part of the newsletter. The newsletter survey will include twenty -five (25) close -ended questions and five (5) open -ended questions. The expected return rate may range be- tween 1% - 5% (approximately 1500 - 2000 surveys). A post stratification process will enable the CONSULTANT to develop a representative sample of the Saratoga population. Task 4: Survey Analysis and Reporting Completed surveys will be computer tabulated; major findings will be presented in a report using text, graphs and tables. Data sorts will be provided for age of respondents and owner /renters. The report will in- clude an executive summary of key survey findings. CONSULTANT will furnish CLIENT with five (5) bound copies plus a camera -ready copy of the report for reproduction. Task 5: Survey Results Presentation Slides (Optional) A summary of key findings will be illustrated on 35mm slides (color bar, tab and text charts) for ease of presentation to the Planning Commission, City Council and community groups (approximately 36 slides). Task 6: Presentation of Findings (Optional) CONSULTANT will attend one (1) meeting to present and discuss Com- munity Survey results. City of Saratoga Community Open Space Needs Survey Proposal Page 4 Estimated Budget Task 1.1: Conduct Survey Issues Identification Meeting with Staff and Review Committee Principal ($95 /person -hour) 4 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 380 Research Associate ($65 /person -hour) 4 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Estimated Time Cost: $ 640 Estimated Direct Costs: 50 Task 1.2: Conduct Community Focus Group Session Principal ($95 /person -hour) 3 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 285 Research Associate ($65 /person -hour) 3 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Estimated Time Cost: $ 480 Estimated Direct Costs: 50 Task 2.1: Survey Instrument Design Principal ($95 /person -hour) 8 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 760 Research Associate ($65 /person -hour) 12 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780 Estimated Time Cost: $ 1,540 Estimated Direct Costs: 50 Task 2.2: Review Draft Instrument with Review Committee Principal ($95 /person -hour) 4 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 380 Estimated Time Cost: $ 380 Estimated Direct Costs: 50 City of Saratoga Community Open Space Needs Survey Proposal Page 5 Task 2.3: Pilot Test Draft Survey Instrument Principal ($95 /person -hour) 2 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 190 Research Associate ($65 /person -hour) 12 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780 Field Staff ($20 /person -hour) 8 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Estimated Time Cost: $ 1,130 Estimated Direct Costs: 200 Task 2.4: Develop Survey Sample Profile Principal ($95 /person -hour) 1 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 95 Research Associate ($65 /person -hour) 4 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Estimated Time Cost: $ 355 Estimated Direct Costs: 100 Task 3.0: Survey Implementation - Option 1 (Door -to -door, face -to -face interviews) Principal ($95 /person -hour) 2 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 190 Research Associate ($65 /person -hour) 40 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,600 Field Staff ($20 /person -hour) 400 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,000 Estimated Time Cost: $ 10,790 Estimated Direct Costs: 1,500 Task 3.0: Survey Implementation - Option 2 Design of Mail -out Principal ($95 /person -hour) 2 Hours . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 190 Research Associate ($65 /person -hour) 50 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,250 Graphics Support Staff ($35 /person -hour) 60 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,100 Estimated Time Cost: $ 5,540 Estimated Direct Costs: 360 city of Saratoga community Open Space Needs Survey Proposal Page 6 Task 4.0: Survey Analysis and Reporting- Option 1 Principal ($95 /person -hour) 2 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 190 Research Associate ($65 /person -hour) 40 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,600 Data Entry Support Staff ($20 /person -hour) 100 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 Estimated Time Cost: $ 4,790 Estimated Direct Costs: 500 Task 4.0: Mail Out Analysis - Option 2 Principal ($95 /person -hour) 2 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 190 Research Associate ($65 /person -hour) 60 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,900 Support/Clerical ($20 /person -hour) 250 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,000 Estimated Time Cost: $ 9,090 Estimated Direct Costs: 250 (Does not include printing or distribution of newsletterlsurvey) Task 5.0: Survey Results Presentation Slides (Optional) Principal ($95 /person -hour) 2 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 190 Research Associate ($65 /person -hour) 10 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650. Estimated Time Cost: $ 840 Estimated Direct Costs: 175 Task 6.0: Presentation of Findings (Optional) Principal ($95 /person -hour) 4 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 380 Estimated Time Cost: $ 380 Estimated Direct Costs: 50 City of Saratoga Community Open Space Needs Survey Proposal Page 7 For Option 1, the door -to -door, face -to -face survey, our estimate for the survey based on all the tasks outlined above would be $24,615 (this includes professional time, direct costs and 10% project management fee). For Option 2, the newsletter /survey, our estimate would be $22,180 (this also includes professional time, direct costs and 10% project management fee). Please note that op- tional tasks 5 and 6 are not included in this cost estimate. Either estimate can be writ- ten into the contract as a not to be exceeded maximum. If you or the consultant selection committee should have any further questions or points of clarification, we would welcome the opportunity to further discuss these. • MIG has managed public involvement projects ranging from $ 5,000.00 to $ 275, 000.00 in 1988 -89. Daniel lacofano will assume Principal -In- Charge responsibilities, Jim Oswald will serve as survey project manager and Carolyn Verheyen will serve as assistant project manager. Based on information outline in the attached scope of work, we estimate that the project will take 4 - 6 weeks to complete. The following is a list of recent survey clients: Sharon McNamee Recreation Director City of San Rafael P.O. Box 60 San Rafael, CA 94915 (415) 485 -3337 9 Pickleweed Park Master Plan Survey - Clay Lee Recreation Director City of Hollister 300 West Street Hollister, CA 95023 (408) 637 -8137 City of Hollister Community Survey Paul Schabracq City of Pleasant Hill 3300 North Main Street Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 (415) 944 -3259 City of Pleasant Hill Community Survey q I l f1 7 7 i J I I I City of Saratoga Community Open Space Needs Survey Proposal Page 8 We are grateful for the opportunity to provide you with a task outline and proposal and look forward to the possibility of working with you and your staff on the City of Saratoga Community Open Space Needs Survey. Sincerely yours, MOORE IACOFANO Daniel lacofano, PhD, RESOLUTION NUMBER RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL' 'OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE F.Y. 1990 BUDGET WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the City Manager thaz the following transfer of appropriations and increase in the present budget appropriations be mace: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, Saratoga adopted by Resolution Transfer: that the budget of the City of be amended as follows: $10,805 (0001 -2000) from Fund Balance $10,835 (2026 -4510) to Contract Services ?urpose: To fund the Community Open Space :Needs Survey. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council heid on the 2nd day of August, 1989 by the following vote: AYES. NOES: ABSENT: - - - - - -- MAYOR ATTEST: DEPUTY CITY CLERK SARATOGA CITY comicn EXECU':'IVL SDMMM NG. MEETING DATE: Q -g -Rg ORIGINATING DEPT= ENGINEERING SUBJECTt FINAL P.CCFP'lANCE AND FILE NOTICE OF COMPLETION. HANDICAP PICNIC AREA IN QUITO PARK Recommended Motion: AGMM ITEM L4 CITY MGR. APPROVAL The work on above project has been satisfactorily completed and it is our recommendation that this work be accepted and "Notice of Completion" filed. Report swMa" : The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on April 19, 1989 awarded the contract.for the above project to Collishaw Construction, Inc. The work on the project has been satisfactorily completed and it is recommended that this work be accepted. Fiscal i=acts: Total cost - $21,349.15. Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion. 2. Progress Payment - Total construction cost of $21,349.15. Motion and Vote: PROJECT: ' HANDICAP PICNIC AREA, W.UIU rfua� DATE: 6 -9 -R9 EST. NO. 3. FROM: 5 -7 -89 TO: 6 -5 -89 1 Construct BBQ 2 Install Construct A.0 RFC_ORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENT 1 l.1CY UL JaL-' -- I ( TOTAL DOE: 13777 Fruitvale Avenue P.O.# ADDRESS: 1125 N��*v Road Saratoga, CA. 95070 FUND # ,.� CHECKED BY: eIL ./ Z DATE. %'94 TOTAL PAYMENT: 19,214.23 ACCT. # DATE San Jose, Ca. 95133 ��- APPROVED BY: PHONE: ( 408 ) 995 - 34na 12 756.60 1 PROGRAM # LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS: " o UNIT Date WORK DONE qORK DONE TOTAL WORK RICE TOTAL PREVIOUS ES THIS EST. WORK DONE TOTAL DUE- DONE REMARKS 158.0 4458.0 2,229.0 2,229A)" 4.458.0 100 130-0 309n-n 3.0 .0 3.00 3 090.0 100 i n n-,c n 3.500. 1 5.0- 8 1 1 TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: I ( TOTAL DOE: 21,349.15 P.O.# MADE BY: J- Q �'/ LESS lOt RETENTION: 2,134.92 34.92 FUND # ,.� CHECKED BY: eIL ./ Z DATE. %'94 TOTAL PAYMENT: 19,214.23 ACCT. # DATE ��- APPROVED BY: 12 756.60 1 PROGRAM # LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS: Date PAYMENT DUE THIS EST.: 6 457.63 DIVISION # SHEET OF ' f RECORDING REQUESTED BY City Clerk r AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO I N.— City of Saratoga Slre Ad",, 13777 Frllitvale Avenge C:n a L Saratoga, Ca. 95070 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE uP is herebygiven that ....................... . the undersigned, ...Hailg?. R... PeaooC............ .............................................................................................................................. ............................... .............................. /the agent oft" the owner....... of th............. certain lot............ piece..............., or, parcel ............. of land .situated in the .......... %TT.x....... SARATOGA........... ............................... County of ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••.•••...........I State of California, and described as follows, to -wit: HANDICAP PICNIC AREA IN QUITO PARK That .................... CI.TY ..OF SARATOGA ............................................................................... .............................. ................................................. ............................... . as owner...... of said land, did, on the .... 1.9th...... day of ............ Agx il ... ............................... 19.89........... , enter into a contract with ......................... .......... ................................... ............... lixt ..;; ................... ............................... for ................................................................................................................................. ............................... .......................... ......................HANP�t',. PAC NIC• ARFA. IN (�[JITO P'n' ............................................ ................................................................................................................................. ............................... upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the ........ ............................... county of .................................. ............................... , State of California, on the................................................ day of ................................................ 19 ............; That on the ............ 7th . ............................... day of ......... J} AY. ............................... . 19 ...89.... the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ................... :................................................. .................... ..............................; That the name ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said property are as follows: CITY OF SARATOGA . 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 and the nature of ........ ............................... title to said property is ........................ ............................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................... ................................................. ............................... STATE OF CALIFORNIA Owner ............ ss. By ............... ............................... Countyof ...................................................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................... beingduly sworn . ........................................................................................... ............................... says: I am .......... [the agent of]* the owner...... of the property described in the foregoing notice. I have read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge. Subscribed and sworn to before me this .......................... day of ...................... 19 ....... ................................................. ............................... ........................................... ............................... ................................................ ............................... ' Delete words in brackets if owner signs. TM. 410W lMttt i. onW . OwMM f «m .VhiCI m a 0•°t»t fm ° in umpl. tom 11—.b in no wy tcn, « i. inn 4W to n . MtbttiNM 1« the .dsom of w at ° ". TIM Mbf iNMt don not —k. .y v. .itt- ..W— « Imlpti.d .. to M. IqI Aayjmd 3.. 4.' CUSTOMER- SARI. • 0 COL_L.I SHAW (.:UNSl_RiJC'T'lON. INC.. 1.125 MABLIRY RC) SAN JOSE :.. CA `::351 33 I NVO I F_�.E NO. 890700.)7 INVC)ICE ,.)ATE'.. C)7 /c_':1 /39 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRl_JITVAI__E AVENIJE JOB NUMBER- 03919 SARATOGA. CA 95070 HANDICAP PICNIC, AREA -OU I TO PK CONTRACT NLJMSER :- �`�i.'[_ *--- CONTRACT SCHEDULE OF VALUES - -- **PREVIOUS BILLINGS - * *- CURRENT BILLINGS- * *-- TLITAL BILLINGS —* ITEM DESCRIPTION U/M ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ QTY UNIT S TOTAL $ QTY TOTAL $ QTY TOTAL $ QTY TOTAL $ 0001 CONSTRUCT BAR -B -QUE 100.00% 4458.00 75.01% 3344.00 24.99% 1114.00 100.00% 4458.00 0002 INSTALL HANDICAP TABLES EA 3.00 1030.00 3090.00 3.00 3090.00 .00 .00 3.00 3090.00 0003 INSTALL A.C.OVER AGG.BASE PVNG SF 7500.00 2.53 18975.00 4664.00 11800.00 791.00 2001.15 5455.00 13801.15 26523.00 18234.00 TOTAL: LESS RETENTION AT: 10.00% LESS PREVIOUS BILLINGS: DUE THIS INVOICE: 3115.15 21349.15 21349.1 - 2134.92 - i64ir3.60 2903.64 SARATOGA CM COUNCIL EXECU'T'IVE SiJiWM NO. MEETING DATES 8 -2 -89 ORXGINATING DEPTs ENGINEERING SUSJECTs QUITO PARK RENOVATION Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: Approve Appropriation Resolution No. The work on the above project has been satisfactorily completed and it is our reconanendation that this work be accepted and "Notice of Completion" filed. Report Su mNLry: The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting in March 15, 1989 awarded the contract for above project to Collishaw Construction, Inc. Due to addition of block wall and gate opening in fence, the construction cost ran over by $1,843.00 The work on the project has been satisfactorily completed and it is recommended that this work be accepted. Piscal• Imoactss Total construction cost $70,868.00. Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion.. 2. Progress Payment. 3. Approve Appropriation Resolution No. Motion and Vote: PROJECT: WIM PARK RUMATTCN DATE: EST. NO. FROM: TO: PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 Sheet 1 of 1 CONTRACTOR: ca[l -qH W ORNSTR]CTICN, INC_ ADDRESS.: 1125 Mabuzy Reload San Jose, Ca. 95133 UNIT WRK. DONE TOTAL UNIT TOTAL %WORK BID ITEM QUAWITY PRICE TOTAL PREVIOUS THIS EST WRR.DONE PRICE DUE DONE REMAR EST. Canstn t 6 Lmx1scape 1 For Quito Paxk Renovation L.S. 63 860.00 63 860.00 80.0 L 20% 1 nn nn 63,860.0 Alternate 1 L.S. 1,800.00. 1,800.00 80.0 8 208 100.0 11800.0 1 800.00 100.0 1 3' Alternate 2 L.S. 2.940.00 2,940.00 80.08 208 94 - 2-94Q-0 100-0 4 Alternate 4 L.S. 425.00 1 400 80 08 208 5 Install gate boxes 3 50.0 150.0 0.0 3.0 3. 50.0 150.0 100.0 Add Coarse Block Wall L.S. 1,133.00 1,133.0 0.0 L. L.S.--f" 1,133,0 / 4 7 Add Openirxg in Fence L.S. �- 260.0 260.0 0 :S. 260.0 260-0 inn-n I Remove & Replade Back of �. p 8. Horse Shoe L.S. 300..0 300,P 0.0. ' .S. L 0.0 300.0 10 0 Cr �� f�' �i RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS rTAL DUE 70 - LESS 10% RETENTION 5-24-19R9 = TOTAL PAYMENT 3 781 2o- F31,934.70 6 -21 -1989 ,997.30 Made By: -LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS 49 932.00 Checked By. PAYMENT DUE THIS i3A4g 2n- TOTAL 49,932.00 Approved by: CUSTOMER: SAR1 LOLL I SilAW CONSTRUCTION. INC. 1.1:25 MABURY RD SAN JOSE. CA 95133 INVOICE NO: 8907006 INVOICE DATE.: C >7/ 21 /89 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE JOB NUMBER: 06918 SARATOGA, CA 95070 QUITO PARK CONTRACT NUMBER: * -- CONTRACT SCHEDULE OF VALUES --**PREVIOUS BILLINGS - }*-CURRENT BILLINGS - **- -TOTAL BILLINGS --* ITEM DESCRIPTION U/M OTY UNIT $ TOTAL $ QTY TOTAL $ QTY TOTAL $ OTY TOTAL $ 0001 MOBILIZATION 100.00% 3500.00 100.00% 3500.00 .00% .00 100.00% 3500.00 0002 DEMOLITION 100.00% 9400.00 100.00% 9400.00 .00% .00 100.00% 9400.00 0003 GRADING.ENGINEERING COMPACTION 100.00% .00 .00 .Op ,00% ,Op 0004 AND BASEROCK HEADERS 100.00% 9510.00 100.00% 9510.00 .00% .00 100.00% 9510.00 0005 DECOMPOSED GRANITE PAVING 100.00% 5800.00 100.00% 5800.00 .00% .00 100.00% 5800.00 0006 A.C. PAVING 100.00% 4000.00 100.00% 4000.00 .00% .00 100.00% 4000.00 0007 CONCRETE WORK 100.00% 4800.00 95.00% 4560.00 5.00% 240.00 100.00% 4800.00 0008 FENCING 100.00% 9800.00 100.00% 9800.00 .00% .00 100.00% 9800.00 0009 CARPENTRY 100.00% 4750.00 98.00% 4655.00 2.00% 95.00 100.00% 4750.00 0010 MASONRY 100.00% 2100.00 100.00% 2100.00 .00% .00 100.00% 2100.00 0011 IRRIGATION 100.00% 7200.00 100.00% 7200.00 ,00% .00 100.00% 7200.00 0012 MISC.SITE FURNISHINGS 100.00% 3000.00 100.00% 3000.00 .00% .00 100.00% 3000.00 0013 ALTERNATE 11- STORAGE SHED 100.00% 1800.00 75.00% 1350.00 25.00% 450.00 100.00% 1800.00 0014 ALTERNATE 02- BLEACHERS 100.00% 2940.00 100.00% 2940.00 .00% .00 100.00% 2940.00 0015 ALTERNATE WORNAM:NTAL FENCE 100.00% 425.00 100.00% 425.00 .00% .00 100.00% 425.00 0016 EXTRA WORK : 100.00% .00 .00 .00 .00% .00 0017 REMOVE I REPLACE POSTS AT 100.00% .00 .00 .00 .00% .00 0018 HORSESHOE PITS (4EA @ $75.00) 100.00% 300.00 .00% .00 100.00% 300.00 100.00% 300.00 0019 REPLACE VALVE BOXES IN PAVED 100.00% .00 .00 .00 .00% .00 0020 AREAS (3EA @ $50.00) 100.00% 150.00 .00% .00 100.00% 150.00 100.00% 150.00 0021 ADDTL COARSE BLOCK ON WALL 100.00% 1133.00 .00% .00 100.00% 1133.00 100.00% 1133.00 0022 ADD OPENING TO ORNAMNTL FENCE 100.00% 260.00 .00% .00 100.00% 260.00 100.00% 260.00 70868.00 68240.00 2628.00 70868.00 TOTAL: 70868.00 LESS RETENTION AT: 10.00% - 7086.80 LESS PREVIOUS BILLINGS: - 61416.00 DUE THIS INVOICE: 2365,20 RESOLUTION NUMBER RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COuNCI.L OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE F.Y. 1990 BUDGE:' WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the City Manager that the following transfer of appropriations and increase in the present budget appropriations be made: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution be amended as follows: Transfer: $1,843 (0031 -2C00) from Fund Balance $1,843 (9310 - 4510 -0945) to Contract Services Purpose: To fund the additional costs of Quito Park Renovation. • The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 2nd day of August, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: --------------- -- DEPUTY CITY CLERK 6 i ----------------- - - - - -- MAYOR a SARATOGA CITY CODMCIL EXECUTIVE SDMMU N0. G2 MEETING DA'Z'E= 8=289 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECTS AMUM CONTRACT RECONSTRUCTION AND OVERLAY VARIOUS CITY STREETS Recommend6d Motion: AGENDA ITEM I (R, CITY MGR. APPROVAL Award contract for Reconstruction and Overlay of Various City Streets. Report summary: The City received two bids on July 27, 1989; the lowest bid Grade -Wa Construction.of Fremont with a total bid of $434,402.95. This projec is is,part of the Pavement Management Program. Fiscal Imoacts: $434,402.95 budget. attachments: General Fund. This project was approved in the 1989 -1990 1. Bid Summary. Motion and Vote: ,b (l- 4 Community Development DeDarttrient -PROJECT. ))AT�1 July '27gg 9 - _ . — . Y -- 'BID SUMMARY for 1989 c •. No- Description A. . �•r�i /I,4[K =1 •i • ■ ��1�. =1 �� • � I'� ►_ �� a �� I,'�■ r: : • � I,• •:, r_.} Road Dcdavation____ _�� Concrete on Streets Repair Failure Sectionfil L-- ••- 1. MIMM&M- M � m - / No- Description rr• �� `�/ / / • r • I I/ • • • ' 1 1 ®MO ♦ I '' Ji • ml CHIP ml --� -I mi ml ®o� ml —�� m o ml �� ■ m! ml r�!t SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ) t0 �0 MEETING DATE: August 2, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney SUBJECT: Subordination of loan to Saratoga Court Recommended Motion: Inc. AGENDA ITEM L CITY MGR. APPROVAL Adoption of Resolution approving Subordination Agreement with Saratoga Court, Report Summary: The proposed subordination agreement has been requested by the Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition to enable them to buy out the ownership interest in Saratoga Court held by the "for profit" investor. The transaction will promote the continued operation of Saratoga Court as a rental project for low income senior citizens, as explained in more detail in the Memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. Fiscal Impacts: No cash impact. The Agreement will subordinate the existing loan from the City to a new loan in the amount of $271,000 being made by a nonprofit organization. Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney to City Council. (b) Proposed City Council Resolution. (c) Subordination Agreement. Motion and Vote: PAUL B. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD PAUL K. ROBERTSON TO: FROM: RE: DATE: ATKINSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL HAL TOPPEL, CITY ATTORNEY J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979) SUBORDINATION OF LOAN ON SARATOGA COURT APARTMENTS JULY 25, 1989 Saratoga Court Apartments is one of the few multi - family rental projects in the City exclusively reserved for low income senior citizens. In 1984, Saratoga Court was under private ownership and there was a serious risk that it would become a "market rate" project. To preserve these low income rental units, the City and the County made a combined loan to a nonprofit corporation organized by the Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition, which purchased the project. The City advanced $50,000 and the County advanced $250,000, all of which came from CDBG funds. In addition, the Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition raised the balance of the required cash down payment by syndicating part of the ownership to a "for profit" investor. The indebtedness owed to the City and the County is evidenced by a single promissory note payable to both agencies, which is secured by a rather complicated Pledge Agreement. No interest is being charged on the loan, no monthly payments are being collected, and the loan will only become due and payable in the event the project is sold, or refinanced, or is no longer being used exclusively for low income senior housing. In this regard, the loan was very similar to a SHARP loan, except on a larger scale. We are now advised by the Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition that the "for profit" investor has offered to sell its ownership interest in the project at a price the Coalition considers to be reasonable. The Coalition has obtained a loan from the Low Income Housing Fund, a nonprofit organization whose purpose, as the name indicates, is to establish or preserve low income housing. The buy out of the "for profit" investor will result in the entire ownership interest in Saratoga Court being held by the nonprofit corporation. The transaction should certainly eliminate any future pressure from within to convert the project into market rate or non - senior housing. There is currently a first deed of trust against the property in the amount of approximately $450,000. The proposed loan from the Low Income Housing Fund, to which the City and the County have been requested to subordinate, will be approximately $271,000. Thus, if the Subordination Agreement is executed, the total debt having priority over the City /County loan will be approximately $720,000. -1- Although we do not have a current appraisal on the property, given the nature of Saratoga real estate, it is fair to say that the market value of this 20 unit apartment complex substantially exceeds $1,000,0.00, which will be the approximate combined debt of the existing first deed of trust, the new loan from the Low Income Housing Fund, and the existing City /County loan. We are told that the County of Santa Clara has approved the transaction and executed the Subordination Agreement. It is my opinion (apparently shared by the County) that the proposed loan would not constitute a "refinancing" of the property since all of the existing debt will remain in place. Moreover, the City's only purpose in making the loan was to preserve the low income senior housing provided by Saratoga Court. Repayment of the loan, or even interest on the indebtedness, was not a factor. The subordination will certainly change the position of the City in terms of security, but to the extent the buy out will serve to insure the continued availability of these low income senior units, the objectives of the City are being promoted by this transaction. Moreover, the increase in the value of the property since 1984 should be sufficient to accomodate the creation of $271,000 of additional senior debt without impairing the security for the City's loan. Ms. Fran Wagstaff, the Coalition, will be present at your have concerning this transaction. Executive Director of the Mid Peninsula Housing meeting to answer any questions the Council may -2- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING A SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT WITH SARATOGA COURT, INC. WHEREAS, on or about July 31, 1984, the City of Saratoga made a loan to Crescent Terrace, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation, in the amount of $50,000, to finance the acquisition of Saratoga Court Apartments and the operation of such property as a low- income senior citizen project, such loan being combined with a loan from the County of Santa Clara to Crescent Terrace, Inc. in the amount of $250,000; and WHEREAS, Saratoga Court, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation, is the successor in interest to Crescent Terrace, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition, one of the principals in Saratoga Court, Inc., desires to purchase the ownership interest in the project held by the "for profit" investor; and rr LKEAS, the funds for the proposed buy out will be provided by a new loan in the amount of $271,000 from the Low Income Housing Fund, a nonprofit organization; and WHEREAS, the Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition has represented to the City that current income from the project is sufficient to pay the combined debt service on the existing loans against the property and the proposed new loan; and WHEREAS, the Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition has requested the City to subordinate its existing loan to the new loan from the Low Income Housing Fund, and has presented to the City a proposed form of Subordination Agreement to accomplish such purpose, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara has approved the subordination of its loan to a new loan from the Low Income Housing Fund to Saratoga Court, Inc., and has executed the Subordination Agreement, WHEREAS, The City Council hereby finds and determines that: (a) The proposed acquisition will result in the entire ownership interest in Saratoga Court Apartments being held by a nonprofit corporation. (b) The proposed acquisition will facilitate the continued operation of Saratoga Court Apartments as a low income senior citizen project. (c) The new loan by the Low Income Housing Fund does not constitute a refinancing of any existing indebtedness against the property so as to make the loan from the City immediately due and payable. -1- NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows; 1. The Subordination Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Subordination Agreement for and on behalf and in the name of the City of Saratoga and to deliver the same to Santa Clara Land Title Company, together with a certified copy of this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk. -2- Mayor RECORDING REQUESTED BY: SANTA CLARA LAND TITLE COMPANY #SP34406 LZ WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: REC FEE MICRO LIENNOT SMPF E X H I B I T "A" SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT NOTICE: THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT RESULTS IN YOUR SECURITY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BE- COMING SUBJECT TO AND OF LOWER PRIORITY THAN THE LIEN OF SOME OTHER OR LATER SECURITY INSTRUMENT. THIS AGREEMENT, made this 3rd day of July . 19 89 . by SARATOGA COURT, INC., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation owner of the land hereinafter described and hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and County of Santa Clara and City of Saratoga, political subdivisions of the State of California present owner and holder of a Pledge Agreement, first hereinafter described and hereinafter referred to as "Pledgee ", WITNESSETH THAT WHEREAS, Saratoga Court, Inc., a California nonprofit benefit public corporation, succes! didmmmaiim in interest to Crescent Terrace, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation did execute a Pledge Agreement ( "Pledge ") to the County of Santa Clara and the City of Saratoga, policitical subdivisions of the State of California, covering all that property described as follows: to secure the "Pledge" , dated July 31, 1984 , in favor of The County o Santa Clara and City of Saratoga which "Pledge" was recorded June 26, 1985 in book J 384 page 192 Official Records of said county; and WHEREAS, Owner has executed, or is about to execute, a deed of trust and note in the sum of S 271, 000.00 dated June 16, 1989 in favor of Low— Income Housing Fund, a California nonprofit Corporation , hereinafter referred to as "Lender," payable with interest and upon the terms and conditions de- scribed therein, which deed of trust is to be recorded concurrently herewith; and WHEREAS, it is a condition precedent to obtaining said loan that said deed of trust last above mentioned shall unconditionally be and remain at all times a lien or charge upon the land hereinbefore described, prior and superior to the lien or charge of the "Pledge" first above mentioned; and WHEREAS, lender is willing to make said loan provided the deed of trust securing the same is a lien or charge upon the above described property prior and superior to the lien or charge of the "Pledge" first above mentioned and provided that Beneficiary will specifi- cally and unconditionally subordinate the lien or charge of the "Pledge" first above mentioned to the lien or charge of the deed of trust in favor of Lender; and WHEREAS, it is to the mutual benefit of the parties hereto that Lender make such loan to Owner; and Beneficiary is willing that the deed of trust securing the same shall, when recorded, constitute a lien or charge upon said land which is unconditionally prior and superior to the lien or charge of the "Pledge" first above mentioned. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutuar benefits accruing to the parties hereto and other valuable consideration, the re- ceipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, and in order to induce Lender to make the loan above referred to, it is hereby declared, understood and agreed as follows: (1) That said deed of trust securing said note in favor of Lender, and any renewals or extensions thereof, shall unconditionally be and remain at all times a lien or charge on the property therein described, prior and superior to the lien or charge of the "Pledge" first above mentioned. (2) That Lender would not make its loan above described without this subordination agreement. (3) That this agreement shall be the whole and only agreement with regard to the subordination of the lien or charge of the "Pledge" first above mentioned to the lien or charge of the deed of trust in favor of lender above referred to and shall supersede and cancel, but only insofar as would affect the priority between the deeds of trust hereinbefore specifically de- s—crib—d, any prior agreement as to such subordination including, but not limited, those provisions, if any, contained in the "Pled e" first above mentioned, which provide for the subordination of the lien or charge thereof to another deed or deeds of trust or to another mortgage or mortgages. Beneficiary declares, agrees and acknowledges that (a) He consents to and approves (i) all provisions of the note and deed of trust in favor of Lender above referred to, and (ii) all agreements, including but not limited to any loan or escrow agreements, between Owner and Lender for the disbursement of the proceeds of Lender's loan; (b) Lender in making disbursements pursuant to any such agreement is under no obligation or duty to, nor has Lender represented that it will, see to the application of such proceeds by the person or persons to whom Lender disburses such proceeds and any application or use of such proceeds for purposes other than those provided for in such agree- ment or agreements shall not defeat the subordination herein made in whole or in part; (c) He intentionally and unconditionally waives, relinquishes and subordinates the lien or charge of the "Pledge" first above mentioned in favor of the lien or charge upon said land of the deed of trust in favor of Lender above re- ferred to and understands that in reliance upon, and in consideration of, this waiver, relinquishment and subordination specific loans and advances are being and will be made and, as part and parcel thereof, specific monetary and other obligations arebeing and will be entered into which would not be made or entered into but for said reliance upon this waiver, relinquishment and subordination, NOTICE: THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT CONTAINS A PROVISION WHICH ALLOWS THE PERSON OBLIGATED ON YOUR REAL PROPERTY SECURITY TO OBTAIN A LOAN A PORTION OR WHICH MAY BE EXPENDED FOR OTHER PURPOSES THAN IMPROVEMENT OF THE LAND. SARATOGA COURT, INC., a California nonprofit benefit public corporation The County of Santa Clara By_; By; 1, Its; Fran Wagstaff, Executive Director BY; Its; The City of Saratoga By; s Its; By . Its; i CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of 1 On this the day of SS. )ersonally appeared 19_, before me, PLEASE s=GiNT AND ACKNOWLEDGE dathefwithin instrument as THIS INSTRUMENT BEFORE A —or on behalf of the corporation therein NOTARY PUBLIC, a that the corporation executed it. Seal. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. I� _� 1 MEETING DATE: August 2, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk AGENDA ITEM U CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed Abatement Charges Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution. Report Summary: Under State and local laws, local governments routinely abate the seasonal fire hazards of weed growth on undeveloped property. For the County and several cities, including Saratoga, this weed abatement program is administered by the County Fire Marshal's Office. In many cases, property owners find it convenient to have government take care of weed removal and to pay through a property tax lien. This past year, the County performed weed abatement on 122 par- cels in Saratoga. Tax liens and assessments on the owners of these parcels range from $8.09 to $1,879.73. In order to recover this cost, it is necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution confirming the assessments and directing the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on the property tax bill. Publicity Because of changes in personnel, the County Fire Marshal's Office neglected to inform the City of the proposed public hearing date until after the Council's July 5 meeting. Thus, there was no opportunity for the Council to consider additional noticing. However, no additional noticing has been recommended or directed in the past. Earlier in the weed abatement season, affected property owners were mailed notice of the County's intention to perform weed abatement and of the opportunity to protest; none did so. Notice of tonight's hearing was published in the Mercury and posted at the City Hall. Fiscal Impacts• None upon City if resolution is passed. City may be liable for work performed by contractor for any assessments not levied. Attachments: Resolution with list of assessments. Motion and Vote: OK r . RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on August 2, 1989, the Fire Marshal of Santa Clara County submitted a report to this City Council consisting of all unpaid bills for weed abatement expenses and a proposed assessment list, and the parcels against which said expenses, including applicable administrative and collection costs are to be assessed, all pursuant to Article II, Ch. 6 of the Saratoga City Code, and WHEREAS, the City Council, having heard said report and all objections thereto, and the Council, finding that no modifications need to be made to any of said assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 1989 Weed Abatement Assessments Report, City of Saratoga, prepared by the Fire Marshal of Santa Clara County, which report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, be and hereby is confirmed. Each of said parcels as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" is declared to have a lien against it in the amount set opposite said parcel number in the last column thereof; and the Santa'Clara County Auditor is hereby directed to enter the amounts of said assessments against the respective parcels of land on the County Tax Roll, and to collect the same at the time and in the manner as general municipal property taxes are collected. A certified copy of this resolution and assessments shall be filed with the Santa Clara County Auditor. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 2nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: • Deputy City Clerk Mayor 1989 NZED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA PAGE NO. 1 as OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS CITY S STATE ZIP CODE TAX ROLL �g 086 -41 -015 TCW REALTY FUND II HOLDING CO 400 S HOPE ST SUITE 600 LOS ANGELES CA 90071. 65.79 366 -05 -026 DE LA CRUZ MICHAEL AND HEIDI 12201 BROOKGLEN DR SARATOGA CA 95070. 288.11 366 -05 -033 DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 3600 PRUNERIDGE AV NO 340 SANTA CLARA CA 95051. 520.31 366 -43 -008 ARIMA RONALD H AND MASAYE L 1018 LEITH AV SANTA CLARA CA 95050. 173.96 366 -48 -001 SINSLEY DOUGLAS E AND KRISTINE M 1512 JARVIS CT SAN JOSE CA 95118 165.36 366 -48 -002 HEINDEL JOHN H AND NOLA C PO BOX 3452 SARATOGA CA 95070 165.36 366 -49 -011 SUN KAI C AND LINDA S 13736 FORTUNA CT SARATOGA CA 95070. 165.36 366 -50 -004 LOWRY ROBERT C AND SALLY U 12610 ARROYD DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070 165.36 366 -50 -005 VALLEY TITLE CO 125 E SUNNYOAKS AV 108 CAMPBELL CA 95008. 189.49 386 -12 -040 KLINE ROGER G AND PEGGY S 12624 PASEO FLARES SARATOGA CA 95070 82.68 386 -44 -038 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C 0.0000 614.67 386 -44 -040 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 0.0000 103.44 386 -47 -035 COX HELENE T 19161 COX AV SARATOGA CA 95070 284.74 386 -53 -027 GALEB SLOBODAN ET AL 12340 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA CA 95070. 