Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-1987 City Council Staff ReportsSARATOGA CITY•COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. OS 7 MEETING DATE: rlovembPr G 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: MV RESOLUTION - STOP INTALLATION ON FOURTH STREET @ CANYON VIEW DRIVE Recommended Motion: AGENDA ITEM CITY'MGR. APPROVAL Adopt MV Resolution estabishing a stop sign on Fourth Street at its intersection with Canyon View Drive. Report Summar A request for a stop sign on Fourth Street at its intersection with Canyon View Drive came from the Wildwood Heights Homeowner's Association. Although there has been no significant accident history at this intersection, butj due to alignment, and the approaches, a stop sign on Fourth Street at Canyon View Drive would more clearly assign right -of -way, and be an-aid to motorists as well as eliminate any potential conflict. Under Section 21800 of the California Vehicle Code driver's approaching the cross street from the stem of a "tee" intersection, shall yield to vehicles approaching' from said cross street (top of "tee "). This installation assigns right -of -way legally without any question. The Public Safety Commission supports the installa- tion of this 'stop sign. Fiscal Impacts:' The cost of installing the stop sign and placing the appropriate markings and legends should be about $150.00 and would come from the Traffic Safety'Budget (3033- 3010). Attachments: 1. Resolution MV No. 2. Location Map. 3. Letter from Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association. Motion and Vote: RESOLUTION NO. MV- RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION OF FOURTH STREET AND CANYON VIEW DRIVE AS A STOP INTERSECTION The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION I: The following intersection in the City of Saratoga is hereby designated as a stop intersection. NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION Fourth Street All vehicles traveling on Fourth Street northwesterly bound shall stop before entering Canyon View Drive. This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed. The above and foregoing was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of November,.1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR o II m Inria RIR -:So �TRT�ti ;� AFT Suzanne K. Armbruster 21169 Canyon View Drive Saratoga, California 95070 ?,./ to L., !P, /�Po�:. . July 8, 1987 Public Safety Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga,, California 95070 Dear Commissioners: On behalf of the Wildwood Hieghts Homeowners Association, I am requesting that a stop sign be positioned on Fourth Street where it connects with Canyon View Drive. This intersection presents a strong potential for accidents since vehicles approaching Canyon View on Fourth Street often drive directly onto Canyon View without observing if there is any oncoming traffic traveli.n.g on Canyon View. In other instances, vehicles have slowed down considerably but after their front end has already blocked the traffic lane. This causes vehicles traveling on Canyon View to swerve to miss the auto approching from Fourth Street. I realize that the placement of a traffic control sign on Fourth Street is redundant in the light of the California Vehicle Code, but I would hope that a stop sign would reinforce this requirement for drivers who are either unaware of the Code or ignoring it.. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, you may contact me by phone at my home in the evening at 867 - 685.7 or at my office during business hours at (408) 727 -9800. Very truly yours, Suzanne `. Armbruster President Wildwood Heights Homeowners Association EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 11 -4 -87 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Dept. SUBJECT: APPROVE PLANS FOR LANDSCAPING, IDENTIFICATION SIGN AND FLAG POLES IN FRONT OF CITY HALL AND APPROVE APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION Recommended Motion: 1. Approve plans for improvement in front of City Hall. 2. Authorize advertising for bids.. 3. Approve Appropriation Resolution. J AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL Report Summary: Engineering Department has completed plans for improvements in front of City Hall which includes following items: 1. Widen landscape area five feet to ten feet between Fruitvale and parking .lot. 2. Add City Hall identification sign. 3. Erect two additional flag poles. The cost estimate of the above project is $33,309.00. Fiscal Impacts: 1. Cost of project is $33,309.00. Attachments: 1. Appropriation Resolution. 2. Plans. 