189.80 389 -06 -008 MEDICAL VILLAGE OF SARATOGA PO BOX 2067 SARATOGA CA 95070. 103.36 389 -06 -016 MEDICAL VILLAGE SARATOGA PO BOX 2067 SARTOGA CA 95070. 93.01 389 -06 -017 389 -10 -005 MVS CO CAL -WEST COMMUNITIES INC PO BOX 2067 2901 MOOREPARK AV NO 270 SARATOGA CA 95070 1,302.20 389 -10 -006 CAL -WEST COMMUNITIES INC 2901 MOOREPARK AV NO 270 SAN JOSE CA SAN JOSE CA 95128. 95128. 51.40 35.10 389 -19 -019 COSTA MANUEL F JR KATHRINE G 5622 MADDEN AVE LIVE OAK CA 95959. 176.35 389 -23 -006 AMSTUTZ ALLEN G AND GAIL 18733 METLER CT SARATOGA CA 95070. 151.92 393 -02 -003 SANFILIPPO PHILIP S AND MARTHA E 225 BUSH ST ROOM 917 -B SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104. 178.20 397 -01 -053 WORTHINGTON J R AND BARBARA A 14131 TEN ACRES CT SARATOGA CA 95070. 151.70 397 -01 -054 KOURETAS PETE AND BESSE 14153 TEN ACRES ST SARATOGA CA 95070 549.07 397 -01 -055 HORNE DONALD R AND MARY T ET AL 14175 TEN ACRES CT SARATOGA CA 95070. 268.70 397 -03 -029 SZLENDAK CASIMIR AND MARY W 18843 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070. 165.71 397 -03 -080 SCHALLER KEVIN D AND KATHRYN 1860 S BASCOM AV CAMPBELL CA 95008. 286.77 397 -03 -081 GALEB SLOBODAN AND MARGARET 12340 S SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA CA 95070. 392.98 397 -03 -082 CALEB SLOBODAN AND MARGARET 12340 S SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA CA 95070. 321.49 397 -03 -083 GALEB SLOBODAN AND MARGARET 12340 S SARATOGA- SUNNYVLAE RD SARATOGA CA 95070. 285.32 397 -03 -084 JAYAKUMAR N AND ASHA 2770 GALUSER DR SAN JOSE CA 95133. 343.27 397 -03 -085 SANJIDEH, SANJIDEH, HIRSCH & TALE ET AL 1804 S EL CAMINO REAL SAN MATED CA 94402. 287.38 397 -05 -006 WOODHULL ROBERT B 18530 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070. 41.12 397 -05 -053 SAIID SHAHABI & ROGHIEH SHAHABI 4078 SHONA COURT SAN JOSE, CA 95124. 157.61 397 -07 -094 LEPOSAVIC WAYNE 15466 LOS GATOS BLVD STE 109 -114 LOS GATOS CA 95030. 511.80 397 -13 -055 FRANKEL LOUIS S AND SHEILA A 1700 THE ALAMEDA NO 300 SAN JOSE CA 95126. 48.76 397 -15 -014 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER 50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150. 51.40 397 -15 -016 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER 50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150. 39.95 397 -24 -022 503 -09 -007 MOORE ELLEN C VALE DESIGN HOMES 1089 S DANIEL WY SAN JOSE CA 95128. 187.14 503 -13 -039 HORVATH FRANK AND DAGMAR 10122 ADELHEID CT 15209 BLUE GUM CT CUPERTINO CA 95014. 270.09 503 -13 -059 HORVATH FRANK J AND DAGMAR M 15209 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA CA SARATOGA CA 95070. 95070. 162.79 162.79 503 -15 -031 COCCIARDI CORPORATION 22631 MT EDEN RD SARATOGA CA 95070. 90.22 503 -17 -026 MARTINEZ MICHAEL R AND MARILYN J 1901 S BASCOM AVE STE 347 CAMPBELL CA 95008. 1,051.23 503 -17 -058 CARPENTER ARTHUR W AND DOROTHY L 12947 ARROYO DE ARGUELIA SARATOGA CA 95070 744.13 503 -19 -067 TOUGHS BERNARD E AND DORIS G 20604 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070. 264.56 503 -27 -081 ISIDORO FRANK W AND MERNA L 15041 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070. 84.56 503 -28 -112 CHOU CHUEN J AND JUI -YU C 14435 DEER CANYON SARATOGA CA 95070. 94.05 503 -28 -117 503 -28 -118 DICAR INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED PO BOX 908 HALF MOON BAY CA 94019. 217.16 503 -28 -120 DICAR INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED PO BOX 908 HALF MOON BAY CA 94019. 178.58 503 -28 -121 BLUM SHELDON R HUANG JIEH -REN AND MING -CHU 501 GORDON AVE 15040 EL QUITO WY SAN JOSE CA 95127. 451.65 503 -28 -122 ACHKAR GOURBRAN TRUSTEE S ET AL 525 THE PRUNEYARD SARATOGA CA CAMPBELL CA 95070. 95008 259.71 503 -28 -123 NGAI -PESIC KATHERINE 1802 CHENEY DR SAN JOSE CA 95128. 248.75 233.66 V 1989 NEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY TES COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR TS8 CITY OF SARATOGA PAGE NO. 2 AM OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS CITY & STATE ZIP CODE TAX ROLL CHARGE 503 -29 -012 RIDDER JOSEPH B 750 RIDDER PARK DR SAN JOSE CA 95190. 318.32 503 -29 -078 RIDDER JOSEPH B 750 RIDDER PARK DR SAN JOSE CA 95131. 173.63 503 -30 -002 WALKER THOMAS E AND SUSAN 1134 LITTLEOAK CL SAN JOSE CA 95129. 24.24 503 -31 -055 BROWN JOHN P AND JACQUELINE 1233 8 SARATOGA CREEK DR SARATOGA CA 95070. 259.92 503 -31 -056 STOUT ASSOCIATES 15050 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070. 30.24 503 -31 -057 SEVILLA ALBERTO G ET AL 13745 CALLE TACUBA SARATOGA CA 95070. 238.92 503 -31 -059 MCNEISH JAMES W AND ELIZABETH A 19981 LANARK LN SARATOGA CA 95070. 77.53 503 -31 -061 TEERLINK HEBER N ET AL 141 N 1ST ST LOS ALTOS CA 94022. 86.64 503 -31 -065 TEERLINK RANCH LTD 141 N 1ST ST LOS ALTOS CA 94022. 238.29 503 -31 -067 TEERLINK HEBER N ET AL 141 N 1ST ST LOS ALTOS CA 94022. 9.55 503 -31 -068 TEERLINK HEBER N ET AL 141 N 1ST ST LOS ALTOS CA 94022. 520.87 503 -31 -069 TEERLINK HEBER N ET AL 141 N 1ST ST LAS ALTOS CA 94022. 8.09 503 -31 -070 TEERLINK HEBER N ET AL 141 N 1ST ST LOS ALTOS CA 94022. 59.33 503 -31 -077 HO MARK ET AL 1506 LYLE DR SAN JOSE CA 95129. 17.77 503 -31 -078 TEERLINK RANCH LTD 141 N 1ST ST LAS ALTOS CA 94022. 16.30 503 -31 -085 MOLLARD ROY S TRUSTEE 6 ET AL 10728 DEEP CLIFFE DR CUPERTINO CA 95014. 516.04 503 -31 -088 HWANG JOSEPH J AND LILY L 19885 WHEATON DR CUPERTINO CA 95014. 616.28 503 -31 -090 NAROG KIM AND LESLIE A 13164 KEVIN ST SARATOGA CA 95070. 273.57 503 -31 -091 BROWN STEPHEN H AND JANICE S 1131 COMPASS LANE #314 FOSTER CITY CA 94404. 255.30 503 -31 -100 PALMER WILLIAM AND CHARLENE TRUSTEE 10900 LUCKY OAK CT CUPERTINO CA 95014. 329.90 503 -31 -101 HAO HSIEH T AND MING C 28060 STORY HILL LN LOS ALTOS CA 94022. 18.22 503 -31 -104 ROBERT & JONNA HILL 15104 BEL ESCOU DRIVE SAN JOSE CA 95124. 18.36 503 -31 -105 LUTHRA K AND TRIPTA VIRENDER 6951 GRANDWOOD WAY SAN JOSE, CALIF. 95120. 262.43 503 -31 -107 HWANG JOSEPH J AND LILY L 19884 WHEATON DR CUPERTINO CA 95014. 69.61 503 -51 -003 PERASSO CLOTILDE M TRUSTEE 596 PACIFIC AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94133. 424.43 503 -53 -061 DHAKA VIR AND MOHINI 31028 MARNE DR RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90274 83.16 503 -55 -045 VAJDIC BRANISLAV AND MIRJANA 21201 LUMBERTOWN IN SARATOGA CA 95070. 83.16 503 -55 -053 BLAIR JEROME C AND ARLENE 3549 MAURICIA AVE SANTA CLARA CA 95051 701.93 503 -62 -017 LUI VINCERNT ET AL 1635 ALEXANDER WAY LAS ALTOS CA 94022. 174.27 503 -62 -023 DICAR INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED PO BOX 2849 SATATOGA CA 95070. 61.68 503 -62 -026 FREDERICKSBURG DEVELOPMENT CORP PO BOX 908 HALF NOON BAY CA 94019. 31.14 503 -66 -010 CHANG MU T AND LIN M 21200 CHIQUITA WY SARATOGA CA 95070. 54.20 503 -72 -014 MIAU MATTHEW F AND AHCHEN H 8378 BROWERS AVE MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94040. 540.16 503 -72 -018 KWONG JONATHAN C AND KATHY W 3254 KNIGHTWOOD WY SAN JOSE CA 95148. 308.67 503 -72 -019 YI JIN H AND TONG M 14580 SARATOGA HEIGHTS CT SARATOGA CA 95070. 189.49 503 -72 -022 ESTATE ONE DEVELOPMENT 15431 FRANCIS OAK WY LAS GATOS CA 95032. 275.06 503 -72 -025 TANIGUCHI BEN T AND SCHIKO 21503 SARATOGA HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA CA 95070. 14.09 503 -72 -028 FERRAN DAVID E AND DIANE M 21531 SARATOGA HEIGHTS DR SARATOGA CA 95070. 385.84 503 -72 -034 HSU FU -CHIEH AND CHENG -YIH 21775 CONGRESS HALL LN SARATOGA CA 95070. 66.53 503 -72 -036 THhKUR SARVAJIT AND NEELAM 19112 DAHU IN SARATOGA CA 95070. 617.35 503 -72 -037 BEDARD CHARLES J AND KAREN 21700 VINTAGE IN SARATOGA CA 95070. 254.05 503 -72 -038 LEE BRIAN P AND TSO -HUEI 923 OLD TOWN CT CUPERTINO CA 95014. 486.34 503 -75 -008 DAVIS ANTHONY M AND ISHBEL 21770 CONGRESS HALL LN SARATOGA CA 95070. 366.55 503 -75 -010 PENDEN LARRY AND JUDITH 18130 CONSTITUTION AVE MONTE SERENO CA 95030. 242.30 503 -75 -016 LUTHRA VIRENDER K AND TRIPA 6951 GRANDWOOD WY SAN JOSE CA 95120. 244.94 503 -75 -017 HOWE FREDERICK AND MARY S 21771 CONGRESS HALL LN SARATOGA CA 95070. 120.53 503 -75 -018 FARSIO ALI AND SHAHNAZ 14600 CARNELIAN GLEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070. 274.91 503 -75 -019 PARKAS CORPORATION 2055 WOODSIDE ROAD SUITE 201 REDWOOD CITY CA 94061. 24.67 517 -18 -046 BUTLER GERALD D AND JUDITH L 15015 VICKERY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070. 41.99 517 -22 -037 KOCHER GEORGE S TRUSTEE 6 ET AL 15139 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070. 92.81 Total $24469.67 V AEN 366 -12 -069 366 -12 -071 366 -20 -033 386 -53 -017 386 -53 -018 386 -53 -019 389 -01 -021 389 -01 -022 389 -01 -023 389 -11 -003 389 -19 -022 393 -17 -004 393 -17 -006 393 -21 -006 ti^ 1989 NEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CIAMA FOR SARATOGA SBE PARCELS PAGE NO. 1 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION C PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC CO TAX ROLL ZIP CODE CHARGE 425.29 1,351.35 191.93 1,879.73 475.15 17.82 927.89 652.06 185.63 888.89 1,812.53 363.87 588.75 383.99 Total $10144.88 /- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL �J EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. K/ C MEETING DATE: August 2 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning AGENDA ITEM: II CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Santa Clara County to the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution. Report Summary: The final changes to the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and its EIR have been adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Cities are now required to approve the Plan. The Plan incorporates the Council's previously drafted comments. After the Plan is approved by the State, cities will be required to incorporate it into their General Plans within 90 days. Staff recommends adoption of the model resolution. Fiscal Impacts: Norte. Attachments: 1) Memo from Planning Director. 2) Implementation matrix from Piaa 3) LIP, addendum (separate document) Motion and Vote: CIK oguw oa O&M ° 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: July 21, 1989 FROM: Steve Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Santa Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan As you are aware, Santa Clara County has been in the process of prepa- ring a County -wide Hazardous Waste Management Plan for the past two years. The Council reviewed the draft plan in June of last year and forwarded its comments to the County for inclusion in the plan. Al- though the plan does not propose any sites in Saratoga, sites are proposed in Los Gatos and Cupertino; therefore, the City's comments focused primarily on the truck ban on future Highway 85, which prec- ludes.the transport of hazardous materials on that freeway as it passes through Saratoga. The goals and policies in the transportation section of the Plan reflect this concern. The County Board of Supe and the EIR addendum on that a majority of the population also approve The County has provided action. rvisors adopted the final changes to the plan July 11, 1989. State legislation requires cities with a majority of the incorporated the County -wide plan and certify the EIR. a model resolution to assist cities in this Planning staff has reviewed the final changes and EIR addendum and finds that there are no adverse impacts on Saratoga or the Council's previously drafted comments. Staff therefore recommends the Council adopt the attached resolution approving the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Attached is a copy of the plan's implementation matrix for your information; it provides a good summary of the plan's objectives. Also included in your agenda packet is the final EIR addendum. After the plan is finally approved by the State Department of Health, cities will be required to incorporate the County's plan into the City's General Plan by reference, within 90 days after the State's approval. Staff will keep you informed of that time schedule and will proce,�;s a Gener_al--)Plan amendment at the appropriate time. 8tephin EmslYe, Planning Director Attachments: Resolution, Implementation matrix TANNER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX The following matrix identifies all of the plan implementation objectives discussed in this chapter. Each objective is accompanied by associated activities, a recommended implementing agency(s), ideal starting date, funding source, and estimated costs. Starting dates for various activities will be influenced by acceptance of a proposed formula for funding Tanner implementation which is requested to begin in fiscal year 1990 -91. 11 -32 Uj W SECTION B: IVASTE REDUCTION: Educational Outreach IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM /ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS WRA. Information Fonn and utilize County Hazardous May 1, 1989 SCVWD Grant for $2,500 exchange, techno- advisory group Waste Unit (HWU) 12 months logy transfer WR -2. Disseminate Fact sheets, case County HWU Fall, 1989 SCVWD Grant $10,000 industry- specific examples, articles, information media WR -3. Provide Workshops, referral County HWU Summer, 1989 SCVWD Grant $7,500 information and network training to gene- rators SCVWD Grant $1,500 WR-4. Work with Press releases, inter- County HWU Ongoing media views, articles WR -5. Provide Develop educational By Fall, 1989 SCVWD Grant $4,500 information to materials to distrib- regulatory inspec- ute during inspec- tors tions WR -6. Develop Order and organize County in coopera- Summer, 1989 $1,000 resource library resource materials tion with DHS, EPA Region 9 w SECTION B: IVASTE REDUCTION: Technical Assistance IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAWACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS WR -7.. Prepare County HWU, State Summer, 1989 SCVWD Grant $10,000 model waste DHS reduction plan R -8. Encourage industry- Develop workshops, County HWU, May 1, 1989 SCVWD Grant $16,000 govern- technical information related departments ment and private ventures Work with trade/ business organiza- tions WR -9. Identify Develop access to County HWU, May 1, 1989 SCVWD Grant $15,000 small generator SQG alternative related departments needs and options waste management practices WR -10. Provide Convene interagency Board of Super- Fall, 1989 Count staff y trained staff and meetings in effort to visors, County "home" for waste establish ongoing Executive reduction program program i w to SECTION B: WASTE REDUCTION: Financial AssistancelEconomic Incentives IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM /ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS WR -11. Work with financial insti- Package and publi- County HWU May 1, 1989 SCVWD Grant for $10,000 cize waste reduction 12 months tutions loans WR -12. Develop e.g. Local waste County HWU May 1, 1989 SCVWD Grant $10,000 access to practices exchange, chemi- with potential cal supplier buy - economic benefits back program WR -13. Encourage/ Demonstration County departments, Ongoing g g coordinate efforts projects cities SCVWD Grant $1,000 to win industry- government grants WR -14. Dissemi- Prepare and dissem- County HWU May 1, 1989 SCVWD Grant Part of Educational nate information on nate materials Outreach economic benefits of waste reduction WR -15. Examine e.g. Tax incentives, County HWU, Ongoing SCVWD Grant $2,500 possible financial reduced fee structures related County incentives departments w SECTION B: IVASTE REDUCTION: Regulatory Measures IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM/ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS WR -16. Adopt Develop plan sub- County HWU, EHD, Upon Plan approval Pending adoption of $100,000 waste reduction mission and review cities, Fire, POTW's, proposed funding See Note 1. plan requirement process DHS formula Develop ordinance County Counsel, Upon Plan approval Local Staff $25,000 estimate City Attorneys, City Planning Depart- ments ,County de- partments, WR -17. Investigate other waste reduc e.g. as special loan DHS, County HWU May 1, 1989 SCVWD Grant $1,000 prerequisite tion plan require ments Review inspection IGC, County HWU, Fall, 1989 SCVWD Grant $6,500 WR -18. Examine forms, possible fee EHD, POTW's, Fire, existing permit breaks, loan priori- Cities programs for ways ties, etc. to encourage waste reduction Meet with enforce- County HWU, Winter, 1989 SCVWD Grant $2,500 WR -19. Formulate/ ment agencies to District Attorney, negotiate alterna- discuss alternative POTW's, EHD, Fire, tive penalties for enforcement options UC Extension certain enforce Develop waste County HWU Winter, 1989 SCVWD Grant $7,500 ment cases reduction training course F" F" w SECTION B: WASTE RED UCTION.Regulatory Measures continued IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM /ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS WR -20. Adopt Examine and dis- County HWU as lead Ongoing SCVWD Grant for $3,500 industry- specific seminate information unit one year; ongoing waste reduction on standards /goals as pending adoption of standards /goals on become available proposed funding industry- specific formula basis WR -21. Investigate Analyze staff train- County HWU, EHD, SCVWD Grant $2,500 appropriate waste ing levels and needs POTW's, Fire, UC reduction training Extension opportunities for County /City staffs H i w co SECTION B: WASTE REDUCTION: Public Recognition IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM/ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS WR -22. Recognize "waste Board of Supervisors County HWU as lead May 1, 1989 SCVWD Grant $3,000 reduction Award, certificates unit achievers" WR -23. Encourage Initiate development County HWU May 1, 1989 SCVWD Grant $1000 company recogni- of employee recog- tion programs nition programs i w SECTION B: WASTE REDUCTION: Data Tracking and Development IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM/ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS WR -24. Establish Setup database County HWU, EHD, Summer, 1989 Pending $50,000 baseline hazardous Data Processing waste generation/ ma agement data- base Input waste reduc- Ongoing Pending $25,000 WR -25. Improve tion plan informa- and update data tion as available; base on ongoing biennial report infor- basis mation i 0 SECTION C: HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT /FACILITY SITING: Facility Siting IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM /ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS HWM -1. Provide Utilize development facility capacity process rocess to Local land -use Upon Plan approvA Permit fee paid by Locally determined evaluate siting agencies, County as needed applicant proposals HWU HWM -2. Negotiate Evaluate proposals Local land -use As needed Applicant permit fee with site devel- with development agencies, Local Locally determined opers review, goals and Assessment Commit - policies, siting tee criteria HWM -3. Size facili- Evaluate proposals Local land -use Ongoing ties to meet fair based on this prin- agencies Local jurisdiction Locally determined share and agree- ciple ment commitments Local land -use Ongoing Local jurisdiction WM -4. Consis- agencies, County Locally determined tency with air and HWU, regional water requirements agencies WM -5. Consis- Local land -use Ongoing Local jurisdiction Locally determined tency with General agencies Plan and CHWMP WM -6. Require Evaluate understand- Local land -use As needed Applicant Depends upon risk assessment for able assessment as - agency project siting proposals art of review i SECTION C: HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT/FACILITY SITING:Inter jurisdictional Agreements IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM/ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS HWM -7. Develop Circulate agree- County HWU, In progress Pending $10,000 agreements ments, cooperative CSAC, ABAG, review by govern- Other counties, ment and industry Cities i N SECTION C: HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT/FACILITY SITING: Industry- Government Partnership IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM /ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS HWM -8. Gain indus- Publicize waste County HWU May 1, 1989 SCVWD Grant $1,000 try participation reduction:facility siting connection HWM -9. On -site per- Research permitting County HWU Fall, 1989 SCVWD Grant $6,000 mitting assistance process for possible role for local govt. HWM -10. Develop Education of genera- County EHD, cities In progress Local staff Local cost "best available tors regarding man - management prac- agement practices for tices" policies for unique wastes unique wastes HWM -11. Industry- Establish mechanism County HWU Summer, 1989 SCVWD Grant $2,500 government infor- for information - mation sharing sharing F- i w SECTION D: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT: Household Hazardous Waste Program IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM/ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS PE -1. Coordinate Ongoing collection County HWU, Cities Proposal in progress; SCVWD Grant $5,000 development of proposal to IGC To IGC in Fall, 1989 countywide HHW Pending adoption of $5,000 mgmt. program Emphasize recycling separate HHW proposal funding proposal Legislative support/ tracking PE -2. Initiate HHW Educate residents/ County HWU, In progress Grants, local staff $25,000 public education local government cities, Chambers of campaign staff Commerce Countywide coordi- nation Informational materi- als: schools and retail outlets, government staff, calendar of events Hotline Designate SCC HHW month i SECTION D: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT: Public Education IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM /ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS PE -3. Engage in Develop and dis- County HWU, cities, Ongoing Local staff Local cost direct public edu seminate information community service cation/ outreach organizations program e.g. Community workshops, School programs, Written articles and bro- chures, Pilot projects PE -4. Participate in Participate in co- Cities, Counties, Ongoing Local staff Local cost other outreach and sponsored activities HWU information cam- that will improve paigns public understanding of issues and solu- tions i SECTION E: PROGRAM COORDINATION AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE: City-County Hazmat Agreement IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM /ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS PC -1. Maintain and Assess in light of IGC Environmental Ongoing Local staff Local cost strengthen hazmat CHWMP objectives Safety Committee, agreement EHD, Fire, County Counsel, City Attor- Gain agreements to Heys, County HWU enhance regulatory compliance Evaluate progress achieved and tasks remaining i rn SECTION E: PROGRAM COORDINATION AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE: Enhanced Regulatory Compliance IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM /ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS PC -2. Emphasize Ensure ongoing County HWU, EHD, Ongoing Pending $1,500 and utilize multi- communication with POTW's, BAAQMD, media approach air and water agen- Fire, RWQCB cies PC -3. Examine use Cross -train inspec- County EHD, Ongoing Agency training 40 hours training per of multimedia ap- tors POTW's, Fire/ budgets inspector proach for inspec- Hazmat officers, tion efforts Review programs to County HWU minimize undue inspection duplication,e.g. con- solidate reports, joint inspections /notices PC -4. Enhance pub- P lic facilities' com- Internal review of waste management County agencies, Coun a encies, Cities � 1989 Local jurisdictions � Local cost pliance practices FA i SECTION E: PROGRAM COORDINATION AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE: Information - Sharing and Dissemination IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVES PROGRAM/ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY IDEAL STARTING DATE POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED COSTS PC -5. Provide Address progress of County HWU August 1, 1992 and Pending adoption of $100,000 total CHWMP updates agreements, data, every 3 years or as proposed funding industry changes, appropriate formula siting criteria, capac- ity, waste reduction Determine frequency and content Annual progress County HWU Summer, 1990 Pending reports PC -6. Improve legi- Inform cities of County Relations, In progress Local Local cost slative tracking important develop- County HWU, Cities staff ments; provide to discuss periodic summaries to IGC, Cities, County staff PC -7. Improve coor- dination of and Discuss interagency Count y FIWU, EHD, Summer, 1989 Pending Local cost use of data; track fa- POTW's, Fire, DHS access to data cility siting proposals 0 SARATOGA CST7C COURCIL =CU- -M SMOMY M0. MEETING DATZ: Auctust 2 , 1989 ORIGIMATING DEpTs ENGINEERING SUBJECTS FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SDR 1616 PRINCE OF PEACE, Cox Avenue Racommendad Motion: BOA I= L� l7-� CITY MGR. APPROVAL Grant-Final Acceptance for SDR 1616 and release of bond. Report 5ummary: City Council at their regular meeting May 4, 1988 gave Construction Acceptance for the above project and developer has maintained the improvement for one year. Fiscal Zmoacts: None. Attachments: 1. Assignment Certificate. Motion and Vote: 1 ASSIGNMENT AS SECURITY FOR PAYMENT OF ALL BILLS, STATEMENTS OR CHARGES FOR ANY SERVICES ASSIGNMENT to CITY OF SARATOGA PRINCE OF PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH (Name of Assignor) whose principal address is 12770 Saratoga Ave. Saratoga Calif. 95070 (Street Address) (City) (State) (Zip Code) hereinafter called ASSIGNOR, do (does) hereby assign and set over the amount of $ 7,0nn-nn in insured Account No 3- 138663 -4 at the American Savings and Loan (Name of Savings and Loan Association) whose address is _55 W. Santa Clara St. r San Jose, kalif 95113 (Street Address) (City) (State) (Zip Code) and all right, title and interest of whatever nature thereto to the CITY OF SARATO ,A (Name of Assignee) whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California 95070 (Street Address) (City) (State) (Zip Code) hereinafter referred to as the ASSIGNEE. The accountbook, or other evidence of account is delivered herewith. Assignor agrees that this assignment carries with it the right in the insurance of the account by the Federal Sav- ings and Loan Insurance Corporation and gives the right to the Assignee to redeem, collect and withdraw the assigned amount of such account at any time WITHOUT NOTICE TO ASSIGNOR. This assignment is given as security for the payment of all bills, statements or charges for any services furnished or rendered at any time from and after Ma3f 5 19,98 , and at any and all premises at which service has been or (Month) (Day) may be ordered or contracted for by the Assignor. Assignor hereby notifies the above -named Savings and Loan Association of this assignment. Dated this 5th day of May , 19 88 , at Saratoga California. ( s r) - -- U --------------- - - - - -- FIRST ENDORSEMENT — RECEIPT FOR NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT Receipt is hereby acknowledged to the As'fgnee above of written notice of the assignment in the amount of $ 7,000_A0 to said Assignee of the account, :identified above. We have noted in our records the Assignee's interest in said account as shown by the above assignment and have retained a copy of this sheet. We certify that we are holding the assigned amount and have received no notice of any lien, encumbrance, hold, claim, or obligation of the above - identified account prior to the assignment above. We agree to make payment to the Assignee upon written request in accordance with the savings and loan laws applicable to this association. Dated this 5th day of Hgy 19 AS , at San .Tnca , California. (Name of Savings and Loan Association) B (Street �Adcjres� / (City) (State) (Zip Code) y---�� Title As''- G an Mana9ex (Signature of Officer of Savings and Loan Association) •, --------------------------------------------------------------- SECOND ENDORSEMENT — RECEIPT FOR SECURITY AND DIRECTION TO PAY EARNINGS Receipt is acknowledged of the above assignment and the account identified in the above assignment. The savings and loan association named in the above assignment is hereby authorized and directed to pay any earn- ings on the above - identified account to the above -named assignor so long as sufficient funds remain on deposit to pay the assigned amouj Dated this 5 �/� day of tsy Distributed by the California League of Savings Institutions, Los Angeles, California — 7/81 S•289(11/86) Dlstrlbutlon: Original - For Assignee Canary - To Be Returned to S & L Assn. Pink - For Assignor as Receipt Goldenrod - To Be Retained By S & L Assn. SAR�ITOG�1 CITY COMC= MEETING DATL s August 2F 1989 ORIGINATING D PPS ENGINEERING .: �••r .. VMS., " "i... RecoameruUd Motion: Award contract for "Bohlman Road Landslide Repair ". Report $uamazy: )9-,�- The City received two bids on July 11, 1989. The lowest bid wa Granit Construction tompany of Watsonville, with a total bid of $34,200.00. This project is part of Capital Improvement Project 1989 -1990. Fiscal tmoactsI $ 34,200.00 General Fund. This project was approved in the 1989 -1990. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. Motion and Votes m m + CITY COMIC= EXECU'= =Z SUau= N0. MEE'=G DA=s — 8 -2 -89 ORIGINATING DLPT= ENGINEERING s K f AGENDA ITEM r. CITY MGR. APPROVAL.. SUBJECTS AWARD CONTRACT FOR "SLURRY SEAL II AND CAPE SEAL ON VARIOUS CITY STREETS" Recommended Motion: Award contract for "Slurry Seal II and Cape Seal on Various City Streets ". Report 3uamary: The City received five bids on July 18, 1989 for the above project. The lowest bid wa Graham ntractor of San Jose with total bid of $247,343.14. This project is part of the street maintenance program. Fiscal 2moacts: 247,343.14 General Fund. Program. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. Motion and Vote: This project is part of the Street Maintenance ' • .• • CPM Col. _ - •• 1- • • • - - - - -- - I'll •• • • ��••�_ �• r± �� • I+.•"i� * • • I,r •.= i!. • - I ' 1 1 C 1:111! W, tlJ : .: . ,; C 1 • : 1 1 .: • • E' • •« • Seal •1 1 CAF. M dr• , '1 �. 11 , e e ,1. , • e 1 :1 • Paint Crosswaiks 1 1. 1 • • • -u -• u. /. •� �� s ,l • _ 11 1 • 11 1.1, • � 1 1 • � 1 11 •111 1 • 111 11 • � 11 1 • � , •- - Right ®�� ,/). l SARATOGA cITT coOiclL MMCTIM- nE SQ OUM N0. AGENDA ITEM � MEETING DA=s _ August 2, 1989 CITY MGR. APPWM ORIGINATING DLPT s ENGINEERING SUBJECTS SDR 88 -004, 14840 Sobey Road Ronald Jones Recomm&ndtd Motions "Grant Construction Acceptance" of SDR 88 -004. Report Summary: The work has been satisfactorily completed. This Construction Acceptance will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: None. Motion and Vote: e. k 46 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: August 2, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services AGENDA ITEM �J�' CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Placement of Garbage Containers at Curbside for Trash Collection Recommended Action: Introduction of ordinance. Report Summary: The proposed ordinance will amend Section 7- 05.070 to establish a "Noon to Noon" rule with respect to the placement and removal of garbage containers at curbside for trash pick up by the garbage collector. Under this rule, no container may be placed at curbside or other location visible to the public prior to 12:00 Noon on the date preceding the collection day, and all containers must be removed from the curbside or other visible location not later than 12:00 Noon on the day following the collection day. Except for this period of time, no garbage containers may be stored within any front or exterior side yard, and all garbage containers must be fully screened from public view. The ordinance will also make an unrelated technical amendment to paragraph B of this Section by exempting the garbage containers furnished by the garbage collector from the capacity limitation of 32 gallons and weight limit of 70 pounds. These limitations were originally placed in the ordinance at the request of the garbage collector, but Green Valley is now furnishing to Saratoga residents oversized containers which have a much larger capacity and weight. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: Proposed ordinance. Motion and Vote: .1 eORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 7 -05.070 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING GARBAGE CONTAINERS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 7- 05.070 in Article 7 -05 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S7- 05.070 Garbage containers (a) All garbage containers shall be kept in a sanitary condition, continuously closed with a tight fitting cover. (b) Garbage containers for residential premises being serviced by the Garbage Collector shall not exceed thirty -two gallons capacity and shall not have a filled weight in excess of seventy pounds, except for those containers furnished by the Garbage Collector. Garbage containers for commercial premises being serviced by the Garbage Collector shall be provided by or approved by the Garbage Collector. • (c) No garbage containers shall be placed at curbside or other location visible to the public prior to 12:00 Noon on the day preceding the day on which garbage is scheduled to be picked up by the Garbage Collector, and all garbage containers shall be removed from the curbside or other location visible to the public not later than 12:00 Noon on the day following the day on which garbage has been picked up by the Garbage Collector. (d) Except during the period of time specified in Paragraph (c) of this Section, no garbage containers may be placed, kept or stored within any front yard or exterior side yard and all garbage containers shall be fully screened from public view by a structure, fence, wall or landscaping." SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. -1- 0 ssssss The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly � y and after the waiting timff Pequired by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK • • -2- MAYOR I SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: August 2, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering AGENDA ITEM 0 CITY MGR. APPROVAL (� SUBJECT: Pre -Sale and Change of Use Occupancy Inspection Recommended Motion: Direct the Ctiy Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the Building Code to provide for mandatory pre- occupancy inspection for all non- residential uses and a voluntary inspection for residential uses. Hear on 9/6/89. Report Summary: Report discusses the need to establish an Occupancy Inspection program to meet requirements for change of use of commercial buildings to meet require- ments of Chapter 1589 of the statutes of 1988 which went into effect on July 1, 1989. Report also recommends creation of a voluntary pre -sale occupancy inspection for residential property based on the City of Davis model and as discussed initially by the City Council in the Fall of 1986. Fiscal Impacts: Commercial Inspections- 50 a year @ $165 each = $8,250. Residential-Inspections - 200 a year @ $165 each = $33,000. Resources required @ 2.5 hours per inspection = 625 hours (1/3 of a FTE) Attachments: 1. Memorandum dated July 5, 1989 2. Chapter 1589, Statutes of 1988 Motion and Vote: t I 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: July 5, 1989 SUBJECT: Pre -Sale Housing Inspection Program /Occupancy Inspector Recommended Action: The Chief Building Inspector should prepare a draft Occupancy Inspection ordinance to be voluntary for residential properties and mandatory for commercial properties. The inspection should follow guide lines similar to the City of Davis ordinance except to include Planning /Zoning requirements. Background The purpose of this report is to follow up on proposals for developing some sort of pre -sale inspection program for residential and commercial property. This idea was first discussed in the Fall of 1986 by the City Council. Following initial discussions by the City Council, the City Manager met with members of the Los Gatos - Saratoga Board of Realtors to explore ways and means such as a program might be created in the City. A copy of the City Manager's letter requesting the meeting and the reasons therefore is attached for reference. From those discussions the idea of possibly using the recently enacted amendments to the Civil Code of California requiring the disclosure of specified information when ownership of real estate was being transferred was developed. Using the new legislation as a base, the City Attorney drafted a proposed ordinance in January 1987 and that ordinance was forwarded to the Board of Realtors for their review and comments. Subsequently, a workshop on the ordinance was scheduled for April 21, 1987, and attended by all members of the City Council and a number of representatives from the Board of Realtors. The minutes from that meeting are attached for reference. At conclusion of the meeting it was agreed that the City would: 1) research what other cities are doing in this area and 2) work on a differing concept using a pre - listing approach and notices to correct. Also to be examined was the desirability of limiting inspectors to health and safety violations. Since April the staff has researched what other cities are doing and only one city in the state has an active mandatory pre -sale inspection program. That city is Davis and they have had an active program since 1976. The remainder of this report will analyze the Davis approach and compare it with the approach proposed by the draft ordinance and some other more intermediate schemes which may deserve some consideration. Analysis: Ordinance Proposal. The proposed ordinance requires that any time a Real Estate transfer Disclosure Statement is required to be furnished under State law a copy must be filed with the Planning Director. Failure by a realtor to comply shall constitute a violation of the business license ordinance. No penalty exists for other persons. City of Davis Program. No sales agreement can be executed unless a Certificate of Occupancy or Report of Deficiencies has been issued by the City. - City issues report within five working days of inspection. - Report is valid for the seller for 18 months. - If buyer signs a sales agreement without receiving a copy of the Report and remedial work exceeds three percent of agreed sales price Buyer many cancel the sales agreement within 5 days of the receipt of the Report. - Seller has 18 months to clear the deficiencies (no extensions are granted) or seller must re- apply. - If escrow closes within the 18 months and the seller does not have a clearance, a copy of the Report signed by the Buyer prior to close of sale must be filed with the city. - Once Buyer assumes responsibility, Buyer has 90 days from close of Escrow to obtain clearance. - Inspection is for compliance with a) Housing Code, b) Zoning Ordinance, c) other ordinances relating to health and safety standards. The members of the Realty Board objected to the proposed ordinance because 1) only licensed realtors could be penalized for non - compliance, 2) despite the claim of no warranty or liability on the part of the City, that may not be the case, 3) the time when the disclosure form was to be filed (within a reasonable time after delivery to the seller) might cause severe problems in closing escrow, 4) whether the City can enact a law if the document being demanded is privileged information. This last point was to be checked through Senator Petris' office, who authorized the bill, by the Realty Board. No feedback on this item has been given to the staff as of yet. The Board suggested a pre - listing approach using Notices to Correct and a determination as to cost to comply. It would seem the Davis approach is much closer to the Board's suggested method than the disclosure form filing approach. The Davis approach does not start at the pre - listing stage, it states that sales agreements are subject to an inspection of the premises by the city. Any time a property goes on the market a request for inspection could be made. One the report is prepared it is good for 18 months. Once the property closes escrow the buyer has ninety days to make corrections and get a Certificate of Clearance. When this idea was first discussed by the City Council it was done so in the context of identification of zoning code violations (specifically existing second units without conditional use permits). Later the discussion was expanded to include housing code compliance as a means of assuring that ownership not be transferred when housing was substandard without the housing being modified to meet minimal health and safety requirements. The Board had suggested that the focus of any ordinance preclude zoning issues. Should Council do so it would be excluding violations which gave rise to this idea originally. Looking at Housing Code compliance while ignoring the zoning ordinance is the antithesis of what we are trying to do organizationally. This is a case when half -a -loaf is no better than no loaf at all. I recommend against such an approach being given consideration. The Davis approach, from all reports, has been successful. Over the nine years that it has been working, the bugs are pretty well out of it, and Saratoga would not have to reinvent the wheel but could adapt it to local priorities. Davis, for example, started this program because of their environment concerns over energy usage. The ordinance was aimed at retrofiting housing for energy conservation purposes. Saratoga does not have the same requirements as Davis in these area so one inspection and retrofit requirements would be somewhat less inclusive. The attached Resale Inspection Checklist for Davis indicates generally what is covered by the inspection. The Realty Board has indicated there were 276 sales in 1984 and 289 sales in 1985 respectively in Saratoga. Three hundred inspection and reports a year averages out to under six per week, not a large workload. Since we stopped doing inspections for Monte Sereno (they were about 10% of our workload), picking up this task would seem to be doable with the present staff levels. Davis charges $165 per report which includes two inspections plus $25 for each additional inspection. Revenue from 300 inspections would be $49,500. According to the City Engineer a typical inspection and report based on the Davis approach would take 2.5 hours. The Realty Board has also indicated that a mandatory residential program is not desirable from the realtor /seller prospective. The Board would support a voluntary program. The Uniform Building Code requires a Certificate of Occupancy when there is a "change in use" in a building. Residential occupancies do not "change in use" but commercial occupancies change use regularly. Presently, we do not have an avenue to assure compliance with the appropriate codes when a "change in use" occurs. This can create severe problems for tenant /buyers if violations are discovered by the City. For example, recently the City staff was informed of zoning and building code violations at a commercial business on Big Basin Way. An investigation revealed illegal construction and out -door activity at the site. The business was ordered to correct the violation which resulted in a serious financial loss to the owners. As a result of this problem the current owner is suing the previous owner because they were under the impression the business they were purchasing was legal. An Occupancy Inspection prior to the sale of the business would identify violations and protect buyers. Effective July 1, 1989 SB 3205 requires that all permit applicants for commercial and industrial properties must sign a statement concerning the use of hazardous materials. This statement MUST be on the building permit and the City MUST provide the applicant with specific information concerning applicable codes and laws. The City CANNOT issue a Certificate of Occupancy until the City assures compliance with the appropriate agencies requirement, see attached 1, AB3205. Special requirements for commercial /industrial buildings is an obvious indication of the importance to assure that appropriate codes and laws are adequately enforced and compliance achieved. All facts considered, it appears that a program which is voluntary for residential property and mandatory for commercial property would be acceptable to the Board of Realtors and fulfill the City's needs of assuring compliance on commercial properties and gradually obtaining compliance on residential properties. An Occupancy Inspection would be conducted based on criteria similar to the City of Davis. Prior to the inspection the City staff would research its files to determine the approvals, i.e. building permit(s), type of building(s), variance approval, accessory unit approval etc., that have been granted for that property. During the Occupancy Inspection any violation would be noted by the inspector and separate permits may be required. Upon correction of all violations and a final inspection on any subsequent permits, the Occupancy Inspection permit would be finaled and a Certificate of Occupancy issued. An Occupancy Inspection could be requested by the seller, buyer or an authorized agent for either on forms to be provided by the City. An Occupancy Inspection permit would be issued after the permit fee is paid and an inspection conducted and report prepared within 5 working days. Copies of the report, which may include a Notice of Corrections, would be sent to the current owner and the prospective buyer. It would be the current owners responsibility to correct all violations indicated on the Notice of Corrections. The term "Current Owner" does not necessarily imply the seller of the property. In other words, if the property is sold subsequent to the Notice of Correction, the new "Current Owner" would be required to correct violations, this procedure would coincide with current policies concerning violations. This policy would prevent seller /buyer "deals" where buyers knowingly purchase property with violations and rather than have the violation corrected receive financial considerations and take possession of the property. The obvious problem with the "seller /buyer deal" premise is that properties continue in violation of applicable ordinances. The aforementioned type of policy would greatly streamline and simplify the City of Davis approach and effectively meet the concerns of the City. It would also provide adequate latitude to the seller, buyer and realtors to proceed with the close of escrow and negotiate the logistics for correcting violations. The mandatory requirement for Occupancy Inspections on commercial properties would be conveyed to the public through articles in the local newspaper and news letter. The realtor community would be notified by written and verbal communications. Written communication would be sent to the appropriate realtor boards and verbal communication would be presented at the regularly held realtor board meeting by the Building Official. The voluntarily residential program would be published in the local newspaper and news letter. Ch. 1588 1 STATUM OF 1988 Mf The board shall, in writing, concur or object to the issuance, modification, or revision of any solid waste facilities permit within 40 days of the board's receipt of any proposed solid waste facilities permit submitted under subdivision (b). If the board determines that the permit would not be consistent with the county solid waste management plan or the state standards or if the city or county has not found, or has failed to make the finding that, the proposed solid waste facility is consistent with the applicable general plan, pursuant to Section 66796.41, the board shall object to provisions of the permit, and shall submit those objections to the enforcement agency for its consideration. If the board fails to concur or object in writing within that 40 days, it is deemed to have concurred in the issuance of the permit as submitted to it. SEC. 3. Section 2 of this act shall become operative only if Assembly Bill No. 3298 of ' the 1988 -89 Regular Session enacts Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 15000) of Division 12.1 of the Public Resources Code and becomes operative on July 1, 1989, in which case Section 1 of this act shall not become operative. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND EMISSIONS— EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN — PENALTIES AND PUBLIC NOTICE 255V5 - �, � ,\CHAPTER 1689 s Gwt f'wi°t° A.B.No. 3205 r AN ACT to add Section 65860.2 to the Government Code, to amend Sections 25636 and 26640 of, _.. and to add Sections 13872.5, 26634.1, 26634.6, 42301.6, 42301.7, 42301.8, 42301.9, and 42450.1 too the Health and Safety Code, and to add Sections 21161.3 and 21161.4 to the Public Resources Code, relating to hazardous materials and emissions. [Approved September 30, 1988] [F%ed September 30, 1988] -+moo LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 3205, M. Waters. Hazardous materials and emissions. (1) Existing law requires any business that handles a hazardous material to establish a business plan for emergency response to a release or threatened release of the material and may be required to prepare a risk management and prevention program. This bill would prohibit a city or county, after January 1, 1989, from issuing a fmat certificate of occupancy unless these requirements are met. The bill would also prohibits city or county, after July 1, 1989, from permitting a facility to be constructed within 1,064 feet of a school without fast requiring a risk management and prevention plan and additional information, as specified. (2) Existing law authorizes the boards of directors of fire protection districts to written orders to correct or eliminate a fire or life hazard, and to issue citations,._ specified. This bill would grant similar authority to the fire chief of a city, a city and county, county fire department. __. (3) Existing law requires every business, except as specified, which handles s amounts of an acutely hazardous material to file an acutely hazardous materials re tion form with the administering agency and, if the agency determines there ii!'- accident risk, to submit a risk management and prevention program, and provides penalties for violations. This bill would permit review of the program by the air pollution control district or i quality management district as well as by the agency, would increase the applicable penalties, and would impose criminal penalties on any person who violates these aions, thereby imposing a state - mandated local program by creating a new 4504 Addltlaa is led an isdleded by .d.rHaK MOM by aaMeb • • • �: •� C 1b89 STATUTES OF.' T.:,gg7 -1888 RBGULAS SESSION h D the issuance, modification, or rev$ of the board's receipt of any propx vision (b). If the board determmes.l y solid waste management plan or und, or has failed to make the fins ent with the applicable general p t to provisions of the permit, and a .y for its consideration. If the be Ays, it is deemed to have concurre, Ltive only if Assembly Bill No. 8298 (commencing with Section 16000) Becomes operative on July 1, 1989;. 3perative. DNS— EMERGENCY 'UBLIC NOTICE le, to amend Sections 26536 and 26640.4 i, 42801.7, 42301.8, 42301.9, and 42450.1.1 161.8 and 21161.4 to the Public Resomm 80, 1988] 1988] 'S DIGEST (4) Existing law allows an air pollution control district or air quality management &strict to establish and enforce a system whereby a permit is required for any article, yischme, equipment, or contrivance which may emit air contaminants. This bill would require a specified public notice and review by the district air polhrtion control officer of any comments received after distribution of the notice before approving sn application for a permit to construct or alter a source within 1,000 feet of a school, hospital, or long -term care facility which may emit these emissions. The bill would, if the officer determines there is a reasonably foreseeable threat of a release of an air contaminant within 1,000 feet of a school, require the officer to notify the administering agency, as defined, and the fire department within 24 hours The bill would specify the actions the officer and the administering agency .could take in response to the release or threatened . release. The bill these requirements on districts, the bill would impose a an order of abatement in this regard. y imposing State- mandated local program. (6) Existing law generally requires all state agencies and local agencies to prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on any project they intend to carry out or approve which may have a significant effect on the environment. In other cases, a negative declaration is required. This bill would prohibit the approval of an environmental impact report or a negative declaration for a school construction project unless the lead agency has consulted with the city or county to identify potential nearby facilities that might emit hazardous air emissions, and the school district has made specified findings. The bill would prolubit construction of a facility within V4 mile of a school unless the school district is notified and ,consulted, as specified. By imposing additional requirements on local agencies, the bill would impose a state- mandated local program. (6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish proce- dures for making that reimbursement this act for specified This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by pecrfi reasons. emissions. Tike people of the State of California do enact as follom ea a hazardous material to establish' ' SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that there have been incidents of or threatened release of the ma health threats and nuisances at schoolsites throughout the state causing children to t and prevention program. = evacuate schools, report ill, and require medical attention. These incidents have been 'anuary 1, 1989, from issuing a Caused in large part by the inappropriate siting of schools and certain fw it(es with the re met. The bill would also pro potential for routine and accidental releases of hazardous and acutely hazardous air facility to be constructed within 1, emission. anagement and prevention plan It is the intent of the Legislature to do all of the following' and expand the law in ra of fine protection districts to ies (a) Correct deficiencies in existing law, and strengthen, clarify, expand le hazard, and to issue citations,.: order to protect the public health and safety. es to determine and mitigate - (b) Provide a mechanism for local governmental agency chief of a risks' posed by routine and accidental hazardous and acutely hazardous emissions from city, a city and county, or: new and existing sources with regard to the siting of new schools and new and existing as specified, which handles a facilities acutely hazardous materials regiatra (c) Strengthen the enforcement mechanisms and correct other deficiencies in laws the agency determines there is effecting acutely hazardous air emissions. t en agency program, and provides (d) Provide a means to prevent the release of hazardous or acutely hazardous air emissions that could adversely affect the health and safety of persons at a echoolaite. he air pollution control district or (e) Improve coordination among agencies regarding the siting of schools and certain 9, would increase the applicable " facilities near schools. any person who violates these ' (f) Clarify and augment the authority of local agencies and not to restrict or preempt rrgram by creating a new existing local authority. 416 boom a r1�s ... Ad Vbn Y W as bdkdW M ataa� MOM b :ailalit .. . Ch. 1589 STATUTES OF 19i8 SEC. 2. Section 66860.2 is added to the Government Code, to read: 66860.2. (a) Not later than July 1, 1989, each city and each county shall include in its application for a budding permit a place for the applicant to indicate whether the applicant or future building occupant will need to comply with the applicable requirements of Sections 26505, 26688, and 26634 of the Health and Safety Code and the requirements for a permit for construction or modification from the air pollution control district or air quality management district exercising jurisdiction in the area governed by the city or county. This subdivision does not apply to applications for residential construction. (b) Not later than July 1, 1989, no city or county shall issue a final certificate of occupancy unless the applicant has met or is meeting the applicable requirements of Sections 25506, 26633, and 26634 of the Health and Safety Code and the requirements for a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district exercising jurisdiction in the area governed by the city or county or has provided proof from the appropriate district that the permit requirements do not apply to the applicant. This section shall not apply to applications for residential construction. (c) On and after July 1, 1989, no city or county shall permit a facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet from the outer boundary of a school without meeting the requirements of Sections 25534 and 42303 of the Health and Safety Code. The risk management and prevention program and information required by Section 42303 shall not be accepted by the city or county unless approved by the administering agency. The information required by Section 42303 shall not be accepted by the city or county unless the air pollution control officer certifies that the applicant is in compliance with the required disclosures. (d) The city or county, after considering the recommendations of the air pollution control district or air quality management district, shall decide whether, and under what conditions, to allow construction at the site. (e) Nothing in this section limits any existing authority of a district to require compliance with its rules and regulations. (f) Counties and cities may adopt a schedule of fees for building permit applications sufficient to recover their reasonable costs of carrying out this section. SEC. 3. Section 13872.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 13872.5. The fine chief of a city, city and county, or county fire department, or his or her authorized representative, has the same authority as specified in Sections 13870 to 13872, inclusive, to issue a written order to correct or eliminate a fire hazard or life hazard, hold hearings and modify, vacate, or affirm those orders, and issue citations if so authorized by ordinance of the city, city and county, or county. This section does not limit or affect any authority of a fire chief or authorized representative of a fire chief under any local ordinance. SEC. 4. Section 25634.1 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 25534.1. Every RMPP prepared pursuant to Section 25534 shall give consideration to the proximity of the facility to schools, general acute care hospitals, and long -term health care facilities. For purposes of this section, "general acute care hospital" has the meaning provided by subdivision (a) of Section 1250 and "long -term health care facility" has the meaning provided by subdivision (a) of Section 1418. SEC. 5. Section 25534.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 26634.5. In reviewing an RMPP pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 25535, the administering agency may have access to and review all technical information in the handler's possession which is reasonably necessary to allow the administering agency to make a determination regarding the sufficiency of the RMPP. That information may include any study or analysis conducted pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 25534. Information conducted pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 25534 shall not be disclosed by the administering agency except as provided in Section 25511. SEC. 6. Section 25535 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: 26635. (a) An owner or operator of a facility submitting an RMPP pursuant to Section 25534 shall submit the RMPP to the administering agency after the RMPP is certified as 4506 AddNW= is win we kAkewd by dr sftn by aderM s • • • iJ -Ma Au,. " Pin �. cis STATUTES OF 1988 - 1087_1888 RBGUIi.AR SESSION C1. 1689 merit Code, to read: complete by a qualified person and the facility operator. The administering agency may .y land each county shall include in its authorise the air pollution control district or air quality management district in which the icant to indicate whether the applicant facility is located to conduct a technical review of the RMPP. If, after review by the with the applicable requirements of adm6n gMM or the air Dollution control district or air Smft management Safety Code and the requirements for trict ction in the area of terng agency a air pollution control district or air in the area governed by the city or ? determines tMt the s is deficient in any way, the administering agency shall notify the handler of these defects. The handler shall submit a corrected RMPP k ations for residential construction. within 60 days of the notice. ity shall issue a final certificate of (b) Upon implementation of a risk management and prevention program pursuant to sting the applicable requirements of subdivision (k) of Section 26634, the handler shall notify the administering agency that the lafety Code and the requirements for RMPP has been implemented and shall summarize the steps taken in preparation and Dr air quality management district implementation of the RMPP. AY or county or has provided proof (c) The handler shall continue to carry out the program and activities specified m the !meats do not apply to the applicant. risk management and prevention program at the business after the administering agency ential construction. has been notified pursuant to subdivision (b). all permit a facility to be constructed 31 without meeting the requirements - (d) The owner or operator shall implement all programs and activities in the RMPP before operations commence, in the case of a new facility, or before any new activities ty Code. The risk management and 42303 shall not be accepted by involving acutely hazardous materials are taken, m the case of a modified facility. ii ate ` lisle ring agency. The information SEC. 7. Section 26540 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: r the city or county unless the air is in compliance with the required 26640. (a) Any business that violates this article shall be civilly liable to the adminis- tering agency in an amount of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000) for each day in which the violation occurs. If the violation results in, or significantly contributes to, an vmmendations of the air pollution MU decide whether, and under what emergency, including a fire, the business shall also be assessed the full cost of the county or city emergency response, as. well as the coat of cleaning up and disposing of the hazardous materials. authority of a district to require (b) Any business that knowingly violates this article after reasonable notice of the violation shall be civilly liable to the administering agency in an amount not to exceed ees for building permit applications twen -five thousand dollars � +0_0�_0 for each day in which the violation occurs and upon isOnment in the county rail for not more than one fig out this section. conviction, may be punished °y id Safety Code, to read: year. SEC. B. Section 42301.6 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: Dr county fire department, or his or :y as in Sections 13870 to 42301.6. (a) Prior to approving an application for a permit to construct or modify a located within 1,000 feet from the outer boundary eliminate or eliminate a fire hazard or life rose orders, and issue citations if so source that may emit air contaminants of a school, the air pollution control officer shall prepare a public notice in which the for is made is fully or county. This section does not proposed project or modification for which the application a permit Irized representative of a fire chief de permit app expense, (b) The air pollution control officer shall, at the applicant's distribute d Safety Code, to read: the public notice to the parents of children in any school within one - quarter mile of the source and to each address within a radius of 750 feet from the outer property line of the >n 26634 shall give consideration to proposed new or modified source at least 30 days prior to the date final action on the Bare hospitals, and long =term health application is to be taken by the officer. The officer shall review and consider all eral acute care hospital" has the end `long -term health care facility" comments received during the 3o days after the notice is distributed, and shall include written responses to the comments in the permit application file prior to taking final n 1418. action on the application. d Safety Code, to read: (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), an air pollution control officer may require the idivision (a) of Section 26636, the applicant to distribute the notice if the district had such a rule in effect prior to January 1, w all technical information in the 1959. allow the administering agency to he RMPP. That information may (d) The 1�equirements for public notice pursuant to subdivision (b) or a district rule in egg prior to January 1, 1989, are fulfilled if the air pollution control officer or applicant Section 26634 shall not be disclosed ction subdivision shall l Section closed responsible for giving the notice makes a good faith effort to follow the procedures prescribed by law for giving the notice, and, m such circumstances, failure of any person )tics 26611. to receive the notice shall not affect the validity of any permit subsequently issued by the ode is amended to read: officer. tting an RMPP pursuant to Section (e) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit any existing authority of any acy after the RMPP is certified as district. '"°"' a'a�'e ... . naauo.. In ran .. raudee a by ..bellb... 4607 . CL 1589 STATUFSS OF 1988 SEC. 9. Section 42801.7 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 42801.7. (a) If the air pollution control officer determines there is a reasonably, foreseeable threat of a release -of an air contaminant from a source within 1,000 feet of the boundary of a school that would result in a'-violation of Section 41700 and impact persons at the school, the officer shall, within 24 hours, notify the administering agency, and the fire department having jurisdiction over the school. (b) The administering agency may, in responding to a reasonably foreseeable threat of a release, do any of the following: (1) Review the facility's risk management and prevention plan prepared pursuant to Section 26534 to determine whether the program should be modified, and, if so, require submission of appropriate modifications. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the administering icy may order modification and implementation of a revised risk management and prevention plan at the earliest feasible date. (2) If the facility has not filed a risk management and prevention plan with the administering agency, require the preparation and submission of a plan to the administer mg agency pursuant to Section 25534. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the administering agency may require the filing of a risk management and prevention plan and its implementation at the earliest feasible date. (c) The air pollution control officer may, in responding to a reasonably foreseeable threat of a release, do any of the following: (1) If necessary, issue an immediate order to prevent the release or mitigate the reasonably foreseeable threat of a release in violation of Section 41700 pending a hearing pursuant to Section 42450 when there is a substantial probability of an injury to persons at a school resulting from a release that makes it reasonably necessary to take immediate action to prevent, reduce, or mitigate that injury. The officer may not issue such an order unless there is written concurrence to issue the order by a representative of the administering agency. (2) Apply to the district board for issuance of an order for abatement pursuant to Section 42450. (d) Nothing in this section limits any existing authority of any district. SEC. 10. Section 42301.8 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 42301.8. Upon receiving a request, for good cause, from the principal or an authorized representative of the principal of a school, the district shall, within 24 hours, respond to the request and notify the administering agency and the fire department having jurisdic- tion over the school. The administering agency, upon receiving such a request, shall notify the district within 24 hours. SEC. 11. Section 42801.9 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 42801.9. For the purposes of Sections 42301.4 to 42301.8, inclusive: (a) "School" means any school used for purposes of the education of children in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive. (b) "Air contaminant" has the same meaning as provided in Section 89013. (c) "Administering agency" means an administering agency as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 26632. SEC. 12. Section 42450.1 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 42450.1. This article applies to any order for abatement issued pursuant to a determi- nation made under Section 42801.7. SEC. 18. Section 21151.3 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: 21151.3. No environmental impact report or negative declaration shall be approved for any project involving the purchase of a schoolsite or the construction of a new elementary or secondary school by a school district unless both of the following occur. (a) The lead agency preparing the environmental impact report or negative declaration has consulted with the city in which the proposed schoolsite is located, or with the county in which the proposed schoolsite is located if the proposed site is in an unincorporated 4508 dddlUm h am we ' ap - A by ddedm by nkmida • • • ` T . S •. ATUTES OF I8� 1887 -1888 REGULAR SESSION Safety Code, to read: - area, and with any air pollution control district or air quality management district in the area, to identify facilities within one - fourth of a mile of the p�opoisd etc rmines there is a reasonably' Nrisdiction school site which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous or acutely bsaaraoais tom a source within 1,000 feet of ,lion of Section 41700 and impact air emissions. (b) The governing board of the school district makes either of. -the following wiIt4ien notify the administering g �e9 findings: reasonably foreseeable threat of (1) Consultation identified no such facilities. (2J Those facilities erost, but the heal risks from the facilities do not and will mention plan prepared pursuant Constitute an actual or potential endangerment of public health to Persons would I be modified, and, if so ' r attend or be employed at the school. g any other provision of law, the iplementation of a revised risk .4 date. (c) As used in this section: „ (1) "Hazardous air emissions means any substance released into the ambient air which be to subdivision (a) of Section 25532 and is on the list required to prepared pursuant t and prevention plan with the Section 44321 of the Health and Safety Code. "Acutely means any substance released into the ambient ssion of a plan to the administer any other provision of law . the (2) hazardous air emissions air which is an acutely hazardous material as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 25552 of 1anagement and prevention plan the Health and Safety Code. SEC. 14. Section 21151.4 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: ng to a reasonably foreseeable w 21151.4. No environmental impact report or negative declaration shall be approved for of a facility within one-fourth of a mile at the release or mitigate the any project involving the construction or alteration of a school which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous or acutely hazardous Section 41700 pending a hearing air emissions as defined in Section 21151.3 unless both of the following occur: )bability of an injury to persons bly necessary to take immediate (a) The lead agency preparing the environmental impact report or negative declaration has consulted with the school district having jurisdiction regarding the potential impact of officer may not issue such an ,der by a representative of the the project on the school. (b) The school district has been given written notification of the project not less than 30 days prior to the proposed approval of the environmental impact repo rt or negative ler for abatement pursuant to declaration. SEC. 15. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article of any ' district afety Code, to XIII B of the California Constitution because the local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program read: n the principal or an authorized A within 24 hours, respond to or level of service mandated by this act Moreover, no reimbursement is required by this act Pursuant to Section 6 of Article may be incurred by a ire ire department having jurisdic- XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costa which local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or g such a request, shall infraction, changes the definition of a crime or infraction, changes penalty o ►fety Code, to read: or infraction, or eliminates a crime or infraction. or circumstances SEC. 16. If any provision of this act or its application to any person .8, inclusive: the education of children in is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the act be effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the which can given provisions of this act are severable. d in Section 89018. cy as defined in subdivision (c) fety Code, to read: COMMUNITY COLLEGES -- RESIDENCE — NONRESIDENT TUMON FEES issued pursuant to a determi- CHAPTER 1590 *s Code, to read: lamtion shall be approved for A.B.No. 8212 following n of 8 new elementary following occur. AN ACT so amend Sections 84800.1 and 84706 of, and to add and repeal Article 11 (commencing with Seetion 76170) of Chapter 1 of Part 46 of, the Edoearion Code, relating to educaWn report or negative declaration [Approved September 80, 19881 is located, or with the county [ned September 30, 19881 site is in an unincorporated MOM IN tat = f OMW bY dilstim by 8311rift • • • 4M �, . • .. /) -s SARATOGA C= CotMC= EXECU'T'IVE SMWARY NO. I k AGENM ITLM �' P MEETING DATE: August 2, 1989 CITY M=. APPROVAL j�I�� ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING / SUBJECT: TRACT 7763, Dividend Development Company Prospect Road @ Stalling Road Recommended Motion: "Grant Final Acceptance" for Tract 7763 and approve Resolution No. 36B and release bonds. Report Summary: The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting at 7 -6 -88 grantee Construction Acceptance for the above project. The one -year maintenance period has expired, therefore, it is recommended that this project grant Final Acceptance. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution 36B. 2. Bond release. Motion and Vote: 0 K- Racosded� at 'tho request of. and -W -'!e returned to: City Clark City of Saratoga 13777 Pruitvala Avenue Saratoga,.Ca. 95070 RESOLUTION NO 36-8 - RESOLUTION ACCEPT= D=CATIOH OF STRggTy TRWr .7763 .- Be a,,; .h S It' appearing that on or about 7 -25 -89 Crayside Lane, Burnett Dr., dill Ct. improvements as shown on the hereinafter refereed the. street, stow drain and other improvement plans therefore ware completed and subdiviison map and on approved divides for a period of not less than an addnd thesealtar wars maintained by the sub- cempletion. ional Year isnm data Of satisfactory NOM, TUYSMORN, the City Council of the City o! Saratoga hereby resolves sa !o That portion of the Cit is U streets, storm drains Y previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain map= and other easements as shown on the following described subdivi Nap of.TRACr 776_63 recorded in Hook 563 of Office of the County Recorder of the County o— g� Mips, at Page 31 -33 in t on - a„ 1R , 19-_� Clara, State Of CalLfornie, A" asset forth in the Clerk's certificate on said ma previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are is hereby rescinded and the - followings IMM%by accepted, emept the and all Of the above streets which are clawed accepted under to be public streets of the Ci ty o! Sarat this resolution are hereby do- rn Califoia. Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of BE IT PU7488g RBS0LV8Dt That the following described Improvement bond or bonds That certain am hereby ordered released: issued by t Bond No. A14_17dated _ 7/1/86 . and The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the • 1 =r at a regular meeting of the .o! the following v+ota:. City Council o! Saratoga by AYES: NOES: ABSENT:. ATTEST: C. CITY CLERK i1AYO8 097f @2 EzM&'XQ5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 05070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: 7 -25 -89 FROM: Cite Encrineer SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for TRACT 7763 Location: Prospect Road/Sterling Road The one (1) year maintenance period for has expired and all deficiencies of the impro'vRements3have been corrected. Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu- tion 36B , which accepts the and rights -of -way, public improvements, easements Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve- ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be released. The following information is included for your information and use: 1- Developer: DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT Address: 3600 Pruneridge Ave'., Suite 340, Santa Clara, Ca. 95051 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: 7 -6 -88 3. Improvement Security: Type: Assignment Certificate (as cash bond) /Security Bond Amount: $40,000-09-L $816,340.00 Issuing Co: The Insco Dico Group - Address: 333 Wilshire Ave. Anaheim, Ca. 92801 Rmxmdq%, Bond or 6bazbddjW9gre No. : 931417S: 931415 S, 931419 4. Miles Of Public Street: 1 mile $128,340.0 for bridge 5. Special Remarks : Release Labor & Material Bond / p construction Release Performance Bond RSS /dsm Bond for Erosion Control 6E R PEACOCK & Landscaping City ager Iti1EMORANDUM 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867- :34 :38 TO: City Manager DATE: 7 -25 -89 FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Release of Monument Bond for TRACT 7763 Name & Location: Dividend Developiwnt -- _ - - - -- PROSPECT ROAD All public street monuments for TRACT 7763 , have been in- stalled, verified in writing by the engineer or surveyor and are acceptable to us. The engineer or surveyor has also verified he has received payment for placing the monuments. Therefore, I recommend the City Council approve the release of the monument bond posted by the developer. The following information is submitted for your use: 1. Developer: DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT Address: 3600 Pruneridge Ave. Santa Clara, Ca. 95051 2. Bond Type:— Security 3. Bond Amount: $6,000.00 4. Bond, Certificate or Receipt #: 931416 S 5. Issuing Company: Developer's Insurance Company Address: 6. Special Remarks: .� 4, ��e t � Harry Rd Peacock City Manager RSS /dsm SARATOG71. cm COMICIz EXECU'T'IVE BU OMM N0. AGEMA ITZM 4L. MEETING 0=8 _ August 3, 1989 cm MM. APPROVAL /V ORIGINATING DEPTS ENGINEERING SUBJECT! FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL, ..PIERCE ROAD. Ralph Saviano (3 Lots) Recomend6d Motions Approve-Resolution No. SD 88- 006 -01, approving Final Building Sites. Approve reimbursement agreement for bridge and portion of Pierce Road. Report summary: I. SD 88 -006 ready for Final Building Site approval. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been.completed. 3. All fees have been paid. Fiscal xmoacts: None. Attachments:. 1. Resolution No. SD 88- 006 -01.. 2. Resolution approving 'tentative Map. 3. Location Map. 4. Reimbursement Agreement with memo from City Attorney Motion and Vote: U/ RESOLUTION NO. SD 88- 006 -01 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Ralph.Saviano The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 3.20 Acre, 3.4 Acre and 3..15 Acres.Parcels.shaan . as.Parcel 1, 2, and 3 on Final Parcel.Map. prepared by .Giuliani &Kull, Inc. and submitted to the City of Saratoga, be approved as three (3) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: day of , 19 by the following CITY CLERK MAYOR N.A. Done Done. See Improvement Plans. �r RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -006 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF APN# 503 -15 -001 SAVIANO /BOWIE, Pierce Road SubdiWHEiEAS,Maapplication has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of 3 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -88 -006 of this City, and subdivision,' together Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed is consistent with the Saratoga rGeneral sPlan and with gallnspecific veplan relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use s compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 10/12/88 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this . body has heretofor received and considered the Categorical this prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect torsaid subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed ublic P hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opp to be heard and to present evidence; ortunity NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 14th day of March, 1988 and is marked Exhibit A in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Pay "Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Map Approval. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation and pay required fees. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 ft. half street on Pierce Road. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" required. to provide easements, as Improve Pierce Road to City Standards, including the following: a. Designed Structural Section widened from existing edge of pavement to provide at least 13 ft. between centerline and flowline except that removal of ordinance size trees shall be by permit SD -88 -006; 13502 Pierce Road only from the Planning Commission. 6. Construct Storm Drainage System, as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following: Done. a. storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. b. storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. c. storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 7. Submit engineered plans for 26 ft. full width improvements to Pierce Road along project frontage to City Engineer for review and See Improvement to the Planning Commission for approval. Trees shall be accurately plotted on the plans. Plans 8. Construct driveway approach 16 feet wide at property line flared to 24 feet at street paving. Use 2 1/2 in. A.C. on 6 in. aggregate base. 9. Construct "valley gutter" across driveway or pipe under driveway as approved by City Engineer. 10. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 11. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 12. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 13. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: a. street improvements. b. storm drain construction. c. bridge replacement Done. 14. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. Done. 15. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval. Done. 16. Replace bridge over Calabazas Creek at Chalet Clotilde Drive. New bridge to have 26 foot wide travel section and 4 ft. pedestrian way. One tree can be removed. With Building 17. Fire hydrants: Developer shall intall 2 fire hydrants that meet the fire district specifications. Hydrants shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building final map approval. Done. 18. Driveways: All driveways have a 14 -foot minimum width plus one foot shoulders. 40 SD -88 -006; 13502 Pierce Road a. Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of o S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the With Building proposed dwelling. Permit b. better from 6" shall dwelling. toofproposed c. Slopes form 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on 4" aggregate base from a public proposed dwelling. street to d. Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 19. Submit a geotechnical investigation and soils report by licensed professional. 20. Submit detailed on -site improvement plans showing: a. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross- sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) b. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) C. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for With Building Plans walls 3 feet or higher. I d. All existing structures with notes as to remain or be removed. e. Erosion Control Measures f. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. g. Perform necessary work to control the landslide areas on the site as recommended by the City Geologist and grant a license to adjacent property owners to enter the property for Purposes of landslide control. 21. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. (22. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company. Dorie• 23. The subject property shall be annexed to the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to final map approval. 24. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall dedicate additional Done. easements as required by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 25. Details for any storm drain outfall into the creek should comply with Santa Clara Valley Water District specifications. Done 31. Install storm drain line from the existing culvert on lot A under Pierce Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. With 32. Driveway on Lot C to be a minimum of 50 ft. from Surrey Lane and Building hillside cut back to provide adequate site distance down Pierce perfai.t Road, as approved by the City Engineer. The bank along the inside of the curve on Lot B, shall also be cut back to improve site distance on Pierce Road, as approved by the City Engineer. Done 33. Deferred improvement agreement re utilities. quired for underground overhead Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, other Governmental entities must be met. County, City and Section 15- 90oftthe Saratoga lCity aCode, this rResolution hshallubecometeffectivelten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26th day of October, 1988 by the following vote: 4" SD -88 -006; 13502 Pierce Road Done. 6. In accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District Ordinance 85 -1 and 87 -3, the owner should show any existing well(s) on the plans. The well(s) should be properly registered f27. with the District and either maintained or abandoned in accordance with District standards. Abandoned wells shall be sealed in accordance with District standards unless they are to be development. used for the proposed Improvement plans for any work in the vicinity of Santa Clara Valley Water District's right -of -way should be reviewed and a permit issued prior to start of site construction. 28. With Planning Commission design review approval is required for future homes on Lots A, B, Building and C. 2g, Perinit Tree removal is prohibited unless in accordance with Article 30. 15 -50. The finished pad elevations for the future homes on the three lots shall be approximately as follows: Lot A - 423 Lot B - 428 Lot C - 432 Done 31. Install storm drain line from the existing culvert on lot A under Pierce Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. With 32. Driveway on Lot C to be a minimum of 50 ft. from Surrey Lane and Building hillside cut back to provide adequate site distance down Pierce perfai.t Road, as approved by the City Engineer. The bank along the inside of the curve on Lot B, shall also be cut back to improve site distance on Pierce Road, as approved by the City Engineer. Done 33. Deferred improvement agreement re utilities. quired for underground overhead Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, other Governmental entities must be met. County, City and Section 15- 90oftthe Saratoga lCity aCode, this rResolution hshallubecometeffectivelten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26th day of October, 1988 by the following vote: AT SD -88 -006; 13502 Pierce Road AYES: Commissioners Guch, Harris, Siegfried, Tappan, Kolstad, Burger NOES: None ABSENT: Tucker ATTEST: / A� w VY Chairman, Planning/Commission VL Secretary, Planing Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted Signature of Applicant Date REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Calkins DATE: October 12, 1988 PLNG. DIR. APPRV., APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -88 -006 APPLICANT /OWNER: SAVIANO /BOWIE APN: 503 -15 -066 Q SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TRACT NO Storm Drain Fees Park & Recreation Fees Plan Check & Inspection Fees Final Map Check Fees SD NO 88 -006 N.A. $3,900.00 $11,950.00 $350.00 July 26, 1989 MET110 TO: FRU4: SUBJBCT: Q MD ° (4O<81867:341' is COUNCIL MEMBERS: City Council City Attorney Saviano Reimbursement Agreement Recommended Motion: Approval of Reimbursement Agreement with Ralph Saviano. Report Summary: Karen Anderson Mar!ha Clevenger D,3wd Moyles Donald Peterson Francis stutzman On February 15, 1989, the City Council upheld and modified a decision by the Planning Commission granting tentative map approval to Ralph Saviano for the division of his property at 13502 Pierce Road into three lots. As one of the conditions of approval, Mr. Saviano is being required to reconstruct the Pierce Road bridge over Calabazas Creek at Chalet Clotilde Drive and to widen sections of Pierce Road fronting on his property. Because these improvements will benefit other lots in the area yet to be developed, the condition was modified to require the execution of a reimbursement agreement between Mr. Saviano and the City providing for the allocation of a proportionate share of the cost to such other lots, to be collected when and if the same are developed. The Planning Department has identified 11 existing or potential lots having frontage on Pierce Road that are undeveloped or underdeveloped and will benefit from the traffic improvements being constructed by Mr. Saviano. The proposed Reimbursement Agreement therefore will allocate 1 /12th of the total construction cost of the public improvement to each of these lots. Such cost has not yet been determined and a supplementary agreement will be executed for this purpose after all work has been completed and the costs are certified by Mr. Saviano and approved by the City. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: Proposed Reimbursement Agreement SARA%%= CITY CODNC= FN" pr-T33 G DATZs August 2, 1989 ORIGINATING OUT, ENGINEERING SUBJECT s FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL ,FOR SD 89 -002 Encina Court, McMullin Development (1 Lot) Recommended Motion: 1-2.1 All IT= V CITY MM. APPROVAL Approve Resolution No. SD 89- 002 -1, approving Final Building site. Report Sw=&ry. 1. SD 89 -002 is ready for Final Building Site Approval. 2. All requirements for City and other departments have been completed. 3. All fees have been paid. Fiscal. r=acts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 89- 002 -1. 2. Resolution approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Motion and Vote: RESOLUTION NO. 89 -002 -1 RESOLUTION OF'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF McMullin Developn-exlt The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: 0.960 acre lot shown as Parcel A on Parcel Map prepared by J. M. Heiss and submitted to City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual building site. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK 19 by the following MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. SD -89 -002 r, RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE BRIAN AND SALLY MCMULLIN MAP OF , 15050 ENCINA COURT APN= 397 -11 -43 WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Ordinance of the Agency under the 1 lot, all as more City of Saratoga, for tentative Subdivision City, and Particularly set forth in File apOpapproval of No. SD- 8 WHEREAS. this Advisory subdivision, together with th Agency hereby finds is consistent provisions for its that the proposed relating ith the Saratoga General Plan and with a and improvement, with g thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use the objectives, policies and plans in such General Plan general land use and is compatible hereby made for further Particulars, to the Staff Report programs specified particulars, and P rt dated 2 -22 -89 being WHEREAS, none of the conditions set (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist xistn Subsections subdivision, and tentative with (a) through conditions as hereinafter set forthval should be respect to said granted in accord with heariWHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a g at which time all interested parties were duly noticed to be heard and to present evidence; Public given a full opportunity hereinafter described SubEdiIT RESOLVED ma that the tentative map for the January, 1989 and is marked Exhibit A p is dated the file, be and the same in the hereinaboveth day of Of said approval are asifollowsy conditionally approved. referred The conditions N.A. 1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of approval. obtaining final 2• Submit Parcel Map p to City for checking and recordation Existing Parcel of record, recordation fees). (If parcel is shown pay required submit three (3) to -scale prints), wn °n existing map Map 3. Sub it " rrevocable Offer of Dedication" Encina Court. to Provide for a 20 ft. 4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required. Done. 5. Construct Storm Drainage System as directed b y the Cit watercourse, including the following; street y Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to storm sewer or I • Done.. r SD -89 -002, Encina Court a. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. b. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 6. Resurface and /or upgrade Encina Court to a minimum access road; 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using 2 1/2 A.C. on 6 in. aggregate base from E1 Camino Grande to property. 7. Construct 32 ft. curb radius. 8. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches. 9. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 10. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: a. Street Improvements. b. Storm Drain Construction. c. Access Road Construction. 11. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. 12. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. 13. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. SD -89 -002, 15050 Encina Ct. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8th day of March, 1989,by• the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Guch, Harris, Burger, Tucker, Kolstad NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Siegfried and Tappan ATTEST: chairman, Planning Colmission t/.S cr ary, PlAfining Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted Signature of Owner Date v c_ A -T I ©N M !`> s� 15 9 0 0 z MA J /Z LANCAaTaA 00. TRACT NO SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SD NO 89 -002 Storm Drain Fees N.A. Park & Recreation Fees $51-027.00 Plan Check & Inspection Fees $3,420.00 Final Map Check Fees N.A. SARATOGA CITY COWCIL ORIG=&TnM : • •. PW-TNEERING SUBJECT! FINAL MAP APPROVAL FOR SD 88 -016 Prospect Road, Paul Tai (7 Lots) Recommended Motion: '4, Approve Resolution No. SD 88- 016 -1, approving Final Building Sites. Report summary: 1. SD 88-016 is ready for Final Building Site Approval. 2. All requirement for City and other departments have been coirpleted. 3. All fees have been paid. Fiscal Imoacts: None. Attachments: I. Resolution No. SD 88- 016 -01. 2. Resolution approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Motion and Vote: o, RESOLUTION NO. SD 88- 016 -01 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 8250 WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of TRACT 8250 having heretofore been filed with this City Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor complete and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require- ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, and with all local ordinances applicable at the time of approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save and except as follows: NOW THEREFORE HE IT RESOLVED: (1) The aforesaid final map is hereby conditionally approved. Said approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance with Section (3) hereof. (2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the State of California. (3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept- ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted, and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of th -1- estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public ways and easements in accord with the standards of Chap. 14, Municipal Code as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe- cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city. (4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require- ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to execute the City C.Lerk's certificate as shown on said map and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa. Clara. County Board of Supervisors. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day of , 19 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK 1 "j RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -016 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP YOSHIOKA, 20570 PROSPECT ROAD WHEREAS, application .has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of,the State of California-and under the .Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of 2 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -88 -016 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 4/12/89 being hereby made for further particulars, and 7 �W 1� WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision-, which is map dated the 19th day of August, 1988, and is marked Exhibit A in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: 1. All access roads on this property must be maintained at 18 feet in Done. unobstructed width. See Improvement 2. All curbing on the access roads (less the designated parking spaces) Plans• must be marked "fire lane - no parking." Said curbing shall be painted red, with marking in contrasting color. With Building -- 3. Address any property line /fire wall concerns, if applicable on unit #6. San Jose Water _ 4. Provide an approved fire hydrant at location noted on the plan. This Works is working on fire hydrant must provide a minimum 1000 gpm. This fire main must be constructed of not less than 8 in. approved piping and valves. �5. Provide full emergency vehicle turnaround. This turnaround must be maintained at all times. See Inprovement Plans 6. Access roads must be of a graded, all weather surface prior to issuance of building permit. With Building 7. Fire hydrants must be installed and approved, prior to issuance of building permit. 7 �W 1� Done. 8. Access road specs to be mailed to American design. N.A. 9• Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final .Approval. 10. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints.) Done. 11. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 45 See Parcel Map ft. Half- Street on Prospect Road ' 12. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required. 13. Improve Prospect Road to City Standards, including the following: a. Designed structural section widened from existing edge of pavement to provide 35 ft. between centerline and flowline. b. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter c. Pedestrian Walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.) d. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities. 14. Construct Storm Drainage System as as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or Done. watercourse. 15. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using 2 1/2 inch A.C. on 6 in. aggregate base. See Improvement Plans. Note: a. The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. b.. The minimum vertical clearance above the road surface shall be 15 ft. 16. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal. 17. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches. 18. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 19. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 20. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: Done. 1. Street Improvements. 2. Storm Drain Construction. 3. Access Road Construction. Done. 21. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from 8 4V Improvement Plans. Done. 22. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. Done, 23. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. 24. The site is partially subject to flooding from-the it (100 -year) flood on Calabazas Creek. The it flood level is elevation 308. In order to meet Federal Emergency Management Agency Regulations, the first floor and nearest adjacent grade must be one foot above this elevation. 25. There shall be no overbank drainage from the developed portion of the site to Calabazas Creek. The site's drainage shall be incorporated Done, into an existing storm drainage system. If a storm drain outfall into the creek is necessary, it should be designed in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District Shoets 8 -12 which will be furnished on request. 26. Dedicate easement along Calabazas Creek as required by Water District. 27. Detailed construction and grading plans shall be sent for Water District and issuance of a permit to any construction. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditi within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of April, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Guch, Harris, Tucker, Tappan, Kolstad, Siegfried, and Burger NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: hairman, Planning Com6ission tecrelfary, P anning Commission The forego conditions are hereby acc Date e� 9 a ZdG'�17loAl "AP 0 0 o OOM f u W CITY` L OMIT§ I- 0 u J ° J \� r z 0 �gL—j i Y t W CHATEAU W 2 O U J D R I V 3 w °. u j o I j pAR� f CO 0 f _ e r e J Y t W CHATEAU W 2 O U J D R I V 3 w °. u j o I SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TRACT NO 8250 Storm Drain Fees Park & Recreation Fees Plan Check & Inspection Fees Final Map Check Fees SD NO 88 -016 N.A. $6,100.00 $6,700.00 . $. 600.00. SARATOGA CITY COMICIL MMING DAM _ Ana. 2. 1989 M AGMM ITEM I -r CIT7C MGR. APPROMO SUBJECT= FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL.FOR SD 88 -011 SARATOGA AVENUE, AINSLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC. (2 Lots) Recommended Motion: 1. Approve, Resolution No. SD 88- 011 -02, approving Final Building Site. 2. Authorize mayor to execute Deferred Improvement Agreement for various street, utility, and drainage improvements for each lot. Report Summary: 1. SD 88 -011 ready for Final Building Site Approval. 2. All requirements for the City and other departments have been completed. 3. All fees have been paid. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 88- 011 -02. 2. Resolution approving Tentative Map. 3. Location Map. Motion and Vote: RESOLUTION NO. e8g- 011 -02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Ainsley Develolment, Inc. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 0.551 Acre and 0.4700 Acre Parcels shown as Parcels 1 and 2 on Final Parcel Map prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, and submitted to City of Saratoga, be approved as two '(2) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK 19 by the following MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -011.1 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF Ainsley Development - 13810 Saratoga Avenue under WHEREAS, t bdivisionaMap has been made to the the State of Californiaoaannd Agency the Subdivision ordinance of: the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of 2 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -88 -011 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 10/12/88 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (q) of Government- Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the for the day of June, 1988 and is marked Exhibit A in the hersinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: N.A. 1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final approval. 2. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (pay required checking and recordation fees). 3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to p Sv ds po road dedication along Saratoga Ave. to allow a 0 t. 922 a s0ee f} Done. right -of -way measured from the center line of Saratoga Ave. 4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as See.Parcel.Map. required. 5. Improve Saratoga Avenue to City standards, including the following: 0 ir SD -88- 011.1; 13810 Saratoga Ave. Done a. Designed structural section. (DIA) b. P.C, concrete curb and gutter (V -24). (DIA) See Deferred Improvement c• 'Pedestrian walkway. (DIA) Agreement d. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities. (DIA) 6. Construct storm drainage system directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following: a. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. b. Storm sewer laterals with-necessary manholes. c. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. 7. Construct standard driveway approaches. With Building Permit S. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 9. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. The plan with new name and address shall be submitted to the Commission. With Building Permit 10. Obtain encroachment permit from City Engineer for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City street. 11. Engineered improvement plans required for: a. street improvements. D.I.A. b. storm drain construction: 12. Pay Plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. N.A. 13. Enter into improvement agreement for re required improvements completed within one 1 to be ( ) year of receiving final approval. Done 14. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements marked D.I.A. N.A. 15. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. 16. Obtain demolition permit and demolish existing buildings. With Building Permit 17. Show all existing electrical, sewer, storm drain and all other underground utilities on site. 18. Provide easement for underground utilities that cross proposed SD -88- 011.1; 13810 Saratoga Ave. (new) property lines or indicate that they are to be removed. N.A. 19. If access to Parcel B is to be taken from zap' rather 'than from Saratoga Avenue the court as shown on named. . the court should be With Buildinger permit 20. 21. Posted Bond for 22. Septic Tank Removal 23. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. Existing septic tank (s) must be pumped and backfilled in accordance with ( ) Posted to environmental health standards. A bond should be sanitarian for final inspection of upon Contact the district P completion. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Works. Future building sites Alternative to be as shown on tentative map. sites must be approved by.the Plann through the site modification process. ma Commission 24. Existing fence in required front and exterior side yards is nonconforming in that Fencing it exceeds the maximum 3 ft. height limit. in these areas should be reduced to 3 ft. in height Will be removed With Prior to final map approval. pursuant to Section 15- 29.030, a Building permit fence Permit instead may be obtained to allow a higher fence along Saratoga Avenue. 25. Future residences subject to Administrative or Planning Commission design review approval per Article 15 -45 of the City Code. Done 25. Applicant shall locate any well on the property and backfill as required by the water district. 27. All homes shall be single story in height. 28. The site shall be cleared of all trash and debris as soon as possib. This work shall be done subject to the approval of the Planning Director and shall be completed no later than 30 days from the date of approval. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. SD -88- 011.1, 1381 -0-- .Saratoga Avenue �- 3 � Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, county, city and other Governmental SD -88 -011; 13810 Saratoga Ave entities must be met. . Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant. to Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga city he requirements of become effective ten (10) days from code, this Resolution shall Y the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by commission, State of California the City day Saratoga Planning this 12th day of October, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Burger, Kolstad, Tucker, and Harris NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tappan ATTEST; Secr tary, 4anningommission A:RESTM Chairperson, Planninr ssion The above conditions are hereby accepted A ure o App ant Date 4.k OQ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: James Walgren DATE: 4/12/89 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -88- 011.1; 13810 Saratoga Ave. APPLICANT /OWNER: Ainsley Development APN: 397 -30 -42 Q SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TRACT NO SD NO .88 -011 Storm Drain Fees N.A. Park & Recreation Fees Plan Check & Inspection Fees $ 200.00 Final Map Check Fees $ 300.00 r^ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: August 2, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning AGENDA ITEM: 3A CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: AZO -89 -002, ZC -89 -001;- Implementation of Village Plan and Revision, of Regulations for Commercial Zoning Districts Recommended Motion: Conduct public hearing, approve Negative Declaration, introduce ordinance (first reading). Report Summary: The proposed ordinance will establish zoning regulations for implementation of the Saratoga Village Plan and also represents a reorganization and revision of the regulations pertaining to the commercial zoning districts. The Planning Commission has held three noticed study sessions and one public hearing on this ordinance, and unanimously recommends its adoption by the Council. The City Attorney's memo outlining the proposed changes is attached, as are minutes of all the Planning Commission meetings. A Negative Decla- ration has been prepared for this application. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1) Negative Declaration 2) City Attorney's memo 3) Planning Commission minutes (3/14/89, 4/4/89, 5/2/89, 5/14/89) Motion and Vote: RES -ND Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No. A o -R9 -001, ZC -89 -001 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendments to zoning ordinance Article 15 -19 and other related sections to implement the Saratoga Village Specific Plan and to revise certain regulations pertaining to the commercial zoning districts. The application also involves the rezoning of certain Village properties in accordance with the Village Plan. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION No potential adverse environmental impacts Executed at Saratoga, California this 22 day of mn3Z 1989. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Stephen A. Emslie DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER Valerie J. Young, Associate Planner PAUL S. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD PAUL K. ROBERTSON ATKINSON • FABASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979) RE: Implementation of Village Plan and Revision of Regulations for Commercial Zoning Districts DATE: July 18, 1989 The proposed ordinance (Rev. 6/2/89) will establish zoning regulations for implementation of the Saratoga Village Plan and also represents a reorganization and revision of the regulations pertaining to the commercial zoning districts. The main features of the ordinance are as follows: (a) Reorganization of Article 15 -19 The regulations for the commercial zoning districts are currently organized in Article 15 -19 of the City Code by subject matter. The article begins with a listing of permitted and conditional uses for each commercial district, which is followed by regulations dealing with particular subjects, such as site area, lot dimensions, coverage, setbacks and height. This form of organization requires that each section be carefully checked to ascertain what, if any, regulations may be applicable to a specific project. The proposed ordinance reorganizes Article 15 -19 by combining into a single section all of the regulations which uniformly apply to all of the commercial districts. This section is entitled, "General Regulations." The remaining regulations which do not share complete uniformity are then organized by zoning district, so that all regulations applicable to a single district are combined together into a single section. This format serves to highlight both the general and specific features of the commercial regulations and also reduces the probability of error in the application of these regulations. (b) Designation of Uses The proposed ordinance represents a new approach toward the problem of designating permitted and conditional uses in the zoning regulations. Prior to the -1- adoption of the new City Code in 1986, the permitted and conditional uses for the commercial districts were specified in great detail by listing individual types of business enterprises (such as bakeries, cutlery shops, florist shops, jewelry stores, music stores, etc.). This level of specificity often produced the problem of being unable to fit new types of businesses into narrow descriptions of uses. The new City Code adopted a generic approach by listing general categories of uses such as retail establishments and personal service establishments. Although no serious problems have yet arisen, there is some concern that these categories are now generalized to the point of allowing certain uses that may not be desirable. The proposed ordinance will add a new Section 15- 05.055 authorizing the Planning Director to establish a list of particular activities that would be classified as a general category of use, such as "retail establishment" and "service establishment." The list would constitute an administrative interpretation of the zoning ordinance which provides a degree of specificity without the need for frequent amendment of the City Code. The general regulations now contain a list of "expressly prohibited uses" which cannot, under any circumstances or administrative interpretation, be conducted within any commercial district. This section is not intended to change the general rule that any use not specifically listed as either a permitted or conditional use, is automatically prohibited. (c) Definition Changes (1) The definition for "automotive services" has been deleted. This definition was excessively broad in that it included both sale and major repair activity. At the present time, no automotive body shops are located within Saratoga and none is desired. Consequently, this activity is listed as an expressly prohibited use. The performance of minor automotive repair is already included within the definition of "gasoline service station." (2) For purposes of clarity, the term "personal service" has been changed to "service establishment," and the term "retail service" has been changed to "retail establishment." (3) A new definition for "game arcade" has been added and this activity has been classified as a conditional use. (4) The definition of "village" has been revised to mean the area covered by the Saratoga Village Specific Plan. (d) Reclassification of Uses (1) Restaurants, markets, delicatessens and any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages have been reclassified from permitted to conditioinal uses. However, all existing operations have been grandfathered and exempted from the requirement for a use permit. (2) Mini - storage facilities have been changed from a conditional use in the C -V District to an expressly prohibited use in all commercial districts. Any -2- existing facility may continue to operate under its use permit. (3) Professional and administrative offices and financial institutions have been reclassified from conditional uses to permitted uses in the C -V District in order to better reflect existing conditions. These uses already are classified as permitted uses in the C -N District. (4) Medical offices have been combined with clinics and designated as conditional uses in the C -N and C -V Districts. Under Section 15- 19.060, any existing clinic operating between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. will be grandfathered. (e) Multi - family Dwellings in Commercial Districts A provision has been added to the specific regulations for the C -N and C -V Districts to apply the development standards for multi- family dwellings (as contained in Article 15 -17) when such projects are constructed within these districts. The density of development - i.e., net site area per unit - would be determined by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis, according to certain findings specified in the ordinance. Multi- family projects in the C -H Districts would be governed by the same development standards applied to any other structures in these districts. (f) Screening and Landscaping Requirements (1) As a general regulation, all outdoor trash containers must be fully enclosed by a solid wall or fence and solid gates of sufficient height to screen the same from public view. No trash or garbage container may be placed within 25 feet from the property line of any site occupied by a dwelling unit. It is the intention of the Planning Department to enforce this provision against existing commercial properties - especially the Quito shopping center - after affording to the owner a reasonable time to relocate trash containers and install the required screening. (2) As a general regulation, where a commercial district is located adjacent to a residential district, a solid wall or fence must be installed to separate the uses. A vine covered fence or compact evergreen hedge would no longer be acceptable. (3) As a general regulation, all pedestrian open spaces, front and side yards and not less than 15% of any parking lot area must be completely landscaped and permanently maintained. This particular regulation originated with the Village Plan, but has been made applicable to all commercial districts. (g) Implementation of Village Plan The zoning amendments required by the Saratoga Village Specific Plan are set forth in the regulations for the C -H Districts (Section 15- 19.050). Various changes have been made to the original draft of the ordinance as a result of comments received by the Planing Commission during study sessions and the public hearing. These changes include the following: -3- (1) The minimum site area for the CH -2 District has been changed from 10,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet, in order to better reflect existing conditions. For the same reason, the minimum frontage and width of any site in the CH -2 District has been changed from 60 feet to 50 feet. (2) The definition of "pedestrian open space" was revised to emphasize that it relates to common areas open to the public where pedestrians may walk or gather, as distinguished from an interior hallway. Language was also added to clarify that all or any portion of the required front yard can be utilized for pedestrian open space. (3) The parking ratios for each municipal parking district have been included in the regulations for the CH Districts. These ratios have always been applied but were never specifically incorporated into the zoning ordinance. (4) At the request of the Heritage Commission, language has been added to allow modification of development standards for designated historic structures. Although a variance would not be required, special findings as set forth in the ordinance must still be made. It should be emphasized that this accommodation is available only with respect to structures which have been officially designated as heritage resources under Chapter 13 of the City Code, and would not be applicable to structures which are merely listed in the heritage inventory. (h) Other Changes (1) Additional setbacks: Under the present Code, additional side and rear yard setbacks are required at a ratio of 2:1 for certain buildings exceeding 14 feet in height (i.e., for each 2 feet of height in excess of 14 feet, an additional setback of 1 foot is required). This ratio has now been changed to 1:1 so that an additional setback of 1 foot is required for each 1 foot of height in excess of 14 feet. (2) Various general regulations contained in the existing Code have been reworded and consolidated. The requirement that: "All uses shall comply with current regulations of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Pollution Control District" has been deleted on the ground that the City is not the enforcement agency for these regulations. The Planning Commission has devoted 3 study sessions and 1 regular meeting to the proposed ordinance. The first study session was specifically intended for property owners and merchants within the Village to consider the regulations for implementation of the Saratoga Village Specific Plan. The second study session was intended for owners and occupants of properties located within the C -N and C -V Zoning Districts. A general discussion of the ordinance was conducted at the third study session, followed by the conduct of a public hearing at the Commission's regular meeting on June 14, 1989. The Commission unanimously voted to recommend adoption of the ordinance by the City Council. Harold S. Toppel -4- ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ARTICLE 15 -19 AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE TO IMPLEMENT THE SARATOGA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN AND TO REVISE CERTAIN REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 15- 05.050 in Article 15 -05 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "§ 15 -05.050 Regulations minimal In interpreting and applying the provisions of this Chapter, unless otherwise stated, the provisions shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare." SECTION 2: A new Section 15- 05.055 is added to Article 15 -05 of the City Code, to read as follows: " §15 -05.055 Designation of uses; administrative interpretations (a) The designation of permitted and conditional uses for each zoning district shall be interpreted to mean that any use which is not listed as being either a permitted or conditional use for such district is automatically prohibited. (b) The Planning Director shall have authority to adopt administrative interpretations of the general categories of uses described in this Chapter. Such interpretations shall contain a list of particular activities which are classified as constituting a general category of use. Where a proposed activity is not listed, the Planning Director may amend his administrative interpretation to include the same, based upon his finding that: (1) The proposed activity closely resembles the listed activities with respect to purpose, type, function and manner of operation; and (2) The proposed activity is no more objectionable than the listed activities with respect to the level of noise, traffic, odors, disturbance, glare and other impacts normally associated with the listed activities; and (3) The proposed activity is consistent with the general purposes of this Chapter and the specific purposes of the regulations for the zoning district in which the activity will be conducted. Rev. 6/2/89 -1- Any administrative interpretation by the Planning Director hereunder may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15 -90 of this Chapter." SECTION 3: Section 15- 06.080 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is repealed. SECTION 4: A new Section 15- 06.295 is added to Article 15 -06 of the City Code, to read as follows: "515- 06.295 Game arcade "Game arcade" means an establishment having more than three coin or token operated pinball machines, video games or other form of mechanical or electronic games or any combination thereof, available for use by the general public. A game arcade may exist as either a principal use or as an incidental use conducted by another principal use on the site." SECTION 5: Section 15- 06.500 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is repealed and a new Section 15- 06.585 is added in place thereof, to read as follows: "515- 06.585 Service establishment "Service establishment" means a use, not conducted within an office, providing services for the personal care of an individual or the fitting, cleaning, repair or maintenance of personal effects and not primarily for the sale of goods or merchandise." SECTION 6: Section 15- 06.560 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 11515- 06.560 Retail establishment "Retail establishment" means a use engaged in providing retail sale or rental of items primarily intended for consumer or household use. (a) Extensive retail establishment, as used with respect to parking requirements, means a retail use having more than seventy -five percent of the gross floor area used for display, sales and related storage of bulky commodities, including household furniture and appliances, lumber and building materials, carpeting and floor coverings, air conditioning and heating equipment, and similar goods, which uses have demonstrably low parking demand generation per square foot of gross floor area. (b) Intensive retail establishment, as used with respect to parking requirements, means any retail use not defined as an extensive retail establishment." Rev. 6/2/89 -2- SECTION 7: Section 15- 06.710 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "S15-06.710 Village "Village" means the area of the City subject to the Saratoga Village Specific Plan, as adopted by the City on May 18, 1988, and classified pursuant to this Chapter as either CH -1 or CH -2." SECTION 8: Paragraph (i) of Section 15- 10.010 in Article 15 -10 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(i) C: Commercial districts, consisting of: C -N Neighborhood commercial C -V Visitor commercial CH -1 and CH -2 Commercial historic districts" SECTION 9: Article 15 -19 of the City Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows: Sections: 15- 19.010 15- 19.020 15- 19.030 15- 19.040 15- 19.050 15- 19.060 X15- 19.010 "ARTICLE 15 -19 C: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Purposes of Article General regulations C -N district regulations C -V district regulations C -H district regulations Continuation of nonconforming uses Purposes of Article In addition to the objectives set forth in Section 15- 05.020, the commercial districts are included in the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the following purposes: (a) To provide appropriately located areas for retail stores and service establishments offering goods and services required by residents of the City. (b) To provide opportunities for retail stores, offices and service establishments to concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationship to each other. (c) To promote stable, attractive commercial development which will afford a pleasant shopping environment and will compliment the essential residential character of the City. Rev. 6/2/89 -3- (d) To provide space for community facilities which may appropriately be located in commercial areas. (e) To provide adequate space to meet the needs of modern commercial development, including off - street parking and loading areas. (f) To protect commercial properties from noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, heavy traffic and other objectionable influences, and from fire, explosion, noxious fumes and other hazards. (g) To implement the Saratoga Village Specific Plan, as adopted by the City on May 18, 1988, and thereby achieve the following objectives with respect to the Village: (1) Preservation and enhancement of the small- scale, pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and diners; (2) Preservation and enhancement of the architectural and landscape quality of the Village; (3) Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences; and (4) Conservation of historic structures. §15- 19.020 General regulations The following general regulations shall apply to all commercial districts in the City: (a) Permitted uses. The following permitted uses shall be allowed in any commercial district: (1) Retail establishments, except restaurants, markets, delicatessens, and any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages. (2) Service establishments. % (3) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article 15 -40 of this Chapter. (4) Parking lots which comply with the standards for off - street parking facilities as set forth in Section 15- 35.020 of this Chapter. (5) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use. (b) Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed in any commercial district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter: Rev. 6/2/89 -4- (1) Restaurants. (2) Markets and delicatessens. (3) Any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages. (4) Hotels and motels. (5) Bed and breakfast establishments. (6) Institutional facilities. (7) Community facilities. (8) Game arcades. (9) Gasoline service stations on sites abutting Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga /Los Gatos Road or Saratoga Avenue and accessible directly from such arterial road; provided, that all operations except the sale of gasoline and oil shall be conducted within an enclosed structure. (10) Animal establishments, as defined in Subsection 7- 20.010(c) of this Code. All animal establishments shall be subject to the regulations and license provisions set forth in Section 7- 20.210 of this Code. (11) Public buildings and grounds. (12) Public utility and public service pumping stations, power stations, drainage ways and structures, storage tanks, transmission lines and cable television facilities. (13) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a conditional use. (c) Expressly prohibited uses. Without limiting the application of Subsection 15- 05.055(a) of this Chapter, the following uses are expressly declared to be prohibited in all commercial districts: (1) Any use which emits air pollutants, solid or liquid wastes, radioactivity, or other discharge which endangers human health or causes damage to animals, vegetation or property. (2) Any use which creates offensive odor, noise, vibration, glare or electrical disturbance, detectable beyond the boundaries of the site, or creates a hazard of fire or explosion. (3) Any use involving drive - through service, such as restaurants and financial institutions with drive - through windows. (4) Any use involving automotive body work, such as collision repair, painting, dismantling or customizing. Rev. 6/2/89 -5- (5) Mini - storage facilities. (6) Outdoor sales or storage of motor vehicles. (d) Location of building sites. The average natural grade of the footprint underneath any structure shall not exceed thirty percent slope, and no structure shall be built upon a slope which exceeds forty percent natural slope at any location under the structure between two five -foot contour lines, except that: (1) A variance pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter may be granted where the findings prescribed in Section 15- 70.060 can be made, and (2) An exception under Article 14 -35 of the Subdivision Ordinance may be granted where the findings prescribed in Section 14- 35.020 can be made. (e) Yards. No use shall occupy any required yard, except fences, walls, hedges, landscaped areas, walks, driveways and parking areas. No required yard shall be used for a loading area or for storage. (f) Screening, landscaping and fencing. (1) Where a site is adjacent to an A, R -1, HC -RD, NHR, R -M or P -A district, a solid wall or fence six feet in height shall be located along the property line between the two districts, except in a required front yard, and an area five feet in depth adjoining such property line shall be landscaped and permanently maintained with plant materials suitable for ensuring privacy, screening unsightliness and insulating adjacent properties against noise. (2) Open storage of materials and equipment shall be permitted only within an area surrounded and screened by a solid wall or fence (with solid gates where necessary) not less than six feet in height; provided, that no materials or equipment shall be stored to a height greater than that of the wall or fence. (3) All outdoor trash containers and garbage areas shall be fully enclosed by a solid wall or fence and solid gates of sufficient height to screen the same from public view. No trash or garbage containers shall be placed or kept within twenty -five feet from the property line of any site occupied by a dwelling unit. (4) Required pedestrian open spaces, front yards and side yards, and not less than fifteen percent of any parking lot area, shall be completely landscaped and permanently maintained. (5) No credit shall be given against any landscaping or open space requirement imposed by this Article by reason of adjacent public parking facilities or public rights -of -way. (6) Whenever screening or landscaping is required by the provisions of this Article, or as a condition of any project approval, the owner or Rev. 6/2/89 -6- occupant of the property shall keep and maintain such screening and landscaping in good condition and repair. (7) Fences, walls and hedges shall comply with the regulations set forth in Article 15 -29 of this Chapter. (g) Signs. No sign of any character shall be erected or displayed in any C district, except as permitted under the regulations set forth in Article 15 -30 of this Chapter. (h) Off - street parking and loading facilities. Except in the case of a site located within and constituting a part of a City parking district, off - street parking and loading facilities shall be provided for each use on the site, in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 15 -35 of this Chapter. (i) Design review. All structures shall be subject to design review approval in accordance with the provisions of Article 15 -46 of this Chapter. X15- 19.030 C -N district regulations (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Subsection 15- 19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C -N district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (3) Religious and charitable instituitions. (4) Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Subsection 15- 19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional use may also be allowed in a C -N district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter: (1) Multi- family dwellings, including such dwellings combined with commercial uses on the same site. (2) Medical offices and clinics. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area of any lot in a C -N district shall be 10,000 square feet. (d) Site frontage, width and depth. The minimum site frontage, width and depth of any lot in a C -N district shall be as follows: Rev. 6/2/89 -7- Frontage Width Depth 60 feet 60 feet 100 feet (e) Coverage. The maximum net site area covered by structures on any lot in a C -N district shall be 60 percent. (f) Front yard. The minimum front yard of any lot in a C -N district shall be ten feet; except that on a site adjacent to and fronting on the same street as, or directly across the street from, an A, R -1, HC -RD, NHR, R -M or P -A district, the minimum front yard shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side and rear yards. No side or rear yard shall be required for any lot in a C -N district, subject to the following exceptions: (1) On a reversed corner lot abutting a lot in an A, R -1, HC -RD or NHR district, the minimum exterior side yard shall be not less than one -half of the required front yard of the abutting lot. (2) Except as otherwise provided in Subparagraph (1) above, on a lot abutting an A, R -1, HC -RD or NHR district, the minimum side yard or rear yard abutting such other district shall be thirty feet. (3) On a lot directly across a street or alley from an A, R -1, HC -RD or NHR district, the minimum side yard or rear yard adjacent to such street or alley shall be ten feet. Where a side or rear yard is required under any of the foregoing provisions, one foot shall be added to the required yard for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a structure within thirty feet of the lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (h) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in a C -N district shall be twenty feet. (i) Enclosure of uses. All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for off - street parking and loading, gasoline service stations, outdoor dining, nurseries, garden shops and Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (j) Screening, landscaping and fencing. An area not less than five feet in depth along all property lines that abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and /or improved with sidewalks or pathways as required by the Planning Commission. All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owner or occupant of the site. (k) Alternative standards for other provisions of this Section, where site, the Planning Commission shall standards set forth in Article 15 -17 shall be as determined in each case finding that: multi - family dwellings. Notwithstanding any multi- family dwellings will be located upon a apply for such dwellings the development of this Chapter. The density of development by the Planning Commission, based upon its Rev. 6/2/89 -8- (1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site; and (2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent properties; and (3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site; and (4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the occupants of adjacent properties. 515- 19.040 C V district regulations (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Subsection 15- 19.020(x) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C -V district: (1) Professional and administrative offices. (2) Financial institutions. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Subsection 15- 19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in a C -V district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter: (1) Religious and charitable institutions. (2) Multi- family dwellings, including such dwellings combined with commercial uses on the same site. (3) Medical offices and clinics. (4) Mortuaries. (5) Theatres. (6) Automobile upholstering shops, provided all operations are conducted within an enclosed structure. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area of any lot in a C -V district shall be 1.0,000 square feet. (d) Site frontage, width and depth. The minimum site frontage, width and depth of any lot in a C -V district shall be as follows: Frontage Width Depth 60 feet 60 feet 100 feet (e) Coverage. The maximum net site area covered by structures on any lot in a C -V district shall be 60 percent. Rev. 6/2/89 -9- (f) Front yard. The minimum front yard of any lot in a C -V district shall be ten feet; except that on a site adjacent to and fronting on the same street as, or directly across the street from, an A, R -1, HC -RD, NHR, R -M or P -A district, the minimum front yard shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side and rear yards. The minimum side yards of any lot in a C -V district shall be ten feet and the minimum rear yard of any lot in a C -V district shall be thirty feet, subject to the following exceptions: (1) One foot shall be added to the minimum side yard for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within thirty feet of the side lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (2) One foot shall be added to the minimum rear yard for each one foot of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within sixty feet of the rear lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (3) On a corner lot, the minimum exterior side yard shall be twenty feet. (h) Height of structures. The maximum height.of any structure in a C -V district shall be twenty feet. (i) Screening, landscaping and fencing. (1) An area not less than ten feet in depth along all property lines that abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and /or improved with sidewalks or pathways as required by the Planning Commission. All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owner or occupant of the site. (2) A use not conducted within a completely enclosed structure shall be screened by a solid wall or fence, vine - covered fence or compact evergreen hedge (with solid gates where necessary) not less than six feet in height. This requirement shall not apply to off - street parking and loading areas, gasoline service stations, outdoor dining areas, nurseries, garden shops, and Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots. (k) Alternative standards for multi - family dwellings. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, where multi- family dwellings will be located upon a site, the Planning Commission shall apply for such dwellings the development standards set forth in Article 15 -17 of this Chapter. The density of development shall be as determined in each case by the Planning Commission, based upon its finding that: (1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site; and (2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent properties; and Rev. 6/2/89 -10- (3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site; and (4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the occupants of adjacent properties. S15- 19.050 C -H district regulations (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Subsection 15- 19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in the CH -1 and CH -2 districts: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail or service establishment. (2) Single family and multi - family residential units, when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street frontage by a retail or service establishment. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Subsection 15- 19.020(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in the CH -1 and CH -2 districts, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter: (1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located at street level and having street frontage. (2) Theatres. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Single family and multi- family residential units, when located at street level and having street frontage. (c) Site area. The minimum net site area in each C -H District shall be as follows: District CH -1 CH -2 (d) Site frontage, width and depth. depth in each C -H district shall be as follows: Net Site Area 5,000 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. The minimum site frontage, width and District Frontage Width Depth CH -1 50 ft. 50 ft. 100 ft. CH -2 50 ft. 50 ft. 100 ft. Rev. 6/2/89 -11- (e) Coverage; pedestrian open space. (1) In the CH -1 district, the maximum net site area covered by structures shall be 80 percent, except that up to 100 percent of the site may be covered by structures if, for any structure coverage in excess of 80 percent, an equivalent area on the site is devoted to pedestrian open space. (2) In the CH -2 district, the maximum net site area covered by structures shall be 60 percent. In addition, an area equivalent to not less than 20 percent of the net site area shall be devoted to pedestrian open space. All or any portion of the required front yard may be used for pedestrian open space. (3) The term "pedestrian open space," as used in Subparagraphs (1) and (2) above, means common areas open to the public where pedestrians may walk or gather, such as plazas and arcades, which are designed to be visible and accessible to pedestrians on streets, sidewalks and parking facilities adjacent to the site. (f) Front yard. No front yard shall be required in the CH -1 district. The minimum front yard of any lot in the CH -2 district shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side yards. No side yards shall be required in either the CH -1 or CH -2 district. (h) Rear yard. No rear yard shall be required in the CH -1 district. No rear yard shall be required for any lot in the CH -2 district having a rear lot line that abuts a public right -of -way, public parking district, Saratoga Creek, or the CH -1 district. Where the rear lot line of any lot in the CH -2 district abuts an A, R -1, HC- RD, NHR or R -M district, the minimum rear yard shall be thirty feet, plus one foot for each two feet of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within sixty feet of the rear lot line for such yard exceeds fourteen feet in height. (i) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in each C -H district shall be as follows: District Height CH -1 35 feet. No portion of a structure facing Big Basin Way shall exceed two stories, and no portion of a structure facing Saratoga Creek shall exceed three stories. CH -2 26 feet. No structure shall exceed two stories. (j) Enclosure of uses. All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for off - street parking and loading, gasoline service stations, garden shops and outdoor dining. Rev. 6/2/89 -12- (k) Off -street parking and loading facilities. Where a site is located within and constitutes a part of a City parking district, the off - street parking requirement for each district shall be as follows, regardless of the particular category of use or uses occupying the site: District Spaces Required No. 1 One space for each 473.5 square feet of gross floor area. No. 2 One space for each 380 square feet of gross floor area. No. 3 One space for each 350 square feet of gross floor area, plus any additional square footage allowed on the site as a result of the acquisition of development rights created by the City upon the formation of Parking District No. 3. No. 4 One space for each 380 square feet of gross floor area. For the purpose of determining the required number of parking spaces for a development located within a City parking district, the term "gross floor area" shall not include enclosed or covered areas used for off - street parking or loading or interior courts of a building not occupied by a use for which off - street parking is required, but such gross floor area shall include any exterior balcony used as the sole means of access to a business establishment and any basement, or portion thereof, occupied by a use for which off - street parking is required. If a fractional number is obtained, one parking space shall be provided for a fraction of one -half or more, and no parking space shall be required for a fraction of less than one -half. (1) Modification of standards for historic structures. The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify any of the development standards contained in this Section, without the granting of a variance, if the subject of the application is a structure which has been designated as a historic landmark pursuant to Article 13 -15 of this Code, and the Planning Commission finds and determines that: (1) The modification will facilitate preservation of the historic structure; and (2) The application and the proposed modification have been reviewed and approved by the City's Heritage Commission; and (3) The modification will not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the vicinity; and Rev. 6/2/89 -13- (4) The modification will not adversely affect the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, or the availability of on- street parking, and will not create a hazard to the public safety. 515- 19.060 Continuation of nonconforming uses Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15- 55.130 of this Chapter, any clinic operating no earlier than 7:00 A.M. and no later than 9:00 P.M., any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages and any restaurant, market or delicatessen which, as of , 1989, was lawfully established and legally operating as a permitted use, shall be exempted from the requirement for elimination after lapse of time pursuant to Section 15- 65.110 of this Chapter and also exempted from the necessity to obtain a use permit for continuation of such use, but in all other respects shall be regarded as a nonconforming use. Any mini - storage facility lawfully operating pursuant to a use permit granted prior to , 1989, may continue to operate pursuant to the terms and conditions of such use permit." SECTION 10: Section 15- 35.020 in Article 15 -35 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: 515- 35.020 General requirements and regulations for off -street parking spaces (a) At the time of initial occupancy of a site or structure or at the time of an alteration or enlargement of a site or structure, there shall be provided off - street parking spaces for automobiles in accord with the schedule of off - street parking space requirements prescribed in Section 15- 35.030. For the purposes of this Section, the term "alteration or enlargement" shall mean a change of use or an addition which would increase the number of parking spaces required above the total number required prior to such change or addition. The number of parking spaces provided for an alteration or enlargment of a site or structure shall be in addition to the number existing prior to the alteration or enlargement, unless the pre- existing number is greater than the number prescribed in Section 15- 35.030, in which instance, the number in excess of the prescribed minimum shall be counted in calculating the number provided to serve the alteration or enlargement. (b) If, in the application of the requirements of this Article, a fractional number is obtained, one parking space shall be provided for a fraction of one -half or more, and no parking space shall be required for a fraction of less than one -half. (c) If more than one use is located on a site, the number of parking spaces provided shall be equal to the sum of the requirements prescribed in this Article for each use. (d) The off - street parking requirements of this Article may be satisfied by the permanent allocation of the prescribed number of spaces for each use in a common parking facility; provided, that the total number of spaces shall be not less than the sum of the individual requirements, and provided further, that a contract between the parties setting forth the agreement for joint use of a common parking facility is recorded in the office of the County Recorder and a certified copy thereof is filed with the City. Rev. 6/2/89 -14- (e) Where parking requirements are determined by gross floor area, such area shall not include enclosed or covered areas used for off - street parking or loading or interior courts of a building not occupied by a use for which off - street parking is required, but such gross floor area shall include any exterior balcony used as the sole means of access to a business establishment and any basement, or portion thereof, occupied by a use for which off - street parking is required. (f) The Planning Commission may require that off - street parking spaces in excess of the number prescribed in Section 15- 35.030 be provided for any use on a site, if the Commission finds that such additional spaces are necessary to avoid traffic congestion or shortage of curb spaces. (g) For a use not specifically listed in Section 15- 35.030, the number of off - street parking spaces shall be determined by the Planning Commission or the Planning Director, based upon the number of spaces required for the most similar specified use and such information as may be available to the Planning Commission or the Planning Director concerning the parking requirements of the proposed use. (h) In all districts except a C -H district, the off - street parking spaces prescribed in Section 15- 35.030 shall be located on the same site as the use for which the spaces are required, or on an adjacent site or a site separated only by an alley from the use for which the spaces are required. In a C -H district, the off - street parking spaces prescribed in Section 15- 35.030 may be located within three hundred feet of the use for which the spaces are required, measured by the shortest route of available pedestrian access. (i) With respect to any site or structure located within a C -N, C -V, C -H, P -A, R -M or MU -PD district, not more than twenty -five percent of the number of required off - street parking spaces may consist of compact parking spaces.. If, in the application of this Paragraph, a fractional number is obtained, one compact parking space may be provided for a fraction of more than one -half and one standard parking space shall be provided for a fraction of one -half or less. (j) No repair work or servicing of vehicles shall be conducted in any parking area." SECTION 11: Paragraphs (m), (n) and (o) of Section 15- 35.030 in Article 15 -35 of the City Code are amended to read as follows: "(m) Intensive retail establishments (n) Extensive retail establishments (o) Service establishments and financial institutions Rev. 6/2/89 -15- One space for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area. One space for each five hundred square feet of gross floor area. One space for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area." SECTION 12: Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 15- 35.060 in Article 15 -35 of the City Code are amended to read as follows: SECTION 13: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 14: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 6/2/89 -16- MAYOR Spaces "Use Gross Floor Area Required (a) Hotels, motels, offices, Less than 5,000 sq. ft. 0 nursing homes, religious 5 , 000 to 50,000 sq. ft. 1 institutions, service 50,000 to 150,000 sq. ft. 2 establishments, financial Each additional 150,000 institutions sq. f t. 1 (b) Retail establishments Less than 5,000 sq. ft. 0 warehouses, storage 5,000 to 12,500 sq. ft. 1 facilities, restaurants, 12,500 to 20,000 sq. ft. 2 limited industrial 20,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. 3 establishments 30,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. 4 50,000 to 75,000 sq. ft. 5 Each additional 75,000 sq. ft. 1 SECTION 13: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 14: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1989, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 6/2/89 -16- MAYOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 14, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Page 3 Commissioner Burger cited the smallness of the lot; if the building were enhanced, a parking vari- ance may be required. Secondly, she noted the landscaped triangle - shaped piece of land across the street; this building took on the flavor of the adjacent parcel. Commissioner Kolstad agreed with Commissioner Tappan and recommended that architectural detail be added to enhance the building. As one approached the building, a large expanse of black top was apparent, which was not visually appealing. He asked that a plan be submitted for the planter boxes and wished to see the adjacent triangle - shaped parcel improved. Mr. Heid responded that the plants would provide the visual attractiveness in this area. Commissioner Tucker stated that while she understood the concerns expressed above, she leaned toward approval of this Application. She agreed that the triangle - shaped parcel across the street softened the impact of the building. Chairperson Siegfried agreed with the majority view of the Commissioners. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -038 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4 -2, Commissioner Kolstad, Tappan dissenting. PUBLIC HEARiGS: 14. AZO- 89-OOL City of Saratoga, amendments to zoning ordinance Article 15 -19 and other ZC -89 -001 related City Code sections to implement the Saratoga Village Plan and to revise certain regulations pertaining to the commercial zoning districts; the application also involves the rezoning of certain Village properties in accor- dance with the Village Plan (from the C -C, C V, P -A, R -M -3,000 and R- M -4,000 to the CH or CH -2 districts; and from the C -C district to the P -A district) as shown on map on file in the Saratoga Planning Department. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The City Attorney presented his Memorandum of June 6, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:57 P.M. Mr. Lee S. Grey, President, Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association, requested information on various Village properties; Planning Director Emshe provided the information requested. The property adjacent to the Adriatic Restaurant, with nine condominiums on -site, was referred to by him as "Saratoga's ghetto "; this was the most deplorable situation he had seen; he would not like to see a similar density at another location. He asked the City Council and the Planning Commission to carefully review the zoning in the Village area. Mr. R. Anderson, representing Mr. and Mrs. Anderson, Big Basin Way, Saratoga, requested information on parking standards applied in Parking District 1, floor area ratios versus gross area and the applicable Ordinance that allowed the same parking standard to be applied to different uses. The City Attorney provided the information requested. Mr. Anderson added that there were properties in Parking District 1 that had sufficient land to provide their own parking on -site; Chairperson Siegfried responded that these property owners had participated in the Parking District with an understanding that the Parking District could yield certain uses for their property. Ms. Holly Davies, Big Basin Way, Saratoga, felt the proposed Ordinance was positive for the City; however, she still had concerns about Section 15- 19.050 C -H District Regulations. (e) (1)111 Coverage• pedestrian open spy, namely, the 20% designated open space requirement. She asked this requirement be reduced or specified to allow the 15 ft. front setback to be counted in the 20 %. She suggested the definition of open space be expanded to include front property lawns. Finally, she was concerned that the proposed Ordinance would discourage the building of covered front porches and asked that porches be allowed to slightly encroach into the front setback area. Mr. Jim Ross, Quito Village area, cited Section 14 which stated that "the Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption" and asked what would be grandfathered. The City Attorney responded with the information requested. Judge John Rastetter, Springer Court, Saratoga, asked whether R -M 4,000 zoning would be eliminated; the City Attorney provided the information requested. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 JUNE 14, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued An unidentified speaker requested information on the Village zoning; information was provided. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Passed 6 -0. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION. Passed 6 -0. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AZO -89 -001 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6 -0. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ZC -89 -001 PER THE MODEL 15. UP -89 -003 Odd Fellows Home of California, 14500 Fruitvale Ave., request for a con- ditional use permit to allow outside groups to use the picnic grounds at the Odd Fellows Home. This use permit would be for a limited term, for the 1989 picnic season only. After the 1989 season, use of the picnic grounds would be limited to the Odd Fellows only. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Burger offered to report on the land use visit; no report was requested. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated June 14, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:29 P.M. Mr. Lawrence Wilkinson, Executive Director of the Odd Fellows, commented as follows: - Noted that the Picnic Schedule for the Summer of 1989, inadvertently included ten exempt events for Odd Fellows/Rebeccas; an updated schedule would be provided the following day - Refuted the implication that picnics were scheduled in violation of the City's Guidelines; picnics were scheduled in the summer of 1988, whereas the Guidelines were received April 21, 1989 - A recent letter accused the Odd Fellows of using amplified sound; the only event that fell within the time frame alluded to was a resident's 90th birthday party with residents and friends - Reminded the Commission that Fellowship Plaza satisfied the General Plan Housing Element requirements; in addition, this land had been frequently used by the City - Cited sound meter readings taken during picnics; standard background level ranged between 52- 56 decibels with 58 -64 decibels for the direct reading - Wished to be good neighbors; however, they were a community in themselves with 400 people Mr. Tony Dellimonico, UNICO Charity Organization, presented a signed contract for use of the site Sunday, June 18th and reviewed their efforts toward a successful fund raiser; it would be impossible to cancel the event now. Mr. B. L Martinson, Past Master, Charity Lodge, noted plans for a Sunday, August 27th picnic; they had no objection to any other Guideline imposed. Mr. Norman Bowman, Past Commander, Post 89, noted their use of the Odd Fellow's property for many years and questioned the prohibition on Sunday picnics. Mr. Ray Clark, President, Fleet Reserve Association, noted that on Memorial Day he received a rejection of his application to hold a picnic. Mr. Richard Murphy, President, United Veterans Council, noted that the proposed action would disrupt the Odd Fellows recreational area; the Odd Fellows pre -dated the incorporation of the City. Mr. Galinsky, Past Commander, Post 89, noted that veterans had put their life on the line for this country; he contended that the City's action in this matter was stepping on his right to assemble. A representative of the Hungarian Church asked that they be allowed to hold the picnics scheduled. Ms. Wanda Allinger, Fellowship Plaza, asked why the Odd Fellows were discriminated against. Mr. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Rd., Saratoga, thanked Mr. Emslie for facilitating negotiations between the various parties; he favored the Guidelines established by the City Manager. Mr. Don Richiuso reviewed the situation and contended the City directed the Odd Fellows to stop holding picnics as early as October 1988; compliance was the responsibility of the Odd Fellows. He did not object to a reasonable number of participants at picnics if the Guidelines were enforced. _ ____0 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT vnnmm�� 04 DATE: Tuesday, May 2 1989 - PLACE: 1-Commun,"Ey r Arts & TYPE: Committee -of- the -Whole 7:30 p.m. Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. A. Presentation from Prospective Operator of the Senior Facility Developer: Dividend Development Corp. Project: The Vineyards and Villas of Masson Prospective Operator: Northern California Presbyterian Homes --------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Present before the Commission were Mr. Dick Oliver, a representative of Dividend Development, Mr. Ralph Knight of Northern California Presbyterian Homes (NCPH), and Mr. Andy Beverett, a representative of the Senior Coordinating Council. Mr. Knight gave a presentation regarding the NCPH organization and their requirements for the operation of a senior housing project such as the one proposed for the Masson property. Mr. Knight stressed that no commitment had been made by NCPH to operate the facility. Other NCPH projects within the Bay Area were compared and contrasted with the proposed project. Mr. Knight stated that, in order to be economically feasible, a project of this type should have at least 280 units plus an additional 66 health care beds. Mr. Knight described the feasibility of the proposed project as marginal. Mr. Beverett, Mr. Knight and the Commission discussed the differences between rental housing and "equity- based" options. Mr. Knight elaborated on some of the problems associated with "condo" life care facilities. The Commission discussed the impact that other facilities of this type in the area may have on the proposed facility. Monthly costs of providing skilled care services was also discussed. The Commissioners stressed their desire to secure an operator for the facility prior to approval of the final development plans. Mr. Knight stated that the NCPH Board of Directors would render a decision as soon as possible. B. Third Study Session to Review Draft Revisions to the Commercial Districts Planning Director Emslie reviewed the staff report, noting that there were four issues outstanding, two that were Village - related, and the two relating to other commercial district. He reviewed the staff recommendation on each. City Attorney Toppel 1 COW Report 5/2/89 suggested some wording change on the section recommended by the Heritage Commission, ie., that the findings relate to the surrounding properties as well as the designated property involved. Chairman Siegfried opened the item to the public for discussion. Mr. Grey, Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association, expressed concern about the potential for development on the property at the end of Big Basin Way, and possible noise and privacy impacts. Jim Ross, Devon Avenue, thanked the Commission and the CSO's for their prompt attention t the garbage problem at the Quito Village Center. He recommended the ordinance include language about "buffer zones ", to keep noisy uses away from quiet areas. Roy Anderson, Big Basin Way, said he was there on his son's, Randy, behalf; he questioned the parking district ratios for District #1, stating that the original allowance was 473 -1/2 sq. ft. per space and the ordinance was proposing 380 sq. ft. The City Attorney will follow -up on this. He also asked for further clarification on residential vs. commercial parking requirements in parking districts. Norm Hulberg, San Jose, suggested adding a requirement that trash enclosures have doors. he also reiterated his concern about requiring use permits for all types of restaurant uses. John Rastatter, Springer Court, dittoed the concerns about the properties at the end of Big Basin Way, as did Mr. Deina, also of Springer Court. Chair Siegfried explained that any of the uses and developments they were concerned about would require public hearing by the Planning Commission and they would be notified. Holly Davies, Big Basin Way, expressed concern that 20% pedestrian open space requirement in the CH -2 zone was excessive, and asked if the front yard setback area was counted in the 20 %. Mr. Emslie replied that it was counted if the treatment of the area was pedestrian in nature; this section of the ordinance could be clarified to reflect that. There being no further comments, Chairman Siegfried told the public that their concerns would be addressed in revisions to the ordinance to be prepared by staff and the City Attorney; the ordinance would be scheduled for public hearing in June. 2 Committee -of- the -Whole Report April 4, 1989 prepared for geographical areas of the City and was cross referenced so that specific sign types can be easily found. The Committee expressed its sincere gratitude to Col Barco in completing this large task. The Committee further noted that the inventory will be particularly helpful in completing the upcoming review of the sign ordinance. The Committee directed that staff prepare a report analyzing the options for sign regulations in light of the inventory prepared by Col. Barco. Staff indicated that approximately 30 days will be necessary to submit the report to the Committee. D. Revisions to Commercial District Regulations - Non Commercial Property Owners Planner Young gave a brief staff report, noting that this was the second meeting on this item, focusing on non - Village commercial properties. She outlined the proposed revisions and the areas of the City in which they would be applied. Steve Porter, Saratoga Square, asked if there would be a problem in transferring use permits from owner to owner. City Attorney Toppel replied that use permits ran with the land, not the owner. Mr. & Mrs. Holmes, Park Saratoga, stated they never realized their condominium project was zoned commercial and asked if there would be any impact on them.. Chair Guch replied that residential regulations apply to residential uses in commercial zones. J. Dunn, from the same complex, asked if the unkept area near the railroad tracks would be improved; Planning Director Emslie replied that a landscape assessment district was under preparation for that area and that it would be improved in the future. Laurie Landwehr, 18803 Devon Avenue, expressed concerns and showed photos of trash at Quito Center, particularly behind the new restaurant where the center backs up to lots facing Devon Avenue. She recommended that the ordinance include a requirement that trash bins be enclosed and be set back from property lines adjacent to residential zones. She described noise problems associated with early morning deliveries at the Center. V. Bilionis, 18789 Devon Avenue, echoed Landwehr's concerns, stating that there should be a requirement for sound walls between commercial and residential properties. Mr. Toppel stated that the ordinance currently allowed wood fences and hedges to serve as walls and that the height was limited to 6 feet; these would need to changed to accomodate the neighbor's concerns. E Committee -of- the -Whole Report April 4, 1989 Commissioner Siegfried directed staff to follow up on the violations at the Center, and to check the original plans for the Center to see where the trash cans were to be sited. Norm Hulberg, commercial property owner, asked what determined a restaurant use; Mr. Toppel replied that it was seating within the building. Mr. Hulberg felt that requiring a use permit added a layer of bureaucracy that was a disincentive for those uses and may have an affect on City sales tax revenues. He suggested that Commission consider use permits only for larger restaurants, not for small operations with limited seating. He also suggested that the ordinance limit deliveries to the front rather than rear of a building. Chair Guch thanked members of the public for attending the meeting. Staff will prepare a final draft ordinance and advertise one more study session for both Village and non - Village property owners. II. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectful ly,stfl5l4itted StepWen 'mslie Planni Director 3 Committee -of- the -Whole Report March 14, 1989 C. Implementation of Village Plan and Revised Commercial Zoning Districts Planner Young gave a brief staff report, noting that this was the first of two study sessions on this issue, and that this meeting focused on the C -H regulations for the Village. She outlined the proposed revisions and the areas of the Village to which they would apply. In response to a question from Commissioner Siegfried, City Attorney Toppel noted that the use permit provision would apply to new restaurant /market /alcoholic beverage uses, and that existing uses would be grandfathered. There being no further questions from the Commission, Chair Guch invited the public in attendance to speak on this item. Diana Parham, 14613 Oak Street, expressed concern about enforcement of the regulations once they were adopted, particularly in relation to noise problems relating to restaurants. John DiManto, property owner, asked for clarification on how the regulations would affect the development potential and parking at the Security Pacific Bank Building. He said it was his intent to put a nice restaurant in the building and was concerned about the use permit requirement. City Attorney Toppel replied that the parking district regulations apply to the property and there is no change to those standards. Commissioner Siegfried suggested Mr. DiManto meet with Planning staff if he needed additional details. Mr. Sullivan, property owner, expressed concern about speeding cars in Parking District 3. Mr. Toppel noted that the speed limit there was 15 mph. Randy Anderson, representative of property owner, asked if the minimum lot sizes in the ordinance actually matched what exists in the Village. Staff will research this. He also asked for clarification on the definition of pedestrian open space and the parking district ratios. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, was concerned about offices becoming a conditional use in the CH -2 area; she felt that offices should be encouraged in that area because of its residential ambiance. Commissioners Siegfried and Guch replied that the emphasis is to allow retail along the frontage with offices behind, thus the requirement for a use permit when they are proposed for the front. 2 Committee -of- the -Whole Report March 14, 1989 Mr. Wallace, property owner, asked for clarification of the chart on page 1; Mr. Toppel stated that the chart showed differences between districts, not similarities. Randy Anderson asked how the parking ratios were applied for residential uses in parking districts; Mr. Toppel replied that the ratio applies regardless of the use. Mr. Anderson also asked about incentives for preserving historic structures; Planner Young replied that the Heritage Commission would be reviewing the ordinance and making recommendations on that matter to the Planning Commission. Chair Guch thanked members of the public for attending the meeting. There was Commission consensus to conduct another study session for non - Village commercial properties, then have the City Attorney incorporate any changes into the ordinance, then hold one last study session for both Village and non - Village owners before going to public hearing. B. DR -88 -057, Lin, 12532 Parker Ranch The Committee reviewed revised plans for the proposed home. The applicant had been directed by the Planning Commission to address the bulk issue of the rear elevation. The revised elevation was designed with significant horizontal articulation and was reduced in length by elimination of the deck area at the right side. In addition, the materials were changed to wood and brick which help blend the home with the natural environment. The Commissioners were satisfied with the proposed changes and felt that the bulk issue was addressed. II. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted Stephen E slie Planning Director SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. � AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: 8/2/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Appeal of SD -89 -005 & LL -89 -003; Applicant: Sam Espeseth; Appellants: Lela Wilson, Don Murphy and Barbara Seacrist Location: 21271 Merrick Dr. --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council review the staff report and background information; accept public testimony; and move to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Report Summary: The applicants request approval of a proposal to adjust existing property lines to create one additional building site. Since the lot lines are recorded, an adjustment is necessary since the existing historic home rests on two separate parcels. When the proposal was before the Planning Commission, significant concerns were raised by surrounding neighbors that additional development on the property will degrade the the neighborhood. While the Planning Commission was sensitive to the issue and concerns raised by the neighborhood, and the Planning Department, the most compelling argument was structured by the City Attorney who reported that insufficient basis existed to deny the project. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: Motion and Vote 1. Appeal 2. Staff report 6/14/89 3. Heritage Commission memo 5/15/89 4. Resolutions LL -89 -003 and SD -89 -005 5. Minutes 6/14/89 and 3/8/89 1:3777 F ItUI'IVALE AVENUE • SAIZATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (108) 867- :34:38 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 8/2/89 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of SD -89 -005 & LL -89 -003; Applicant: Sam Espeseth; Appellants: Lela Wilson, Don Murphy and Barbara Seacrist; Location: 20271 Merrick Drive Overview The Planning Commission approved applications for a lot line adjustment and a building site approval involving existing lots of record in the Merrick Drive neighborhood. The impact of the Planning Commission action created a building site fronting on Merrick Drive adjacent to existing homes and in front of the applicant's residence. The application was appealed by the immediate neighbors. Project Description The Planning Commission actions result in relocating existing lot lines creating two lots from three lots of record. Parcel "A" is approximately 10,000 sq. ft., and is undeveloped; Parcel "B" is 41,000 sq. ft. and is developed with the applicants residence. Both parcels conform with the minimum lot size and lot dimensions of the R -1- 10,000 zone district; therefore, no variances or exceptions are requested. Background The development of the neighborhood occurred after the construction of the existing residence. The residence is a historic structure being originally the home of Rev. Pollard, an early settler to the valley. (The home is on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources but not a designated resource). The home stood amid fruit orchards until the mid 1950's when the surrounding subdivision was created. In the process of subdividing, a larger lot was reserved for the existing residence. A significant factor in the Planning Commission's decision was the fact that all the lots involved were legally created. In the early 19601s, the property was split into two parcels, approximately equal in size. The new lot line was located within 15 feet of the original structure. Subsequently, an addition was made to the original structure in approximately 1964. The addition was also approved by the City as building permits are on file as verification. The addition was constructed over the newly created lot line. The development of the property also had a recent history before the Planning Commission. Earlier this year, the Planning Commission reviewed a subdivision application which created three lots: two undeveloped and the existing structure. The Planning Commission found it would intensify the property to the detriment of surrounding properties. Rather than appeal the Planning Commission denial of the three lot subdivision, the applicant resubmitted with a two parcel lot line adjustment. Minutes from this previous Planning Commission action are attached for Council's reference. Analysis The following table provides a digest of the pertinent data contained in previous reports presented to the Planning Commission. The detailed reports are also attached for more detailed review. Staff Analysis I. Zoning: R -1- 10,000 II. General Plan: M -10 III. Average Slope: less than 10% IV. Parcel Sizes Existing IV. Parcel Sizes Proposed VI. VII. A. Parcel A: 26,100 s.f. A. Parcel A: 10,019 s.f. B. Parcel B: 21,663 s.f.(gross) B. Parcel B: 40,946 s.f.(gross) 19,018 s.f.(net) 38,301 s.f.(net) C. Parcel C: 3,202 s.f. C. Parcel C: (merged) R -1- 10,000 Development Standards A. Front Yard: 25 ft. B. Side Yards: 10 ft. (ea.) C. Rear Yard: 25 ft. Distances to nearest adjacent residences (measured from applicant's property line) A. 23 ft. (north) B. 26 ft. (east) C. 13 ft. (south) D. 20 ft. (west) VIII. Landscaping to be Removed A. Species: Cedar; Size: 18 "; Location: Front Yard Parcel A B. Species: Cedar; Size: 12 "; Location: Access Corridor to Parcel B Issues Two issues were central to the Planning Commission consideration of the requests: the interpretation of existing general plan policy and the legal status of the current lots of record. With respect to each issue, the Planning staff and City Attorney disagreed. Staff noted that in order for the Planning Commission to consider approving the lot line adjustment and building site approval several findings must be made. While these findings, required by State statutes are streamlined and easy to make (see below), the application must remain consistent with the General Plan. Staff pointed out to the Planning Commission that the proposal met with the density and land use policies in the General Plan; however, the policies in the Open Space Element raised questions in staff's interpretation. Lot Line Adjustment Findings (1) That the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (2) That the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance and this Chapter. For the purpose of this finding, the lot line adjustment shall be deemed consistent if no new violation of such regulations is created by the lot line adjustment, or if the nonconformity created by the lot line adjustment is specifically approved by the advisory agency through the appropriate process, such as the granting of a variance or use permit under Chapter 15 of this Code or the granting of an exception under this Chapter. (3) That the proposed lot line adjustment will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, the subject properties. In this connection, the advisory agency may grant tentative approval if it finds that alternate easements for access or use will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the advisory agency to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of any portion of the subject properties. The current version of the Open Space element cites the City's low density and large residential lots as fulfilling the open space need. Staff indicated that the large lot with its historic home was created from subsequent residential development and was consistent with the City's policy of providing private open space. Much testimony was expressed from the public fearful that further development would spoil the character of the neighborhood and detract from the intent of the original subdividers as well as the City open space policy. Conversely, the City Attorney reported to the Commission regarding the status of the lots of record. Since the proposal was consistent with adopted land use policy of the City; and evidence demonstrated that lots of record were legally created there was insufficient basis to substantiate the Commission's denial of the proposal. Since, the parcels in question neither conflicted with any standard of lot dimension and size, nor aggravated an existing non- conformity, nor conflicted with any easement, the City Attorney reported that findings to approve the request were present. Further, the lots of record in question did not qualify for lot merger since each was greater than 5,000 sq. ft. in size and did not threaten the public's health or safety. Planning Commission Proceedings The Commission received extensive input from the surrounding community. The preponderance of testimony was opposed to further development of the property, citing the following issues as concerns: 1. Drainage: Concern was expressed that further development would increase runoff to neighboring properties and would exacerbate current adverse conditions. 2. Increased Traffic: Neighbors pointed out that the construction of another home would create additional demand for on- street parking which would detract from the neighborhood as well as cause increased congestion. 3. Loss of Privacy & Light: Because the topography of the site sits higher than surrounding property, the development of an additional residence would appear larger and loom over residences and outdoor areas of adjacent properties. 4. Historic Resource: The neighbors felt that the home represented a significant historic resource which would be comprised by further subdivision. In addition to oral testimony, the Planning Commission received numerous letters which detailed specific objections and concerns which are attached for Council review. The Commission also received comment from residents that the project denial would infringe on the applicant's right to a reasonable use of his property. Several residents stated that since lots legally existed, the Planning Commission was compelled to honor the buildable status and authorize reasonable development. Residents also pointed out that the type of home contemplated would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and would not detract from its quality. The Planning Commission also considered the input of the Heritage Resource Commission who prepared a memorandum commenting on the proposal. While the Heritage Preservation Commission stated its preference that the site remain in its present form and that any change will have a significant impact on the historic quality of the residence, mitigating conditions were recommended if a version of the application were approved. These conditions are listed on the attached memorandum from Valerie Young, Secretary to the Heritage Commission. Although site specific development on Parcel "A" was not in question since a design review application was not pending, architectural renderings were presented by the applicant. Because parcel "A" fronts directly onto Merrick Drive, the architectural themes of the street are incorporated in the proposed design. A one -story design which utilizes a ranch style roof and exterior materials were chosen to enhance compatibility with the surrounding area. The architectural presentation also attempts to resolve the height difference between parcel "A" and the neighboring property. Site conditions show Parcel "A" to be elevated approximately 10 ft. higher than the neighboring properties. The architectural presentation proposes to lower the pad of parcel "A" so that the finished floor of the new structure would be 3 to 4 feet higher than the adjacent property. The grade change is accomplished by a 5 ft. maximum retaining wall constructed at the rear of Parcel "A ". The recent letter attached to this report from the applicant and his consultant indicating a desire to implement the architectural concepts presented to the Planning Commission. Additionally, the letter indicates that the building pad can be reduced another foot to promote compatibility with the adjoining property. Conclusion While the Planning staff and the City Attorney differ with respect to this proposal, staff believes each position to be essential in review of the issues involved. The development of an additional home will have a serious impact on the surrounding area especially to those residents who either face the site or are adjacent to and lower than the proposal. However, the City Attorney reports that it may be extremely difficult if not impossible, to undo prior actions which created these lots, which is a fact that cannot be ignored. In reaching its conclusion, the Planning Commission found the position presented by the City Attorney to be the most compelling and, therefore, voted to approve the applications. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council review the staff report and background information; accept public testimony; and move to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. 9tepheii Emsl'e Planning Director Attachments: 1. Appeal 2. Staff report 6/14/89 3. Heritage Commission memo 5/15/89 4. Resolutions LL -89 -003 & SD -89 -005 5. Correspondence 6. Minutes 6/14/89 and 3/8/89 SE /dsc Letter of Appeal Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: APPEAL APPLICATION Earing [eVtV.- ( Fee ( CITY ' USE rol Decision Being Appealed: „.. . Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): 17% v A Pellant's Signature :© *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. TJ(TS APPI,.TC,%TTON MUST BE SUIIAJITTrD lVITFfIN TEN (10) CALLPJDAR DA 1`H L• D,l'f L- U h 'f H E U L' C i-S I U D YS O F Appeal Reasons 6 -22 -89 1. Illegal lot line adjustment since there is not legally two lots due to encroachment of family room and pool of existing house on 2nd parcel. 2. Privacy of immediate neighbors is impacted. 3. Worsens runoff problems. 4. Creates parking problem and traffic problems. 5. New driveway too close to Wilsons. 6. Increased density and elimination of open space not in keeping with general plan and prevailing "open space /country" atmosphere. 7. Protracted grading and construction noise. 8. Immediate neighbors resale value hurt. 9. Historic value of house and property disregarded. 10. Noise levels will be much higher from traffic going up the hill and from new home. 11. 25' as opposed to 30' setback prevailing on street. 12. Landscaping is a problem this year because of the drought. 13. Nonconforming house plan (3000 sq. ft.) to the surrounding neighbors (1600 - 2500 sq. ft. single story). 14. Cutting down mature trees 15. Flag lot issue. Y 16. Narrowness of land by street and sloping of hill not conducive to building. Map does not reveal impracticalities and impact of the new proposed house. 17. Existing traffic noise is heard all the way around the block on the hill in the back. For Reference, Staff Report of June 14, 1989 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Martin Jacobson DATE: 6/14/89 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -89 -005, LL -89 -003; 20271 Merrick DR APPLICANT /OWNER: Espeseth APN: 393 -42 -17 Q N t38�41 94-: f161 317-2 ILL C5) gar :.. , ... X373 20355 20333 20315 20295 20275 20x3 3 202/7 ZR 199 qq 13°'81 ' 201 Sd "' 9t-ot- 39(.01- 311 -01- 91 -01- 391-01= 391 -OI- 391 -ot- 59 397Z I- 3971 ol- ''•91-04-80 391- of -ice S6 tears � 57 56 54 �. to) 17) 20 184 �'"' °'''� W 14 of FRANKLIN AVE. 394- -�1 -e4- ,�l 16 c 11) �8 1 !6 r 0374 • 2os44 Qo3t 20304 26294 2o2 3 20244 lox 13 2 2110196 136111 CI 13 f 4-a Itr•ol- 391-01- 71 -01- 391 =a- go?-to 4-t: 391-01 1-01 - 391-01 39!-01- of - 391 -01- 391-01 -92 39t-ol- /ob 60 6f 62' 63 64 (05 66 67 8111• 69 U5J 2030 4-6 Cr7) Cr8) Cr9) C2=) (29)06 361 CI 11220S) IS 1 ;K 391 -01- t15 ?o2al 2024.7 20253 20299 02 Z3 p, (19) t •ot- �' 13b54 3t1 a- 2 371-01 �1- 391 -01- 39/-0 371 -01 391 -0 �• 13645 13640 09 371-x- 14S i4o 139 1 tD7 4-96 G. 391-01 -83 > 391- o1 -/o9 24z (14) :,,r r !2 SA�R ATO GA� VISTA,. 1367111) .- 13W Clt (r O) (9) C8i V) (. G) 13�4Z l91 -et- cso) Is65q 311- -10q oz9fo 280 02 b4 20248 ?0t32 ?0216 IZi 391-01 -84 .ot 74 811 -201- 41 (1 ) 91-01- 391-01- X91.01- tl -ol- f•ol 31t -a- C9) n ;:. 1e a1- r' i�6vb 174 1 19$ 119 194-0 17 91t•-ot I-a 7 I ). ,� 1'36118 14s (3669. 13 0 13695 1 f- '7 CZy W 1) '3682 1 C � 13700 C9 3011-01- .0 Site 13) 13369etiSoCtl- ) •-S! /-OI-. < !4 391.0► - ' 13700 391.0l- o1- 8v _ oz , sl _ 239 (9703 311-01- (3) Q ,:. 13696 23) 137!2 (4) ' [374-0 Z0251 20231 2o2t 39t -ot- 18703 391-01 /o I. j11f2 CI) 391-01- +,y91 -o1- 391-0(- 391-0- C3) 391 -01-87 CW 13715 I The 4-67 Q 13712 1371L Z 1,0724 314- -e1- 148 J ER RI CK DR. = 391 -o1- ISO (24) 391 - of -loo 24 237 Ct) , C� CJ� C9) fro) (1) � C) 13728 13719 391-01- 6). .39 r 137340 13725 111 -o1- S 20290 20270 Zo25o Zo230 2o210 YII-oI- o 391.0/- 39t 0(-162 41-04-- 149 !63 311.81- 391 -01- 391-o1- 12 13741 22 J 164 r 19744 391 -01 -91 13748. . C5) 13735 (4) Cw (4) C3) C2) J 3Q1- of -Yd 1 13748 '391-01 -Iso (3754 Il764 13772 19782 13794 391 -01- 129 13759 b) 226 ml -o1 - 235 391.01- 991 -01- 391 -01- 991- 61- 4-61 Ibe 16 I 8 3111 -0! W 1S7 C 391 -oJ -90 1 g7G4 . 13745(4) 13760 337cw497. 137 341 °'"'g' CALLS TACUBA *l11 -0(- cY77 '7 234 C5) Cs C7) CS) f9) 27 CT) 19777 (37 13790 13772 (3) 13755 13765 1377.3 13785. 391 of- •� 1371J5 I3764 39► -01-9( 391.01-96 391.04- -283 391 -01- 39( -e1- 391.01- 152 153 154 158 391 -01 -1 r '191ro1- 13795 ) 1311-0/-?Z CZ7 J 391 -01-99 20367 0345 20315 2021 zozss 20261 (10) C29) 371 -0/ 3t /-o1 -201 20241 2022( Is811 e� 19910 !3813 cn 232 231 391 -01- 391.01- 391 -01 391 -01 -257 3t/ -ol- 391-01 37~01 °!91-01 -93 255 254 253 256 182 125 39 /rot -�i HER RI MA N "E. t38�41 94-: f161 317-2 ILL File No. SD -89 -005, LL -89 -003; 20271 Merrick Dr. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 4/10/89 Application complete: 4/24/89 Notice published: 6/1/89 Mailing completed: 6/2/89 Posting completed: 5/25/89 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 14- 50.040, the appl adjustment approvals Merrick Drive. The ft. from parcel "A" parcel "A ". Pursuant to City Code Articles 14- 15.020 and icant is requesting building site and lot line in the R -1- 10,000 zone district at 20271 lot line adjustment would transfer 16,081 sq. to parcel "B" with building site approval for PROJECT DISCUSSION: An historic resource is located on the site of this project. Further development of the property jeopardizes implementation of the goals of the conservation and open space elements of the General Plan. For this reason, staff is not able to make all required findings to recommend approval of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the applications by adopting Resolutions SD -89 -005 and LL -89 -003. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution SD -89 -005 and LL -89 -003 3. Historic Resources Inventory ( #35) 4. Memorandum of Heritage Commission, dated May 15, 1989. 5. Correspondence Kiml SD -89 -005, LL -89 -003; 20271 Merrick Drive STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M -10 PARCEL SIZE: 1.17 acres; 50,962 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: less than 10% PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission's approval for a lot line adjustment and building site approval. The adjustment would allow the transfer of 16,081 sq. ft. from parcel "A" to parcel "B ". Building site approval is requested for parcel "A" to construct a single family home. The total area of the property is 50,962 sq. ft. The property under consideration is actually three lots. The first parcel is a nonconforming, 3,202 sq. ft. lot that is subject to merger with parcel "B ". Parcel "B" is an existing flag lot with the access corridor off Merrick Drive. For this discussion, staff will consider the nonconforming lot and parcel "B" combined for a total area of 24,862 sq. ft. Parcel "A" is currently 26,100 sq. ft. Staff would also like to point out that this application is not affected by the potential moratorium ordinance on the creation of flag lots, since in this case, the flag lot is pre- existing. Presently, the property is occupied by a single family dwelling listed on the City's Heritage Resource Inventory. The original portion of the home is nearly 110 years old and served as the farm house for a surrounding 40 acre ranch. The property is elevated with respect to the adjacent, more recent subdivision. Attached is the Historic Resources Inventory form ( #35) which provides a more detailed history of the home. Staff has solicited comments from the Heritage Commission concerning this application. The Heritage Commission concluded that any further development of the property will have significant impacts on the historic nature of the site. To mitigate the impacts, if the application is approved, they suggested that adequate space be provided around the farmhouse to protect its traditional setting; protect mature trees on the site; design the new house to be compatible with both the farmhouse and existing neighborhood; and require the farmhouse to apply for designation as a Heritage Resource. The complete text of the Heritage Commission memorandum is attached. The applicant's architect has submitted to the Planning Department preliminary house plans for Parcel "A ". The home is a one -story design featuring techniques to reduce the impact of the home on the farm house. The site is graded to reduce the height of the project SD -89 -005, LL -89 -003; 20271 Merrick Drive and the home is designed and finished materials are proposed that would be complimentary to neighboring residences. There is recent planning history concerning this property. To refresh the Planning Commission's memory, the applicant submitted a request for tentative map approval to create a three lot subdivision. Following the hearing and accepting public testimony, on March 8, 1989, the Commission voted unanimously to deny the application. There was no appeal of the decision. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT: Staff is not able to make all required findings to recommend approval of the request for lot line adjustment. The finding that staff is unable to make is the requirement that the proposal be consistent with the General Plan. The remaining required findings can be made for approval. The current property line between parcels "A" and "B" goes through the existing farmhouse. Both parcels are legal lots of record. The request is to transfer 16,081 sq. ft. from parcel "A" to parcel "B" which will make parcel "A" eligible to become a building site. The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the zoning ordinance. The resulting parcels meet or exceed all minimum ordinance standards and would not violate any regulations or create a parcel nonconformity. An issue of the previous application for the 3 -lot subdivision involved the creation of corner lots. A neighboring parcel and a lot of the subdivision would have corner lot standards applied because the access corridor serviced two parcels. However, in this case the access corridor is considered a driveway since it serves only one parcel. No corner lots are created as a result. Since no easements are located over the property, approval of the lot line adjustment would not conflict or interfere with any easement. However, staff is unable to make the required finding of consistency of the proposal to the General Plan. A goal of the conservation element of the General Plan is to "protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new developments." The policies of the open space element encourage the preservation of open space including "Historic and cultural sites associated with the history, tradition and culture of the region." By way of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance (an implementation arm of the General Plan), the City has issued a policy statement and moved clearly in the direction of recognizing, preserving and enhancing the heritage resources in Saratoga. It is a purpose of the Ordinance to provide protection of the heritage resources of the City. Based on these policy statements and the anticipated development of the newly shaped parcel, staff is not able to find SD -89 -005, LL -89 -003; 20271 Merrick Drive that the project is consistent with the General Plan. The architectural plans submitted with this application reflect compatibility to surrounding homes in the neighborhood. The design features a one - story, low profile appearance, with materials and colors to compliment adjacent homes. In past applications, including the Quito Adobe, the Planning Commission has used incentives for historic preservation. But any development of the property would cause a significant impact on the historic nature of the farmhouse. This includes encroachment into the large yard surrounding the house; limited sight lines from Merrick Drive to the farmhouse; and incompatibility of the development to the house. Staff is not confident that mitigation measures can be implemented that would successfully reduce the impact of the development. The resulting project would not be consistent with the General Plan. BUILDING SITE APPROVAL: Staff is not able to make all of the required findings to recommend approval of the request for building site approval. The initial finding for building site approval in the subdivision ordinance requires the proposal to be consistent with the General Plan. The second finding requires consistency between the improvement or design of the building site and the General Plan. As discussed earlier, staff does not believe further development of the property would be in conformance with the General Plan. Approval of the building site request (along with the lot line adjustment), would result in an inconsistency with the General Plan by not protecting the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga. The project does not preserve or enhance the heritage resources of the City - which is a purpose of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance. PUBLIC CONTACT: Reaction to this proposal from neighbors of the site has been limited. Five separate neighbors have reviewed the tentative map and all reactions were in opposition to the plan. Attached is correspondence referencing this project from the applicant's architect and from neighbors. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of lot line adjustment and building site approval requests by adopting Resolutions LL -89 -003 and SD -89 -005. Footnote: The applicant has submitted to tentative map and indicated that this acceptable. The Planning Commission may wish option at a Committee -of- the -Whole meeting, obligation to take that action. Since the substantially different from the application, separate proposal and therefore staff is unabl, on the alternative. staff a second alternative is to consider this but is under no alternative is it amounts to a to take action HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY ( #35) IDENTIFICATION 1. Common name: None 2. Historic name: Reverend Pollard Ranch House 3. Street or rural address: 20271 Merrick Drive City: Saratoga Zip: 95070 County: Santa Clara 4. Parcel number: 393 -42 -017 5. Present Owner: Philip & Eileen Blumenthal Address: 20271 Merrick Dr. City: Saratoga Ownership is: Public: 6. Present Use: Residence Zip: 95070 Private: X Original Use: Residence DESCRIPTION 7a. Architectural style: Pioneer Cottage 7b. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This house sits on a secluded knoll surrounded by nearly 40 fruit trees of every variety. The house is one -story in the front and two stories in the rear, with the main living area over a basement. The structure features a shallow - pitched hip roof with decorative brackets at the eave. A wide front porch roof extends out from the house just below the brackets. Horizontal board siding and casement windows add to the pioneer style of the house. A family room was added to the rear, tying the tank house to the main residence. (photograph here) 8. Construction date: Estimated: 1880 Factual: 9. Architect: Unknown 10. Builder: Unknown il. Approx. prop. size Frontage: Depth: approx. acreage: 1.17 12. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(s): 1988 13. Condition: Excellent: X Good: Fair: Deteriorated: No longer in existence: 14. Alterations: Veranda added in 1940's, family room added to rear in 1960's, tankhouse converted to bedrooms. 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land: Scattered buildings: X Densely built -up: Residential: X Industrial: Commercial: Other: 16. Threats to site: None known: Private development: X Zoning: Vandalism: Public Works project: Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: Fruit trees SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and /or architectural importance (include dates events, and persons associated with the site). Rev. W. D. Pollard was an important person in early Saratoga - a minister, school teacher and orchardist. Along with William Rice, another orchardist, and the Disciples of Christ, Rev. Pollard established the local Christian Church in 1878. Within two years, it had its own building on Lumber Street (now Big Basin Way), just beyond the Clef House building. Pollard and Rice also amazed local citizens by planting some of the first orchards in Saratoga in 1876; they planted an uncommon fruit at the time, the French prune. This house was the original farmhouse for the 40 -acre ranch. The property is now less than 2 acres and is surrounded by newer subdivisions. 20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) Architecture: Arts /Leisure: Economic /Industrial: Exploration /Settlement: X Government: Military: Religion: Social /Ed.: 21. Sources (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates). F. Cunningham, Saratoga's First Hundred Years, 1967; interviews with George Whalen, Louise Garrod, Willys Peck, Eleanor Ray, Eileen Blumenthal, 1988. 22. Date form prepared: 4/88 By (name): SHPC Organization: City of Saratoga Address: 13777 Fruitvale Ave. City: Saratoga Zip: Ca. Phone: 867 -3438 Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks): NORTH r � a .� Revivyw4i Avc. Heritage Commission Memorandum 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALTI -ORNIA 9507G (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 15, 1989 FROM: Valerie Young, Secretary to Heritage Commission SUBJECT: Subdivision application at 20271 Merrick Drive ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- As you are aware, the property at 20271 Merrick Drive is listed on the City's Heritage Resource Inventory. For this reason, the subdivision application was referred to the Heritage Commission for review and comment. You will recall that the HPC also reviewed the previous 3 -lot proposal for this property and forwarded their comments to you in your agenda packet. The HPC discussued this latest 2 -lot application at their May 3, 1989 meeting, and voted unanimously to forward the following comments to you for consideration: HERITAGE COMMISSION COMMENTS The structure at 20271 Merrick Drive is known historically as the Reverend Pollard Ranch House. It was constructed around 1880 by one of Saratoga's early prune ranchers and was originally surrounded by 40 acres of orchards. The structure and its surrounding acreage were selected for inclusion on the Inventory because of its identification with persons and events significant in local history and because it reflects Saratoga's early agricultural beginnings. Because of the unique configuration of the existing lot in relation to the surrounding properties and the unique location of the historic residence on the lot, the Commission believes that any form of additional development on the property will have significant impacts on the historic integrity of the structure and its acreage. These impacts include the removal of significant large trees, the encroachment of new residences on the historically large yard areas associated with the farmhouse, demolition of a portion of the structure and the possibility of incompatible design and size of the residences that will be built adjacent to the farmhouse. In the event that the subdivision application, either Alternative 1 or 2, is approved, the Heritage Commission urges the Planning Commission to consider the following mitigating recommendations: Memo to CPC from HPC May 10, 1989 Page two 1) The tankhouse portion of the structure should be preserved as an important historic feature of the site. 2) Demolition of the existing garage is acceptable since it is of more recent construction than the residence. However, the new garage proposed on the west side of the residence should be designed to be compatible with the existing residence in terms of size, style and materials. 3) Additional space should be provided around the farmhouse to reflect its traditional agricultural setting and to protect the mature trees. This could be accomplished by adjustment of the proposed lot lines or by increasing the setbacks for the new residences, particularly along the property lines that are contiguous to the farmhouse lot. 4) Construction of any new residence and a driveway on the property will impact the view of the farmhouse and will result in the removal of several mature trees. The new homes should be designed to be compatible to both the farmhouse and the pattern of existing neighboring residences in terms of size, style and materials, and the access road width should be minimized. Special consideration should be given to the protection of mature trees on the site which add to its historic ambience. 5) The Commission believes the property meets the criteria for designation as a heritage resource; the owner should be required to submit an application to begin processing this designation. Respectfully submitted, v Valerie Young, Associ a Planner Secretary to Heritage Commission Resolutions L SD -89 -005 RESOLUTION NO. LL -89 -003 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APN 398 -42 -17 ESPESETH, 20271 MERRICK DRIVE WHEREAS, a lot line adjustment application involving (2) parcels at 20271 Merrick Drive has been filed with the Planning Director of the City of Saratoga for LL -89 -003; and WHEREAS, the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the General Plan, the regulations of the zoning and subdivision ordinances; and WHEREAS, the-proposed lot line adjustment will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, the subject properties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does approve the lot line adjustment as shown on Exhibit A and directs the applicant to file a parcel map to the City Engineer for checking and recordation. Section 1. Applicant shall sign this resolution within 30 days of its passage or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, this 28th day of June , 1989, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Siegfried, Tucker NOES: Norge ABSENT: Commissioner Burger C ATTEST: Secretary to the Planni-sf ommission Kolstad, and Tappan rson, Planning Xfighmiss ion The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted: S ture of App cant /si 1 RESOLUTION NO. SD -89 -005 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF ESPESETH, 20272 MERRICK DRIVE WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of one lot, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -89 -005 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the propose subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in -such General Plan, reference" to the Staff Report dated 6/14/89 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 10th day of April, 1989 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: 1. The residence to be built shall obtain design review approval from the Planning Commission. The design shall be essentially the same as the preliminary drawings submitted by the applicant and marked Exhibit "B ". 2. Maximum height of the residence shall be 18 feet. 3. Install a standard driveway for both lots. Driveways shall have a 14 foot minimum width plus one (1) foot shoulders. 4. The driveway to serve as access to the existing residence shall be located as far west on the access corridor as possible. The remaining area shall be landscaped with trees and shrubs; design to be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. 5. Submit a parcel map to the City for checking and recordation and pay the required fees. 6. Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles per Fire District at the existing dwelling site. SD -89 -005; 20271 Merrick Drive Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 28th day of June, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Siegfried, Tucker, Harris, Kolstad, Tappan NOES: None The above conditions are hereby accepted. 7-16 /Y gnature of App Correspondence WARREN B. A N D A S S A R C H I T E C T S HEIR • AIA O C I A T E S • P L A N N E R S 1 4630 BIG BASIN WAY • P.O. BOX 14 • SARATOGA • CALIFORNIA 95070 • 867.9365 July 26, 1989 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Attn: Stephan Emslie Planning Director Re: SD -89 -005, LL -89 -003 Mr. and Mrs. Sam Espeseth 20271 Merrick Drive, Saratoga, CA Dear Steve, This letter is to confirm that the residence designed by this firm for the subject applications, and sub- mitted to the Planning Commission for the hearings of June 14, 1989 and Jule 28, 1989, will be constructed basically as submitted. The size, style, and height as presented will be constructed except for some minor changes. Changes could include lowering the grade at the residence about one (1) foot if this is possible without damaging a cedar tree, and some minor changes withinin the building which might make the location of some windows and door slightly different. This residence will be one (1) story and has been de- signed to be compatible with the neighborhood. The roofing material will be wood shingles or shakes and partlo the front elevation will be masonry as shown. Very ruly yo rs, Warren B. Heid AIA Sam Espeseth Architect Owner /Applicant WBH:hw WARREN B. HEIR AIA A N D A S S O C I A T E S A R C H I T E C T S • PLANNERS 1 4630 BIG BASIN WAY • P.O. BOX 14 . SARATOGA • CALIFORNIA 95070 . 867 -9365 June 6, 1989 Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Califon -da Re: Lot Line Adjustment Application Mr. and Mrs. Sam Espeseth 20271 Merrick Drive, Saratoga, CA Gentlemen: Attached are twelve (12) copies of Sheets No. 1 and No. 2 showing the pro- posed floor plan, plot plan, front elevation and section, all for the sub- ject project. The drawings are present to assist the Planning CcmrLission with the appli- cation with information on both plan and elevation of a residence that con - forms to the neighborhood. The plan and elevations have been developed for this application even thou3h Design Review for a single story residence not over 18' -0" is not required. It is the opinion that this plan and the proposed front elevation compliment the neighborhood for the following reasons. 1. The floor plan has 2,521 sq.ft. of livable area and 455 sq.ft. of garage, which is well below the allowable square footage for this zoning of 3,200.sq.ft. 2. The pad elevation for the building is within one foot in grade elev- ation of the adjacent neighboors. 3. The front elevation is very traditional with wood horizontal siding, wood sash, brick veneer full height at center of the building, and wood shingles. 4. The height of the proposed building is below the accepted 18' -0" for a single story residence. 5. The value of the property and the cost of construction is equal or above the present market value of the neighborhood. In reviewing the project for the lot line adjustment Parcel A conforms to all Of the requirements of Paragraph 15- 05.020 of the General Providions of the Zoning Relations. This paragraph refers to the Purposes of the Zoning Reg- ulations. Thank you fqr the opportunity to present these drawings and to gl , ,, op / regarding the use and design for this application. V j s" Warren B. Heid WBH:hw cc: Sam Espeseth p_c-- RECEIVED ^gzrl A) JUN - 7'1989 JUNE 4, 1589 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING DEPT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 ATTENTION: SUSAN GUCH, CHAIR SUBJECT: SD -89 -005, LL- 89- 003- ESPESETH, 20271 MERRICK DRIVE DEAR CHAIR, I AM WRITING THIS LETTER TO AGAIN EXPRESS MY DISSATISFACTION REGARDING THE SUBJECT ABOVE. IT IS OBVIOUS TO THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS A COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE CONCERN OF THE RESIDENTS OF SARATOGA IN THAT IN HIS INITIAL REQUEST 88 -024 MR. EXPESETH WAS NOT COMPLIANT WITH A SINGLE REQUIREMENT NEEDED IN HIS FULFILLING THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS, UNTIL HE WAS QUESTIONED AND ONLY THEN DID HE "PROMISE" TO COMPLY WITH THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS. SUCH ACTION SMACKS OF A SINGLE MINDED PURPOSE WHERE ONLY THE "WANTS" OF THE APPELLANT ARE PRIMARY AND THOSE OF THE COMMUNITY ARE NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL. SPECIFICALLY WHEN THIS CITY IS ATTEMPTING TO PRESERVE THE RURAL ATMOSPHERE THAT IS THIS CITY'S HERITAGE AND TO CONFINE THE DENSITY TO AREAS WHICH ARE BEST SUITED FOR THIS TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT. I AM A NATIVE BORN RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA FOR OVER 63 YEARS AND THE OWNER OF THE 20232 SARATOGA VISTA COURT PROPERTY, WHICH ABUTS 20271 MERRICK DRIVE, SINCE 1962. I PURCHASED IT BECAUSE OF THE COUNTRY LIKE SETTING AND TO FURTHER SUPPORT SUCH A CONCLUSION I PURCHASED ANOTHER SARATOGA PROPERTY WHICH IS MY RESIDENCE. MY PROPERTY ADJOINING THE APPELLANTS, HAS SUFFERED OVER THE YEARS FROM THE RUN -OFF WATERS, DURING THE RAINY SEASONS FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CAUSING EXTENSIVE MODIFICATIONS TO CORRECT THIS SITUATION. ADDITIONALLY I HAVE COMPLETELY LANDSCAPED MY REAR YARD AT CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE AND THE PLACEMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING WILL CREATE NEW WATER PROBLEMS I THOUGHT I HAD SOLVED. OUR CITY DESERVES THE PRESERVATION OF THE RURAL CHARACTER AND NOT TAKE ON THE CONGESTED LOOK OF COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE NOT MAINTAINED THEIR APPRECIATION FOR THOSE LIMITED OPEN SPACES THAT THIS CITY PROVIDES. THE CREATION OF A "FLAG LOT" DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE STREET PARKING FOR THE ADDITIONAL OCCUPANTS AND THE LOSS OF PRIVACY TO THE NEIGHBORS REEKS OF CONCERN FOR THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR AT THE EXPENSE OF THIS CITY'S CONCERNED CITIZENS. ANOTHER CONCERN IS CONSIDERATION OF THE LOSS TO THE CITY OF THE "MERRICK ESTATE" AS A HISTORICAL DWELLING, WITH APPROPRIATE LAND AREA FOR SUCH PROPERTY, AS BEING MORE IN LINE WITH THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENT. I BELIEVE THIS CITY WOULD BEST BE SERVED BY PROTECTING OUR LIMITED OPEN SPACES AND CONSIDER THE WELL - BEING, OF SARATOGANS WHO ENJOY OUR RURAL SETTING WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CONGESTION WHICH WILL BE CAUSED BY AN ADDITIONAL HOUSE. PAGE 2 BASED PRINCIPALLY ON THE ABOVE COMMENTS I STRONGLY CHALLENGE THE APPLICATION FOR A TWO (2) LOT SUBDIVISION AND REQUEST THE DENIAL OF SAME. CC: CITY COUNCIL PLANNING DIRECTOR S CERELY4 YO S, O IOSEIH J. RODRIGUES, OWNER 20232 SARATOGA VISTA COURT 6li/89 R9CEIVED n O ,' �'h h�" lu►�w rh I �I",� ' JUN ' 3.1989 PLANNING DEPT ca ;L rV 0 � s a;rr /fir, Espe�� p wo�l'h o Gov►.�'�at�t� 61n exaw.� haTiQ� 7 �-ix v-o vl,rea 4r h,ure -kg", ,exp re,r. -e-J IS CM C.e.r S b ' r 4 eno' "- k Vev> d4oN 'Cxl;/" i V` Tl/G C� V�o��21 ti �� `T>^ �.c" Cd�✓+ H LI ► p� i V�-. lce� I ��,o w;k 4.0- Ao�.lde -4\sL- oX 4a. dqrea. ce Tho T. 4v 4K 13 b S2 Sa�ar%v �1:yta •vim S X47- ajopZ RECEIVED JUN - 31989 .....___-. ...__.__..._....._...._ _. - -_ -._ .._._. _.. _.. LANNING D _. -- _ _- - P DEPT_ Jfo 1. - - _. - 7 77 - - - - -. ell 4 b - - At,4 Ao, — C 9 sJo 7 d RECH V. _ �- im - 8 19189 PLANNING DEPT G✓ a o a 14 Ite 447 — —7o, 7ZT Ile vl2 .cam G� C RECEIVED JUN - 81989 PLANNING DEPT June 7, 1989 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Lot Line Adjustment Application 20271 Merrick Drive, Saratoga, CA Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Commission: We are sending you this letter in support of the Espeseth application for a lot line adjustment. We have seen the Preliminary Design Stmdies prepared for Sam Espeseth by Warren B. Heid AIA and Associates. It is our opinion that the floor plan and front elevation are most suitable for Parcel A and do conform in size and appearance with the existing residences in the immediate neighborhood. We strongly urge you to consider this proposed residence as an asset to the neighborhood and that you vote favorably on this lot line adjustment of the existing two (2) lots. Very truly yours, &JaA0( '-z7g rohn and Barbara Campbell 13759 Saratoga Vista Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 20250 Nerrick Dr. S,�ratoga, Ca. 95070 May 17, 1989 Dear City Planning Member: I respectfully reouest that the planning committee pass the ordinance which would imnose a moratorium to prevent subdivision of property which results in creation of a "flag lot ". I would further reouest that if there is no final man in an application to subdivide that the reouest would come under the above stated ordinance and would not be approved. We feel that all the same conditions still exist concerning the Merrick nroperty and are lust as imnortant on May 17, 1989 as they were when the neighborhood spoke to the issue on March8ti . Yours truly, Q-. N�2� Fredrica A. Kuehl June 8, 89 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 Attn: Planning Commission Re: Lot line adjustment application 20271 Merrick Drive, Saratoga, CA. Honorable Chairperson and members of the commission: I have reviewed the plan for Sam Espeseth by Rarren Heid AIA and Associates. This plan appears to be very well suited and would improve the neighborhood. Mr. Espeseth has been building very high quality homes in Saratoga fro many years. I urge your favorable vote on this lot line adjustment. Very truly yours N.M. McMillan (408) 867 -3647 13748 Saratoga Vista Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 RECEIVED JUN - 8 1989 PLANNING DEPT June 8, 1989 To: Martin Jacobson Saratoga Planning Dept. 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 20271 Merrick Drive SD -89 -005, LL -89 -003 RECEIVED JUN " 8 1989 PLANNING DEPT I would like to urge the planning commission to reject this proposal for lot line adjustment and building site approval. This property was built upon as one single family home site over 100 years ago. The current home, which is an important historic site, spans the existing two parcels. This property was selected to be reserved as open space when the subdivision went in, and is one of the few larger parcels left in the golden triangle area of Saratoga. The master plan for Saratoga was designed to preserve open space and maintain our Village atmosphere. The construction of a new home in front of this historic home would destroy the beauty of the existing property and would be robbing all residents of Saratoga, of precious open space. In addition, many of the surrounding neighbors will be negatively affected. The plan calls for a substantial amount of grading necessary to lower the parcel so the new house will be at the same elevation as the neighborhood. The view of the original home will be obstructed by the new house and the entire feeling of open space destroyed. It is simply too much bulk for this property to bear. The major frontage of the parcels from the street will be driveways and garages. The Wilsons will now have streets /driveways on three sides of their home. My home will become a "T" lot, and I will now have two driveways pointing right at our front bedroom windows. Mr. Espeseth claims he cannot afford to live on this parcel unless he can subdivide it. If this was his only motivation for the purchase of this home, he should have made sure he could get the approvals he needed prior to the purchase. He claims he would like to stay in the area until his boys finish school. Why not let him restore the existing home and turn it into a luxury showplace. He would still be able to make a substantial profit on his investment. If we allow Saratoga to be carved up into bits and pieces for the sole purpose of financial gains of individuals, we will find that we no longer have the lovely village that brought us here in the first place. Sincerely, k�r�L Barbara Seacrist 20270 Merrick P is�9 1277 eo� cr ys-o7a aoa7� � kx. 49.1� RECEIVED OWN 8 1989 PLANNING DEPT t F 7w June 9, 1989 To: Saratoga Planning Commission re: SD -89 -005, LL -89 -003 - ESPESETH, 20271 MERRICK DRIVE I would like to register my opposition to the above proposal which is currently seeking approval from the commission. I live directly across Merrick Drive from the Espeseth's and do most of my work at home. The bedroom I use as my office looks directly out on the street and views the Espeseth's property. From my unique vantage point, I have viewed the old Merrick estate now owned by the Espeseth's on a daily basis. For the last six months that Mr. Espeseth has been attempting to gain approval to develop the property, I have gazed upon the old Merrick estate and tried to imagine how anyone could develop the property without destroying it. I have concluded that any development of the property would be a gross mistake. As you know, the existing, historic farm house of approximately 3000 square feet sits atop a hill in the center of the 1 acre estate straddling the two parcels of record. As such the structure is well proportioned to its lot, well shielded from the neighbors, and a quite attractive glimpse of a Saratoga that is all but -gone from us. The current estate is an asset to Saratoga and should be protected. The current proposal to build a new house directly in front of the existing home would create a flag lot out of the existing property, obscure the view of the historic structure, and spoil the harmony and balance of the current estate. In addition, the proposed new house would encroach on the privacy of the existing neighbors, Khan and LaMotte, to the west and the Wilson's property to the east would become surrounded by streets and /or driveways on three sides. As for my own property, my front bedrooms would then look out onto two new driveways. In addition, the proposal creates a parking problem by removing the existing turnaround, reducing the amount of street frontage available for parking, and adding a new house which will generate more parking demand. I believe that when the previous owners of the property built across the two parcels of record that the property became effectively one parcel. Due to the odd shape of the property, the slope of the land, and the placement of the existing structure, I can see no way to reasonably subdivide the property so that a new structure can be built. For this reason, I would encourage the planning commission to deny the current proposal and to take whatever steps they can to ensure that the property will never be developed in the future. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter, I Ii P r Michael F. Kenrich 20270 Merrick Drive RECEIVED JUN - 9 1989 PLANNING DEPT Martin Jacobson, City Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City Planner Jacobson: 8 June 1989 RECEIVED Jury - 9 1989 PLANNING DF_Fi Re: Merrick Property Development SD -89 -005, LL -89 -003 Espeseth, 20271 Merrick Drive Once again, we, as longtime residents living next to the Merrick property, would like to respond to the new proposal to develop the Merrick Estate. Apparently the Espeseths' are at it again, and don't seem to grasp our opposition to any of their profit motivated proposals to develop housing at the expense of our quality of life here in Saratoga. It disturbs us profoundly that we were not informed as to the buyer /developer's intentions regarding the property until he had already purchased it. Moreover, we are convinced that the effect of any development or subdivision at the proposed site would be permanently negative, and that a financial loss to the developer for not being permitted to develop is no reason to allow him to negatively impact people who already live here. The proposed development would be destructive in several ways: 1) It would negatively impact the tranquility of the neighborhood. It would increase traffic and the number of parked cars which are already limited by city ordinance. 2) It would severely and negatively affect the privacy of neighbors, especially those bordering on the property. 3) It has potentially negative environmental implications including those connected with watershed issues. 4) Its aesthetic effects are, in our opinion, totally negative, since it involves the removal of a number of large trees which we have enjoyed for many years, and replacing them with buildings we do not want AND most of all will create a new and unpleasant skyline and inhibit privacy for many neighbors. 5) It certainly violates the spirit and intent of all the ordinances designed to protect the tranquility and aesthetic quality of our neighborhood as well as the original intent of the early residents (1957) of Saratoga. 2 6) It would negate the "open space" feeling that we, in Saratoga, have tried to preserve. 7) It would be a disgrace to allow a developer to use the letter of the law to circumvent the intent of preserving the Merrick. Estate as a historical landmark, central to the founding of this part of our community. We feel that giving the developer permission to go ahead with his proposal would be unfair, since it entails alteration and circumvention of regulatins of which our neighborhood has abided for many years. The development is not welcome in the neighborhood, and acceptance of the developer's proposal would prove that the interests of outside developers who come here to make money take precedence over the voice of the people who live here. We certainly appreciated your first ruling in favor of no new building of homes on the Merrick property. We sincerely hope for a continued ruling in favor of the will of the people, in the democratic tradition of this city. Sincerely, Robert Brown ,Lynn Prendergast 1,377 ,4 60 ,2 o,� --7 1 3 .... . 01 1�17 'A IC4 Af -7 S—d .70 Saratoga City Council Saratoga, CA Ref.: Espeseth Development of Merrick Property SD -89 -005, LL -89 -003 In response to the latest proposal to develop the historical and significantly valuable property we must respond again that is NOT in the best interests of the surrounding neighbors, is against the traditional philosophy of a low- density Saratoga city'and benefits ONE developer to the detriment of a great many neighbors and residents. The specific complaints as regarding my own property are as follows: 1. lidss of Privacy - because of proximity of the proposed house to our back property line, we will lose the privacy to our living room, family room and two bedrooms. We cannot imagine living with our drapes drawn because another house which would sit six feet above our back property would look down into our house and yard. 2. Loss of Light - ;.Because our house sits six feet below the Merrick property and there is shrubbery and trees on the above property, we already experience loss of light during the morning hours. If a house is further installed to block light the back of our property will experience further loss of light. 3. Increased traffic - An approval of the Lot Line Adjustment would mean that more traffic and street crowding would be experienced in the neighborhood. Because lots are smaller in this neighborhood the increased cars and traffic would just increase congestion as well as pollution. 4. Watershed Problem - our lot has standing water in both the backyard and under the house during the heavy water months of winter. The additional loss of earth due to covering by house pad, walks and driveway would increase the surface water problem to our homes. 5. Historical Reasons - the original ranchhouse is historical and should be preserved with as much of the surrounding lot with its trees and shrubs. Already, much of the foliage has disappeared in anticipation of the evelopment of this property! 6. Loss of Property Value - any realtor can testify that an intrusive home set above an proximate to the living room, family room and two bedrooms is both a detriment and devaluation to both the living value and the resale value of our specific property. We don't want to move and we do not want to experience a loss to our quality of living - its privacy, peace, light and value. 7. Negative Community Impact - This line adjustment and development represent another encroachment on Saratoga citizens. We know that this is an "owner- builder ", but we also know that he makes his living by building and then moving on. It does not matter that he has temporary ownership of the property. We have only to look at his previous record in Saratoga. It does make a difference that an addition or a re -build on a non - intrusive lot is far more acceptable to the current proposal which has such an effect on so many neighbors and indeed the entire neighborhood. At the flag lot meeting last month we gained the sense of the pressures that both the council and the planning commission are,experiencing from the outside interestswhich are attempting to glean the very last building spaces available in this unique and preserved community. It does not matter that only eight houses came under the heading of flag lot consideration in the last year and a half. What does matter is that each case is indeed a seperate issue and has different impact upon the residents and the community. There was probably no one in the audience who felt that the retired couple who depended upon the development of their large property was not entitled to the full and valuable use of their property. On the other hand, there is no question in the minds of local residents when the owner is simply interested in squeezing in another profitable investment and then moving on to some other project, leaving the neighbors and community stuck with a house which will forever intrude upon their lives. All we ask is that you judge each case on its own merits and upon the impact it has on the community and its residents, and then act fairly and impartially. And we ask you to represent the interests of citizens before the interests of builder /developers. Sincerly, Herbert and Janice La Mlotte 13700 Calle Tacuba Saratoga, CA BERLINER, COHEN & BIAGINI SANFORD A. BERLINER' SAMUEL J. COHEN' HUGH L ISOLA' ANDREW L FABER WILLIAM J. GOINES' ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS MICHAEL H. KALKSTEIN MYRON L BRODY RALPH J. SWANSON PEGGY L SPRINGGAY JOSEPH E. DWORAK SAMUEL L FARE ALAN J. PINNER LINDA A. CALLON NORMAN D. THOMAS JEFFREY M. FORSTER GARY J. COHAN JOHN M. DALEY ROBERTA S. HAYASHI RUSSELL J. HANLON TIMOTHY T. HUBER MARY BETH LONG NANCYJ.JOHNSON ANNE L NEETER KEVIN F. KELLEY KATHLEEN K SIPLE CHRIS SCOTT GRAHAM OF COUNSEL THEODORE J. BIAGINI CLARENCE A. KELLOGG, JR. VIA HAND DELIVERY ATTORNEYS AT LAW LYNN G. McKINNON JAMES P. CASHMAN A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS SCOTT R. HOVER-SMOOT P LAWRENCE KLOSE TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD THOMAS P. MURPHY ELEVENTH FLOOR STEVEN J.CASAD JEANETTE R. YOUNGBLOOD SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2233 THOMAS A BARTASI JONATHAN D. WOLF TELEPHONE (408) 288.5800 NANCY F. THORNTON JEROLD A. REITON ROBERT L CHORTEK CYNTHIA M. CIMA STA L SAETTA � �ZECE Y 4L BRADLEY EY D. BOSOMWORTH PAMELA M. SCHUUR JOHN R. WIERZBICKI. JR. JUN 14 1989 111 COLBY A.JCAMPBELL EILEEN D. MATHEWS PLANNING DEPT SUSAN B. CO NMAN LORI D. BALLANCE SCOTT M. PHILLIPS June 13 1989 CAROLYN N. FRINK EDWARD F. MALYSZ THOMAS F CHAFFIN 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FACSIMILE: (408) 998.8380 Honorable Chair Richard Siegfried and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: SD -89 -005, LL -89 -003, Espeseth Our File: 05054 -001 Dear Chair Siegfried and Members of the Commission: This firm represents Mr. & Mrs. Sam Espeseth, the applicants for the above referenced approvals. We have carefully reviewed the staff report and recommendation relative to this matter and wish to advise you of substantial legal concerns with the staff recommendation to deny approval. The staff report concludes that the proposal for a lot line adjustment conflicts with the General Plan. Our client and his representatives will be available to point out why this is not so, but there are substantial legal difficulties with the staff recommendation. The difficulty is a conflict with the section of the Subdivision Map Act relating to lot line adjustments. Section 66412 of the Government Code was amended in 1985 (effective 1/1/86), and after the City's subdivision ordinance was adopted. The operative section is a portion of subsection (d) and provides as follows: Honorable Chair Richard Siegfried and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA June 13, 1989 Page -2- "A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning and building ordinances. An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to local zoning and buildina ordinances, or except to fae-- iIitatA +-hc reiocaLlon or existing utlilties inrrastructure or easements." (emphasis added). The language of this section is mandatory, and it is clear that the City may not refuse to approve a lot line adjustment based on a "conflict" with the General Plan. The purpose of the lot line adjustment provision of the Subdivision Map Act is to allow property owners to utilize their property most effectively, consistent with existing zoning and building regulations. The two lots already exist, and the only determination is whether or not the resulting lots after the adjustment conform with the zoning and building codes. The staff report makes it very clear that the proposed lot line adjustment complies in all respects with zoning and building regulations. The only conflict appears to be with the staff's interpretation of the General Plan. Since general plan conflicts cannot be utilized to deny a lot line adjustment, justification for the denial cannot be sustained. In addition, the substance of the General Plan objection cannot be sustained. Our client's research indicates that there are 128 residential lots within 600 feet of this property, and 279 lots within 1,200 feet. Adjusting the lot line on two existing lots, each of which are equal to or exceed existing lot sizes in the area does not constitute any diminution of "rural character ". The character of this neighborhood is not rural in any sense of the word. The suggested condition that the applicants be required to begin processing to designate the property as a historical resource must not be included in the approval of the lot line adjustment. As a 1986 letter from the Heritage Commission to our client clearly sets out (copy attached), inclusion on the historical resources inventory provides no burden on property or its development under the Saratoga City Code. Neither does Section 66412 of the Subdivision Map Act permit requirements such as that suggested by the Heritage Commission. Based upon the foregoing legal requirements, the determination by City staff that the lot line adjustment meets all applicable City regulations and compliance with all other Ll Honorable Chair Richard Siegfried and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA June 13, 1989 Page -3- applicable requirements of Government Code Section 66412, the Planning Commission must approve the project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Mr. & Mrs. Sam Espeseth Hal Toppel, Esq. City Attorney Very truly yours, BERLINER, COHEN & BIAGINI 41A CE KLOSE Mr. Martin Jacobson City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Jacobson: 20251 Merrick Dr. Saratoga, Ca 95070 July 27, 1989 RFC. ivy:7 F [,AN N I N C- C: f= F'1' In talking with our attorney, he has informed us that according to the Govern- ment Statute 66412 dealing with the Subdivision Map Act, the decision of whether or not to allow a lot line adjustment is left to the discretion of the local agency. Please help us to keep our current quality of life in our neighborhood by not approving the lot line adjustment at 20271 Merrick Dr. We live next door to the Espeseths property. Our problem is not with the house which he would like to build but with the fact that in order to do so, the driveway to his existing home would be moved to our property line. It would go beside us and all the way away around in back of our home and we would be surrounded by traffic on three sides. As a real estate agent, I know that our property would become less desirable, thereby decreasing in value. A driveway behind us already exists but is seldom used by anyone. All guests currently use the driveway in the center of the lot. If his proposal were to be granted, the existing driveway would be removed and all of his company would be driving all the way around our house and parking in back of us. Because his driveway is gravel and because his land in the back of our home is approximately 4' -6' higher than ours, it is extremely noisy - -the sound drifts down as though it was next to us. Our master bedroom is on the back corner next to their driveway - -not even corner houses have traffic that close. We purchased our home 15 years ago in a settled neighborhood in the middle of a block. It never even occurred to us that our privacy could become so threatened as it has. Our back yard is all open because no one has been in the area above it for all of the time we have lived here. We always hear when cars go up the Espeseths driveway (many times a day) because of the steepness but since the driveway is in the middle of their lot, people have not been able to look into our entire yard. If all of the Espeseths vehicles and their company park behind us, every time someone gets out of their cars (.or even from inside their cars), they will be able to see in all of the surrounding yards. Soon the leaves will be dropping from the few trees that are there and we will have absolutely no privacy. We have loved our neighborhood and our neighbors and it has been a special place to raise our family. Please don't let Mr. Espeseth change the character of our neighborhood and please don't let him add his traffic noise to our home and take away our privacy. Very truly yours, REC. WE7 JUL N � 19,089 PLANNING DEPT TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Saratoga Residents RE: Merrick Estate Please find attached petitions with 128 signatures by Saratoga residents. To: The Members of The Saratoga City Council ` We, the undersigned regestered voters residing in the Cit,/ of Saratoga, are asking the City Council to reject the request to change the lcit boundries of the Merrick: Estate, located at 20c771 Merrick Drive, and to not allow the building of a second residence on the Merrick Estate property. We feel the approval of these changes by the City Planning Commission represents a trend toward cutting up the large estates located in older de-,,,eloped residential neighborhoods. To bLi.ild large homes on small lots, out of character with the existing homes, and to destroy the little open space still left within the city is not in agreement with the city general plan nor with the will of the residents of the City of Saratoga. Name Address Date i Cr l< 1 3 z 5` 42 .so _ O&Z a Q, YOI - _ LA 7a424 K — c [ �/ yc' _— - 200 35 SAC.- .Ta.�•, •J.»� C� .rte 7/2L187 354-T L�) . -7 , 1 < < .To: The Members of The Saratoga City Council We, the unde=rsigned regestered voters residing in the City of Saratoga, are asking the City Council to reject the request to change tr-,E ,_ t boL.;-IdriES c-f the Merrici:: Estate, locates: at 2-,'%F-71 Mer•ricic Dri-ve, and to not allow the buildi-iig of a second residence on the Merrick: Estate property. We feel the approval of these changes by the City Planning Cosrir,ission represents a trend toward cutting up the large estates 1ccc,ted ir, c,1del developed residential neighborhoods. To build large homes on small lets, out of character with the existing homes, and to ee=_t oy the little open space still left within the city is not in agreement with the city general plan nor with the will of the residents of the City of Saratoga. Name Address Date ---� -7,e a� 0141e-� (7 U a nz_ - r o/ R 7 /37 70 0 Y To: The Members of The Saratoga City Council We, the uwndei- igned regestered voters 'residing in the City a{ Saratoga, are ask.ing the City Council to reject the request to change t_'-,E I'--t bOu'ndriES c-f the Mc:rricii Estate, locates; at 2C-;c:1 Merricl; Drive, and to not allow the building of a second residence on the Merrick: Estate property. We feel the approval of these changes by the City Planning Comirission represents a treed toward cutting up the large estates iccz-ted in older developed residential neighborhoods. To build large homes or, s.mai1 lot=_, out of character with the existing homes, and to ce =tray the little ope;!n space still left within the city is not in agreement with the city general plain nor with the will of the residents of the City of Saratoga. N me Address Date G 74 -7-7 "'v 0,A 171 P//M� To: The Members of The Saratoga City Council I We. the undersigned regestered voters residing in the City o{ Saratoga, are asking the City Council to reject the request to change � t ~,E I'--t bcundries c-f the Merr-ici:: Estate, locates: a: 2Gc71 PIerr ick Drive, and to not allow the building of a second residence on the Merrick: Estate property. We feel the approval of these changes by the City Planning CoiTmisslon represents a trend toward cutting up the large estates is c6ted in c,lder de,.elopc d residential neighborhoods. To bLii ld large homes on small lots, out of charactc,r with the existing homes, and to de=_t,-oy the little open space still left within the city is not in agreement with the city general plan nor with the will of the residents of the Cit of Saratoga. Name Address Date 3 7- Z-7 , 13 6,17 3 7 z 0 (3X61 64 TEL z7 j6t t4l z 7/� 1 A 1.4 C351? je V ti y To: The Members of The Saratoga City Council i We, the undersigned regestered voters residing in the City of Saratoga, are asking the City Council to reject the request to change the lot boundries of the Merrick Estate, locate&; a; 20271 Mer ici:: Drive, and to not allow the building of a second residence on the Merrick Estate property. We feel the approval of these changes by the City Planning Commission represents a trend toward cutting up the large estates located in alder developed residential neighborhoods. To build large homes on small lots, out of character with the existing homes, and to destroy the little open space still left within the city is not in agreement with the city general plan nor with the will of the residents of the City of Saratoga. Name —r-- Address Date 6E, S X1 174 -- �'• 13 G 9 6 Ca �; ,� ,• � o 5�,�4 � /037,q 6! rI;V t)d lj2l,e To: The Members of The Saratoga City Council We, the undersigned regestered voters residing in the City o'f Saratoga, are asking the City Council to reject the request to change the lot boundries of the Mer'rich'. Estate, located at- 2;,-)F-771 Mer ick. Drive, and to not allow the building of a second residence on the Merrick: Estate property. We feel the approval of these changes by the City Planninq Commission represents a trend toward cutting up the large estates located in older developed residential neighborhoods. To build large homes on small lots, out of character with the existing homes, and to destroy the little open space still left within the city is not in agreement with the city general plan, nor with the will of the residents of the City of Saratoga. Narrne Address Date ,J (� z z 17- D S -rA A 9 KO YO e T Q4 A TOG A -I- -z s- V FZF- - s S ") C To: The Members of The Saratoga City Council We, the undersigned regestered voters residing in the City o.� Saratoga, are asking the City Council to reject the request to change the lot boundr.es of the Merrick Estate, located at 20271 Merrim.- Drive, and to not allow the building of a second residence on the Merrick Estate property. We feel the approval of these changes by the City Planning Commission represents a trend toward cutting up the large estates located in alder developed residential neighborhoods. To build large homes on small lots, out of character with the existing homes, and to destroy the little open space still left within the city is not in agreement with the city general plan nor with the will of the residents of the City of Saratoga. Nia,i-,e Address -Date ,N /`�� 13;7-57l _ a rllyl�'9 To �-�... a C44, z Ile C c, o, - - 7A Ll ZQ& ��u FAN To: The Members of The Saratoga.City Council We. the undersigned regestered voters residing in the City c,f Saratoga, are asking the City Council to reject the request to change the lc:t boundries of the Merrick Estate, locatec at 2027/71 Merric4; Drive, and to not allow the building of a second residence on the Merrici:: Estate property. We feel the approval of these changes by the City Planning Commission represents a trend toward cutting up the large estates located in alder developed residential neighborhoods. To build large homes an small lots, Out of character with the existing homes, and to destroy the little Open space still left within the city is not in agreement with the city general plan nor with the will of the residents Of the City of Saratoga. Name - - -- I Address , Date • r 2�ZS z .377.2 To: The Members of The Saratoga City Council We, the undersigned regestered voters residing in the City, of Saratoga, are asking the City Council to reject the request to change t-hE Ic,t bC'Undries of the Me'rrici: Estate, 10cateb at- 202 1 Mere Eck - Drive, and to not allow the buildinig of a second residence on the Merrick: Estate property. We feel the approval of these changes by the City Planning Commission represents a trend toward cutting up the large estates located in alder de�, eloped residential neighborhoods. To build large homes on small lots, out of character with the existing homes, and to destroy the little open space still left within the city is not i'n agreement with the city general plain nor with the will of the residents of the City of Saratoga. Name Address Date 13 S N kax) z 8 13 ' F ` e-- �• � / //� ��I Y/ s'i'r �/ / vyr „ a� l�� 1� FJ To: The Members of The Saratoga City Council We, the undersigned regestered voters residing in the City of Saratoga, are asking the City Council to reject the request to change the lcct boundries of the Merrick. Estate, located at 20271 Merrick Drive, and to not allow the building of a second residence on the Merrick .-: Estate property. We feel the approval of these changes by the City Planning Commission represents a trend toward cutting up the large estates located in older de,.eloped residential neighborhoods. TO build large homes on small lots, out of character with the existing homes, and to destroy the little open space still left within the city is not in agreement with the city general plan nor with the will of the residents of the City of Saratoga. Name Address Date 7�1711' 7X,71ff P IN TO: The Members of The Saratoga City Council We, the undersigned regestered voters residing in the City Of Saratoga, are asking the City Council to t.'te lc;t reject the request to change boundr ies Of the MErricf; Estate, lOcatec; a ; 2C;2; 1 Merrick Drive, and to not allow the building of a second residence on the Merrici:: Estate property. We feel the approval of these changes by the City Planning Commission represents a trend toward cutting up the large estates located in alder developed residential neighborhoods. TO build large homes on small lots, Out of character with the eXisting homes, and to destroy the little Open space still left within the city agreement with the city general plan nor with the wi is not in ll of the residents Of the City Of Saratoga. Name — Address Date I� �P r L14 0 7 To: The Members of The Saratoga City Council We, the undersigned recgestered voters residing in the City of Saratoga, are asking the City Council to reject the request to charnge the lot bOLOIdrie5 of the Merrick. Estate, located a- 2i. -i271 Merrick: Drive, and to not allow the building of a second residence on the Merrick: Estate property. We feel the approval of these changes by the City Planning Commission represents a trend toward cutting up the large estates located in older de-eloped residential Neighborhoods. To build large homes on small lots, out of character with the existing homes, and to destroy the little open space still left within the city is not in agreement with the city general plan nor with the will of the residents of the City of Saratoga. Name AddressDate / i oq/ 56-46W I% 9 To: The Members Of The Saratoga City Council We, the undersigned regestered voters residing in the City of Saratoga, are asking the City Council the to reject the request to change lot boundries of the Merrick Estate, , E'�tL3 E., located at 2027 Drive, and to not allow the building of a second residence on the Merrick Estate property. We feel the approval of these changes by Commission represents a trend toward cutting uptthe�largelestates located in older developed residential neighborhoods. To build large homes on small lots, Out of character with the existing homes, and to destroy the little open space still agreement with left within the city is not in the city general plan nor with the will of the City of Saratoga. of the residents Name Address k� -,1�. D�:te �[�iT i Imo, F . �33 q8 L'hrvio F be, ��as — �07 7, 7 l.J�f�1°l '/ /� S C Irma,, a� ,� �d 7 '� /,�y lyc �a �¢ th --Q d.?". l �r— 5-3 7 0 7�7/ Minutes of June 14, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 14, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 7 nning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated June 14, 19 Nbalcon ner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Hearing was opened at 10:35 P.M. Burrow, Architect, make himself available for technical questions. r Tappan cited the Irwin' letter, objecting to the balcony; Mr. Burrow r ponded that positioned such that it would only be used off of the ma ster bedroo ;mature trees wo d mitigate privacy impacts. In addition, a solid balcony railing uld be installed treve any impacts; however, Applicants wished to retain this amenit . Ms. Hernandez, Ap 'cant, had questions regarding a tree removal perm/areqreted eferred to Staff. Ms. Leanne Hernande Property Co- owner, reviewed the site history approval of the Application, which w uld improve the property. Mr. John Irwin, 13813 SaraNa Vista Ave., Saratoga, reviewed his Xter of May 23, 1989 Mr. Art Jensen reviewed the h' ry of the property an/im privacy impacts from develop- ment of another piece of property; his project would fuhis privacy. Mr. Paul Hernandez Property Co-o er, noted that the d had a double trunk and was diseased; pictures taken from a ladder ere presented existing landscape screening between the Applicant and the Irwin. balcony view ge, not adjacent properties. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE P C HEARING AT 10:45 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Burger noted that the balcony w itioned to face the neighbor, not the Village; she was favorable to the design proposed but su ted that the balcony be eliminated. Commissioner Tucker agreed; the properti were close that a balcony would be impactful. Commissioner Harris concurred and noted a Comm ion's concern about privacy impacts. TUCKERJARRIS MOVED APPROV OF DR -88 -1 AND SD -88 -023 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION WITH REMOVAL O BALCONY. 6 -0. 19. DR -89 -033 McLaughlin 2470 DeSanka Ave., req t for design review approval to convert a ne -story residence into a t -story residence, consisting of 3,137 sq. ., in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning is 'ct per Chapter 15 of the City Code. --------- - - - - -- ---------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------- Planner Graff presented th port to the Planning Commission, dated ne 14, 1989. Commissioner Burger re rted on the land use visit. Chairperson Siegfried ted the letter of David and Jo Ann Robinson, 2415 Desanka Ave., requesting approval o is Application. The Public Hearin was opened at 10:51 P.M. Mr. McF aughh , Applicant, reviewed the Application and noted Staff Recomme ation for ap- proval; they d attempted to be sensitive to the neighbor's concerns and comments. TUCKE S MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:56 P.M. P ed 6 -0. Comm' ioner Tucker commended the Applicants for their sensitivity to the neighbors; the nd story lement was designed in such a manner as to reduce the impacts of the addition. SBURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR -89 -033 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTIO assed 6-0. 20. SD- 89-005 Espeseth, 20271 Merrick Dr., request for building site and lot line adjust - LL- 89-003 ment approval on parcels of record in the R- 1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The lot line adjustment involves the transfer of approximately 16,081 sq. ft. from Parcel "A" to Parcel "B "; building site approval is requested for Parcel "A ". ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - --------------- - - -- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated June 14, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 JUNE 14, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:13 P.M. Mr. Sam Espeseth, Applicant, reviewed the new Application for this site; an Alternative B was submitted for consideration. The Applicants wished to reach a compromise agreeable to all parties. Mr. Bill Heiss, Consulting Engineer, commented as follows: - Reviewed the site history and called attention to the existing landscaping; in addition, the house was shielded from the view from the street, nor did the structure look like a farmhouse any more - Noted the area was not rural in character anymore; this was a fully developed neighborhood The Application was for a lot line adjustment of two legal lots, not a subdivision Applicant wished to maintain the character of the house, even though it straddled the lot line - Preservation of the existing home on a one acre lot, with a second structure on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, did more for the conservation of open space, than having two homes on half acre lots - The Heritage Preservation Commission wished to preserve the farmhouse - This proposal had only a minor increase in the amount of impervious coverage; only one on- street parking space would be lost on Merrick Dr.; adequate on -site parking would exist - The addition of one home to a developed neighborhood would have a negligent impact on traffic; however, there would be some impact to the view of the existing home - This proposal was reasonable and represented a compromise by the Applicant Ms. Barbara Seacrist, 20270 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed her letter of June 8, 1989. Ms. Lela S. Wilson, 20251 Merrick Dr., Saratoga reviewed her letter of June 6, 1989. Mr. Michael Kenrich, 20270 Merrick Dr., Saratoga reviewed his letter of June 9, 1989. Mr. Tom Wyant, 13282 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of June 7, 1989. A resident of Calle Tacuba noted the complexity of the situation. Mr. Bill Hitchpath stated he was in favor of this Application; he noted the quality of the homes built by the Applicant. Ms. Janice La Motte 13700 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, reviewed her letter. Mr. Bill Seals cited the Applicant's rights; this parcel had two legal lots on it. It was important that any development on this site be handled with responsibility. Mr. Herbert La Motte,13700 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, reviewed his letter. Ms. Karen Davis, Via Regina, Saratoga, stated she lived in the first home Mr. Espeseth built; considering the mandate to preserve the rural character and open space of the hills, she questioned what the large developers were doing in the Mt. Eden Rd. area. Ms. Yaeger questioned if the Applicant were allowed to build a second house now, what assurance did citizens have that he would not further subdivide the property. Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, stated he tried to design a house that fit with the neighborhood. Mr. Joseph J. Rodrigues, 20232 Saratoga Vista Ct., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of June 4, 1989. Mr. Curtis Wilson, 20251 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of June 9, 1989. Ms. Lynn Prendergast reviewed her letter of June 8, 1989. Mr. D. H. Murphy, Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of June 8, 1989. Mr. Dick Toesell, Saratoga, felt the Applicant had a right to develop his property. Mr. Espeseth commented that there were a number of letters supporting his Application. Mr. Lawrence Klose, Attorney for Mr. Espeseth, reviewed his letter of June 13, 1989. BURGERAJARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:45 P.M. Passed 6 -0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 JUNE 14, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The City Attorney stated that with respect to Mr. Klose's letter, the City Code Section on lot line adjustments reflected current State law, i. e., a provision was included dealing with consistency with the General Plan; this was the provision relied upon by the Staff. The City can review an Application and deny such, if the Commission found that there was a violation of the General Plan. While he had not had the occasion to investigate whether two legal lots of record existed, there was no reason to assume that there were not two lots. Furthermore, this house was on the heritage inventory adopted by the City, it had not been designated a heritage resource. Commissioner Tappan stated he would have trouble making a Finding that the lot line adjustment was not consistent with the General Plan, as recommended by Staff. He did not feel parking impacts would be significant from the addition of one house in this developed neighborhood; the value of surrounding properties would be enhanced by the restoration of the farm house and the addition of a new house. Visual impacts from parked cars in the driveway could be addressed by landscape screening; furthermore, the existing house was not especially visible now. Commissioner Burger noted that the question was a lot line adjustment, not a subdivision. The City Attorney added that this was the critical difference. Commissioner Burger agreed with much of Commissioner Tappan's comments, however, the proposed lot line adjustment (placing the second parcel on Merrick Dr.) would be very poor land use planning and would squeeze in a second lot. She would not vote in favor of Alternative A. She suggested the best use of the land was to leave the lot line as it presently existed; such would entail drastic changes to the existing home. The original portion of the home did not extend over the lot line and would not be affected; only the addition crossed the lot line. Commissioner Tucker agreed there were two legal lots of record; this Application was a matter of choosing one alternative. She asked whether Alternative A had less impervious coverage or not? Commissioner Kolstad felt the neighbor's issues were not as significant as first appeared; he felt the Applicant had a right to develop the property and would vote in favor in Alternative A. The placement of the new house on Merrick Dr. was appropriate; issues of privacy impact could be addressed by landscape screening. Chairperson Siegfried agreed there were two legal lots of record; the question then became what was the best lot line adjustment in order to allow this project to proceed. He favored Alternative A which he believed would be less intrusive to the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Harris stated she could not Find that the lot line adjustment was inconsistent with the General Plan; however she asked that the Model Resolutions be brought back with an added provision that the driveway to the farm house will be as far removed from the adjacent property owners to the east as possible. Commissioner Burger noted that she was voting against the adjustment of the lot line, not against the fact that there were two legal lots of record. If Alternative B was chosen, the lot could be lowered to conform with the surrounding properties. Commissioner Harris responded that the driveway for Alternative B would still impact the adjacent property owners to the east. TAPPAN/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE LL -88 -003 AND SD -89 -005 WITH THE MODEL RESOLUTIONS BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND CONTAIN THE ADDED PROVISIONS THAT THE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY TO THE FARM HOUSE WILL BE AS FAR REMOVED FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE EAST AS POS- SIBLE AND WITH A LANDSCAPING PLAN TO SCREEN THE DRIVEWAY. Passed 5 -1, Commissioner Burger dissenting. 1. UpcomingPt max ag applications and projects COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. City Couuacil wport Burger reported on the City Council Meeting of June_1 T, Minutes of March 8, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 6 issioner Burger questioned how these concerns could be addressed; it was important that ission had assurance before the certification of the EIR before them, that the Mt. Eden Lsion would not result in additional problems in the future. 7 Chairpershp Guch noted that there appeared to be some areas of the Mt. Eden Rd. which were link o the Quarry Creek Repair Project, specifically on Lot 4 and the Ha oads; she asked that the tential relationships between these projects be addressed. Commissioner Sie ed concurred and asked that the drainage as it related to a reparation of the Creek bed be addres d, namely, how would the flow patterns be changed the new project and what would the cumula 've impacts be? Commissioner Harris cit he City Attorney's statement as relat n the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of June 15, 89, that "both the proposed subdiv' ton and drainage leading into the Quarry Creek area would be a subject of an EIR." The Drag IR under consideration did not seem to address the issue of th "drainage leading into th uarry Creek area..." The City Attorney was quoted as saying, "D 'nage from this prope was part of hydrology studies done in connection with the Repair Project' ; eVtes ' not refer to such. Commissioner Burger asked that the issu the Final EIR. Commissioner Harris concurred and addy of the Appellant's Attorney at the City Council Hearin g had "questioned how ander these actions separate projects under the California Environmental Quality Act s in question were closely aligned ". Commissioner Kolstad that the had the me basic ncems as Commissioner Hams had raised; concerns would be alleviated if the A Corps of Eng eers stated that the Quarry Creek Repair Project was proceeding or /thedra* ge from the new p 'ect would not have an i mpact. Chairperson Guch suggesach reversed the ques n; she suggested that the impacts from the Mt. Eden Rd. proered. Commissioner Siegfried a operly engineered drainage tem, even for an undevel- oped site, would mitigat he impacts; the question was the change resu 'ng from development of the site as opXKstad current drainage patterns; such was independent m the Repair Project. Commissionfelt the Draft EIR did not adequa tely address the im ct of the drainage from the prmissioner Siegfried added that the changed impact fr the proposed development stion to be addressed. The PubX Hearing remained open. 7 IL DBURG ER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE MT. EDEN \ 12, 1989, DIRECTING THE CONSULTANT TO INCORPORATE THE CONCE S A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR). Passed 6 -0. Break 8:50 - 9:05 P.M. 12. SD -88 -024 Espeseth, 20271 Merrick Drive, request for tentative map approval to create a three -lot subdivision in the R -1- 10-000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. No parcel is proposed to less than 11,500 sq. ft. Commissioners Kolstad and Siegfried reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, dated March 8, 1989. Chairperson Guch introduced the following letters into the record: Ms. Patricia Khan and family, 13710 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, dated March 1, 1989 - Mr. Thomas J. Wyatt, 13682 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, dated March 5, 1989 W.M. McMullan, 13748 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, dated March 7, 1989 Mr. Richard I. Dewell, 13730 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, dated March 2, 1989 The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 7 Mr. Sam Espeseth, Applicant, commented as follows: - Reviewed the history of the property and noted his desire to restore the original home on -site - Discussed the Application and noted that such meet all zoning requirements - Concerns raised by the neighbors included drainage problems and the loss of privacy; he felt that both these concerns as well as any other problems could be corrected with proper engineer- ing, grading and a one -story ranch home design - Design review of the proposed houses would address privacy, parking and view impacts - Suggested the house on Lot C be lowered 3 ft. to make it equal with surrounding homes - The cul -de -sac could be shifted away from the adjacent home owners to prevent impacts - Finally, landscaping could be added along the edges to create a buffer Mr. Bill Heiss, Consulting Engineer, presented slides and commented as follows: - Noted the Applicants surprise at the reaction of the neighborhood on this Application; however, it was understandable that a change in the area would create resistance - Reviewed the request, the property's history and the topography and configuration of the site Staffs suggestion to merge the parcels was inappropriate and they strongly objected to such - With respect to the CC &Rs, those for Tract 1321 did not apply to this particular project - Concurred that the problems could be addressed and the project made compatible with the area - The lots proposed were in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance; no variances were required - Problems resulted when the subdivision was created; no provisions were made for drainage - Project in question could accommodate drainage concerns; the solution was fairly simple - It was an oversight on their part to place the cul-de -sac as proposed; the logical solution was to relocate the turn -around to provide the proper setback from the adjacent home owners property - In addition, landscaping would be added to further buffer the cul -de -sac area - Lowering Lot C pad would bring the lot into general conformance with the neighborhood - The suggestion by a neighbor to average the elevations of the surrounding homes and require the proposed house for Lot C to approximate this figure was reasonable - In addition, the home on Lot C would be a one -story, ranch style home - On parcel A, some excavation would be done, lowering the rear portion of the lot, to conform to surrounding homes; such would minimize the privacy impacts - After project completion, a 70 ft. clear zone would leave the farm house visible from the road - The Historical Commission had no objection to the removal of the old garage; the new garage would compliment the character of the farm house Ms. Lea Wilson reviewed her letter of February 28, 1989. She was concerned about the potential loss of value to her property; furthermore, her home could be surrounded on three sides by street. Ms. Barbara Seacrist, 20270 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed her letter of March 1, 1989. Ms. Patricia Kahn 13710 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, presented a letter addressing her concerns. Mr. William Brooks, 20230 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, sympathized with the Wilsons; while the project did not require a variance, it was in fact, creating the need for a variance for the Wilsons. In addition, he had concerns about the location of the driveway, the CC&Rs and the application of the hillside design guidelines to the proposed houses. Mr. Joseph Rodriguez, 20232 Saratoga Vista Ct., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of February 26th. Ms. Bonita Cox, 20264 Saratoga Vista Ct., Saratoga, stated she had remodelled her home includ- ing the opening up of the home toward the hillside; one of the proposed houses would be consid- erably higher then hers and completely destroy her privacy as well as her ability to work at home. Ms. Anne Sorden reviewed the letter of her mother, Mrs. McFarlane, 20280 Saratoga Vista Cr pictures of her view were presented. Ms. Fredriea Kuehl, 20250 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed her letter of February 22, 1989. Mr. Tore B. Dahlin, 13696 El Camino Rico, Saratoga, reviewed his letter of February 28, 1989 Mr. Curtis Wilson,'20251 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of February 28, 1989. Mr. Michael F. Kenrich, 20270 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, presented a petition and reviewed his letter. Ms. Janice LaMotte, 13700 We Tacuba, Saratoga, reviewed her letter of February 21, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 MARCH 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Leonard McCarthy, 20231 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of March 1, 1989. Mr. Donald Murphy, 20211 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of March 1, 1989. Mr. Walter Semetha, 13685 El Camino Rico, Saratoga, noted health benefits of privacy and quiet. Mr. Tom Wyatt, 13682 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of March 5, 1989. Mr. Herb LaMotte, 13700 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, reviewed the letter of February 21, 1989. Mr. Heiss suggested continuing this matter to a Study Session for consideration of alternatives. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:06 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Siegfried noted that there were only two lots of record; he felt the request could not be approved. The question was whether another house could be built at all; because of the unusual lot shape and its size, he did not feel there was an acceptable plan for more than the existing home. Commissioner Burger concurred; due to the testimony heard and her concerns about privacy impacts and drainage problems, she could not vote in favor of the Application. A Study Session would not help since she felt that there was no solution other than denial of the request. Commissioner Tappan noted the difficulty since the Applicant had two lots of record and had come before the Commission to explore the possibility of adding another lot. In a sense, the Applicant would be denied a property value he must have felt he would have when he purchased the site. He questioned whether there would be objections to the noise from some of the neighbors when the existing farm house were renovated; everyone would have to be reasonable when the structure were remodelled and enhanced. Commissioner Kolstad stated there was no way he could approve two new houses for this site in addition to the renovation of the farm house; minimum setbacks to this historic structure would not do it justice. Regardless of testimony given, he felt the request could not be approved. Commissioner Harris concurred with the other Commissioners; however, the drainage system would be improved with the proposed development. Nonetheless, the Application could not bee approved and the impacts to the Wilsons from the proposed cul -de -sac were very undesirable. Chairperson Guch noted that there were not three lots of record; she could not justify the creation of such. She was concerned about the site access since such would be impactful and neighborhood concerns about traffic on Merrick Dr. were justified. A Study Session would not help. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DENY SD -88 -024. Passed 6 -0. Eden Estates Lot 1, Tract 7761, Quarry Road, request for modification to app5vcd plans to allow relocation of an access driveway to the lot local n the NHR zoning district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Commissioner Sie ported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie Phwrnted the Memorandum of March 3, 1 The Public Hearing was opened at I ..4 P.M. Mr. Tom Burke, Home owner in the subdivisio , mented as follows: Comments had been received that the driv y sh on the original engineer drawings did not make sense; Applicants concurred wi is assessment Questioned whether the drivew proposed with 5 ft. re tat walls, could be done - In addition, a fire access ro as to be provided as required by th ntative Map - Applicants proposed t tend the paved area about 50 ft. and install a ate With respect to . ohler's letter, he disputed the facts stated in the letter Mr. Bill 1, 13485 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, felt the relocation of the driveway place ' on a preci ' us area of the lot; in addition, the northern slope was considered unstable. The lion would be more visible than the formerly approved one. Gi_ty of Saratoga 7124/89 137771 F'rui tiFal e Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Attn:- City Council Re =: SD- 89 -005 and LL -89 -003 Espeseth's at 20271 Merrick Dr Members -of the Council On June 14, 1989 the planning commission approved our lot line adjustment. The Vote was 5• yes and 1 no. The no, vote supported the idea of two legal lots but felt.there might be a better way to adjust the lot line. The planning commisaionle; approval has been appealed by unhappy neighborm necessitating this Council FI'earing on, Aug. 2, 1989 On-,Feb. 190 1989 we invited our neighbors over to lest them review ,o-ax plans for the property. We had no idea how negatively many of.them would respond. Along with many negative letters= there, -were s-ix supportive letters from people in the immediate area presented at the June 14th hearing. The proposed lot line adjustment eliminates;the.need . to,: alter the old farmhouse. It can be:, restored in it "s present conriguration. The property is ~presently divided into two parcels. A new house built on the existing flag lot would have a greater impact om surrounding neighbors and require the garage and family,, room addition to be relocated. The lot line adjustment would create a l0',000r sq. ft. lot fronting on Merrick Dr. and' leave approvimately 4'0,900> sq. ft. of property for the existing house.. s My-.wife and a have lived in Saratoga for 18' years. My profess=ion is building quality residential custom homes. The new proposed home ` designed 'by Warren Heid AIA is,, ; compatable with the neighborhood and will Ve? an asset� to the community. Z.,urge.you to support the planning Commission's approval of the lot line adjustment; and building Site approval. The Commisioun- ers3have contributed a considerable amount of time and effort. using;.pr.oper procedures for approval. You are welcome to come over and visit the s=ite. Warren FPeid and I will be available 4-:00 to cn:OQ- p.m. Monday July__31 to answer any questions etc. Th You., IZEC ?IVED �J JUL 20" 1989 `dam and Judy Espeseth- 741- 0211' PLANNING DE PT 20271 Merrick Dr. July 20, 89 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 Attn: City Council Re: Lot Line adjustment 20271 Merrick Dr. SD -89 -005, LL- 89 -003 Honorable Chairperson and members of the council The house proposed for the Espeseth lot appears to me, to be a very desirable improvement to the neighborhood. I urge you to uphold the approval for the lot line adjustment and building site. Respectfully G t W.M. cMillan 13748 Saratoga Vista Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 R ECI7,,IVED JUL 23 1989 PLANNING C75P1` 6-t A Cc 13 e- CC i -ex -L456 Y vi vJ I V P k_ f V 1 vl �� I S C. o li►�1 Vt�l �� -lil -r-� We- W e_ t e- pp r a_ �- �-t�� I � -� �C�S � S � a r�► V e � e r�� I . � a 1--S PL-1-1 a 0--k- -- vi KI 41 � } I �l Viii f r1 `_ c� / t- c9 / 1 i% r ►"t_ `� �t r �� e, cY I S CL1 WI 1 U! i-� cwt a{-� � r �� - - -- - -- / 1 1 f a ��h, r�au� ��c►Sio d Q i-a�� o'� 44'-a cli e- 6- . REC IVE-13 JUL � C 1989 O 1ik PLANNINr OFQT r- Z 77 V7 � Va\five, - �sa,.<-ako n,, CCx_ q6- 07a A4, C', G, LL ` ofD�7 84 -603 C1 o `j o v'"�' l� v1 Ol r �'C S O 1�1 �t,v� G� vM, P wi o en's 0< CO t t Y) G E Qr ECG -- c5a.vn Q Y\ 0.NL0� aAo1L �o 5 I 0.q v�Gtr U ,n on o OU m 5, 0 l'1'S �C1S D`n 0� QD 6� 4� S v \�QvL`C o J 1 3 -7 5q 20251 Merrick Dr. Saratoga, Ca 95070 July 27, 1989 Mayor Marty Clevenger City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Clevenger: In talking with our attorney, he has informed us that according to the Govern- ment Statute 66412 dealing with the Subdivision Map Act, the decision of whether or not to allow a lot line adjustment is left to the discretion of the local agency. Please help us to keep our current quality of life in our neighborhood by not approving the lot line adjustment at 20271 Merrick Dr. We live next door to the Espeseths property. Our problem is not with the house which he would like to build but with the fact that in order to do so, the driveway to his existing home would be moved to our property line. It would go beside us and all the way away around in back of our home and we would be surrounded by traffic on three sides. As a real estate agent, I know that our property would become less desirable, thereby decreasing in value. A driveway behind us already exists but is seldom used by anyone. All guests currently use,the driveway in the center of the lot. If his proposal were to be granted, the existing driveway would be removed and all of his company would be driving all the way around our house and parking in back of us. Because his driveway is gravel and because his land in the back of our home is approximately 4' -6' higher than ours, it is extremely noisy - -the sound drifts down as though it was next to us. Our master bedroom is on the back corner next to their driveway - -not even corner houses have traffic that close. We purchased our home 15 years ago in a settled neighborhood in the middle of a block. It never even occurred to us that our privacy could become so threatened as it has. Our back yard is all open because no one has been in the area above it for all of the time we have lived here. We always hear when cars go up the Espeseths driveway (many times a day) because of the steepness but since the driveway is in the middle of their lot, people have not been able to look into our entire yard. If all of the Espeseths vehicles and their company park behind us, every time someone gets out of their cars (or even from inside their cars), they will be able to see in all of the surrounding yards. Soon the leaves will be dropping from the few trees that are there and we will have absolutely no privacy. We have loved our neighborhood and our neighbors and it has been a special place to raise our family. Please don't let Mr. Espeseth change the character of our neighborhood and please don't let him add his traffic noise to our home and take away our privacy. Very truly yours, • Mayor Marty Clevenger City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Clevenger: 20251 Merrick Dr. Saratoga, Ca 95070 July 27, 1989 In talking with our attorney, he has informed us that according to the Govern- ment Statute 66412 dealing with the Subdivision Map Act, the decision of whether or not to allow a lot line adjustment is left to the discretion of the local agency. Please help us to keep our current quality of life in our neighborhood by not approving the lot line adjustment at 20271 Merrick Dr. We live next door to the Espeseths property. Our problem is not with the house which he would like to build but with the fact that in order to do so, the driveway to his existing home would be moved to our property line. It would go beside us and all the way away around in back of our home and we would be surrounded by traffic on three sides. As a real estate agent, I know that our property would become less desirable, thereby decreasing in value. A driveway behind us already exists but is seldom used by anyone. All guests currently use-the driveway in the center of the lot. If his 16proposal were to be granted, the existing driveway would be removed and all of his company would be driving all the way around our house and parking in back of us. Because his driveway is gravel and because his land in the back of our home is approximately 4' -6' higher than ours, it is extremely noisy - -the sound drifts down as though it was next to us. Our master bedroom is on the back corner next to their driveway - -not even corner houses have traffic that close. We purchased our home 15 years ago in a settled neighborhood in the middle of a block. It never even occurred to us that our privacy could become so threatened as it has. Our back yard is all open because no one has been in the area above it for all of the time we have lived here. We always hear when cars go up the Espeseths driveway (many times a day) because of the steepness but since the driveway is in the middle of their lot, people have not been able to look into our entire yard. If all of the Espeseths vehicles and their company park behind us, every time someone gets out of their cars (or even from inside their cars), they will be able to see in all of the surrounding yards. Soon the leaves will be dropping from the few trees that are there and we will have absolutely no privacy. We have loved our neighborhood and our neighbors and it has been a special place to raise our family. Please don't let Mr. Espeseth change the character of our neighborhood and please don't let him add his traffic noise to our home and take away our privacy. Very truly yours,