3. Cost estimate. Motion and Vote: OK f-0- 1 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EN6/iVEER S EST /MA T CITY BALL LANDSCAPING • Date: —,198— By; -EM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Excavation Lump Sum L.S. x,.000:0 $ 6,000.00 2. Top Soil 278.0 C.Y. '18.00 5,004.00 3. Construct City sin L.S. L..S. 6,500.0-: 6,500.00 L.S. L.S. 0 00.00 5. Remove and Replace Concrete Curb 367.0 L.F. 15 6. Install 4" Steel Pipe L-S. L.S. 300.00 7. Install 2 Flag Poles L.S. L.S. 5,000.0 5,000.00 8. Plants $33,309.00 =,�.- Jheet _ of SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. '� MEETING DATE: 11/4/87 ORIGINATING DEPT • Community Services AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Resolution Amending the Schedule of Fees as Adopted in Resolution 2383 Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution. Report Summary: On October 7, 1987, the Council adopted Ordinance 71.28 regulating massage establishments and massagists, which becomes effective November 6. That ordinance establishes a pro- ,y cessing fee for a massage permit application. Staff has calculated the costs of processing the application, including notice requirements and other service costs. The attached resolution sets the fee at a level which should recover costs. Fiscal Imr)acts : Should be close to neutral. Attachments: Resolution. Motion and Vote: RESOLUTION NO. 2383.3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF FEES AS ADOPTED IN RESOLUTION NO. 2383 WHEREAS, on October 15, 1986, the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted Resolution No. 2383 establishing a schedule of fees for various applications, permits, extensions, renewals, services and other matters enumerated therein; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 238:3 was amended by Resolution No. 2383.1 adopted on February 18, 1987 and Resolution No. 2383.2 adopted on September 2, 1957; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to further amend Resolution 2383 to establish fees for the issuance and renewal of massage establishment permits and certificates otregistration for massagists, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: 1. Exhibit "A" attached to Resolution 2383 is amended by adding the following: Code Description Section Subject of Fee Amount §4- 55.050(b) Massage Permit application $850, plus the establishments fee amounts charged by the County Sheriff's Depart- ment and County Health Department for investigations conducted by . said agencies §4- 55.090(c) Massage Permit renewal $400 establishments fee §4- 55.100(b) Massagists Certificate $300, plus the application fee amount charged by the County Sheriff's Deoart- ment for investi- gations conducted by said agency §4- 55.130(d) Massagists Certificate $150 renewal fee me 2. Except as amended by Resolutions 2383.1. and 2383.2, and as further amended herein, Resolution 2383 is declared to be in full force and effect. * i s Passed and adopted. at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Attest: CITY CLERK -2 MAYOR t SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /3 (2 MEETING DATE: November 4, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: Communitv Services AGENDA ITEM 41U CITY MGR. APPROVAL / SUBJECT: Request to Approve "Great Race" on January 24, 1988 Recommended Motion: Approved in concept holding The Great Race in Saratoga on January 24 , 1988, conditioned on compliance with all requirements for a Special Events Permit, with authorization for the Community Services Director to issue the Special Events Permit once all the requirements have been satisfied. Report Summary: The Rotary Club of Los Gatos has requested the approval of the City of Saratoga for that portion of their annual "Great Race" which is within the jurisdiction of the City. The Great Race, which is a foot race, is scheduled for January 24, 1988, and will start at Blaney Plaza in Saratoga. It will proceed east along the southerly shoulder of Hwy. 9 and end in Los Gatos. The requirements of the City's Special Events Ordinance include the following: (a) payment of a $50.00, non - refundable filing fee (b) payment of a $250.00 fully refundable clean-up deposit (c) the Rotary Club obtain an Envroachment Permit from Caltrans. (d) the Rotary Club obtain the approval of the Sheriff's Office, and assume financial re- sponsibility for any additional costs associated therewith. (e) the Rotary Club obtain a Certificate Of Insurance naming the City of Saratoga as additionally insured, for at least $300,000 in liability coverage. Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: None are anticipated (a) Correspondence dated September 25, 1987 from Rotary Club to City Council (b) Correspondence dated October 23, 1987 from Rotary Club to Community Services Director Motion and Vote: - r Post Office Box 1018 Los Gatos, California 95031 September 25, 1987 Mayor and City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members: The Rotary Club of Los Gatos hereby requests City approval for the 1988 running of the Great Saratoga to Los Gatos Race on Sunday, January 24, 1988. The race will, as last year, begin at Blaney Plaza in Saratoga, proceed east along the southerly shoulder of Highway 9 and end in downtown Los Gatos. We will secure CalTrans approval as well as Monte Sereno and Los Gatos. We greatly appreciate your support of this traditional community event. We will be pleased to work with your staff to satisfy your conditions and concerns. Very truly yours, Rich Karnan President RPK:pc cc: W. Goldman Dank of America Los Gatos Branch October 23, 1987 Todd Argow Director of Community Services City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Great Saratoga to Los Gatos Race Dear Todd: Enclosed are some of the items that I know you need in order for Saratoga to approve the Great Race. We are running into some timing problems on our insurance policy therefore, I would like to get an approval from the City of Saratoga subject to receipt of the $1,000,000 liability coverage naming Saratoga as additional insured. We have now received approval from Monte Sereno and Los Gatos on that basis. Please let me know if we can get the Council's approval. The following are enclosed: 1) A map of the race course. 2) A copy of the letter from the CHP approving the race. 3) A copy of the letter seeking CalTrans approval. 4) A copy of the letter from the Sheriff's department confirming their assistance. Todd, thank you for your assistance. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, J/ E. Howarth Vice President and Manager (408) 399 -2931 Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association 333 North Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, California 95030 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:.. .�o AGENDA ITEMrLJ MEETING DATE: November,4,.1987_ CITY MGR APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:_ . Maintenance ----------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: DONATION TO HAKONE GARDEN ------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Recommended_ Motions Accept and acknowledge by way of letter from the Mayor, a donation of $25.00 to Hakone Gardens from Mr. and Mrs. Gary B. Gordon of Saratoga. Repprt. Summary Gary and Nikki Gordon of Saratoga donated $25.00 to Hakone Gardens. A copy of the letter of acknowledgement has been forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. Fiscal Impact Attachments Letter of acknowledgement. Motion & Vote 0/< 5--b � D Qq ° o Il��® 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 o 0��15� (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava October 27, 1987 David Moyles Donald Peterson Mr. and Mrs. Gary B. Gordon 21112 Bank Mill Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon, It is my pleasure, on behalf of the City of Saratoga, to acknowledge your donation of $25.00 to the Hakone Gardens. We are very proud of the Hakone Japanese Gardens and donations of this nature help to defray the cost involved in maintaining the Garden at its high level of authenticity. Again, let me thank you for your contribution. I hope you will be able to visit the gardens often. Sincerely, Don Peterson Mayor r� =y SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: _._ ----- __ __.. /..6 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE : _ _ .November 4,_ 1987 .. _ CITY MGR APPROVAL ORIGINATING. DEPARTMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: PRESSURE PUMP FOR HAKONE GARDEN ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended_ Motions Approve budget adjustment per Resolution .2429 for installation of pressure pump to aid irrigation at Hakon aen. Report Summary Installation of the pressure pump at Hakone Gardens is necessary to enable an adequate supply of water to care for the new bamboo garden. Fiscal_.Impact Budget adjustment of $1446.00. Attachments Resolution Memo from Parks and Buildings Supervisor listing cost estimates for installing pressure pump. Motion_ .& Vote OK S -o, 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2429 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1988 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET 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 2429 be amended as follows: Transfer: From 0001 -2000 Fund Balance To 3037 -6740 Hakone, Special Equipment $1,446.00 Purpose: Appropriation for purchase and installation of pressure pump at Hakone Gardens. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the day of , 198 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Mayor 091TW @2- O&M�-UQ)02L 13777 FRUITVALE- AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 AEMORANDUM TO: City Manager DATE: October 15, 1987 FROM: Parks and Buildings Supervisor SUBJECT: Pressure Pump and Hydro- seeding at Hakone --------------------------------- - - - - -- Listed below are the estimates for installing the pressure pump at Hakone to enable us to supply an adequate head of water to care for the new bamboo garden. This quote is from Barton Pump. 1 Jacuzzi Jet 1 Well- X -Trol Misc. Fittii Tax Labor Pump $ 396.00 Tank 405.00 I9s 270.03 1071.03 74.97 300.00 $1446.00 The hydro- seeding estimate is from A to Z Nursery. They feel that annual rye would be the best seed because of its rapid germination and its root holding capacity. This would be in a fiber mulch slurry with a fertilizer mix of 16 -16 -8 and can be applied now and germinate after the first rains or by irrigation. Their estimate is $950 for the area we have. As you are aware, neither of the expenditures are covered in our current operating budget. If approval were to be made for one item, I would suggest the pressure pump as this is an item we will need now and for our future maintenance. If it was installed as soon as possible we could have the capacity to moisten the area and bring up the seed that is already there, thus eliminating the hydro - seeding. If there was too much delay in this possiblity then we should go ahead with hydro - seeding to prevent possible erosion problems and protect the new bamboo garden. Let me know in what direction we should proceed and of course, the funding source. Roy ;/Swanson Parks and Buildings Supervisor cc: Director of Maintenance SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: November 4, 1987 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SUBJECT: .Design Review AGENDA ITEM 6114 CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: Allow adopted ordinance to go into effect as scheduled. Direct staff to set up a category of application review where neighborhood notice would be required for approval by City Council. Report Summary : The report discusses the twin issues of notice and review in processing applications for residential development in the City. It summarizes the requirements for development review hearing before the Planning Commission and discusses the Commission's desire in widening the scope of notice and hearing to include all residential development permits. In the past twelve months this would have added 373 design review cases to the 177 which were considered by the Commission, an increase of 2110. Report recommends against such action concluding it would be costly, time consuming and not promote service to the public. Z11, Fiscal Impacts: � y Based on an assumed reduction in design revikeyv e rings of up to 20 %, the number of design review cases (177) forte e ast twelve months, and an average design review fee of $550, a revere loss o $19,500 per year is expected. Attachments: 1. Report from City Manager - 11/4/87 2. Planning Director Memo - 10/23/87 3. Planning Director Memo - 10/27/87 4. Adonted Ordinance: Motion and Vote: (1� �i A A /Ti/�/ �lL l/—v� �J �✓�. `V -V �(/W�� /r ��nr(r�Q��✓ uV — /l ice♦ 0 Qq 000 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARA"I'OGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 - :34:38 November 4, 1987 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Design Review COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Joyce Hlava David Movies Donald Peterson BACKGROUND At the conclusion of your joint discussion with the Planning Commission on DESIGN REVIEW on October 20,1987, you directed the issue of notice and review of residential development to be placed on your next meeting agenda for further discussion. It was my understanding from that meeting that the Council was split on the desire expressed by the Commission that the scope of both notice and Commission review be expanded to include all new residential construction on both new dwellings and dwelling remodels which would include additions to existing structures. The ordinance adopted by the Council goes into effect on November 6, 1987. The scope of notice and Commission review contained in the ordinance is limited to public hearing situations. These include: 1 -any multistory structure on a hillside lot 2 -any conversion of a one story structure to two stories 3 -when required as a subdivision condition 4 -when a main structure is to be built on a lot less than 5,000 sq. ft. 5 -when gross floor area will exceed 6,000 sq. ft. 6 -when common open space is being counted as lot area 7 -when the director feels the proposal is incompatible with neighborhoods or design review findings The draft ordinance sent to the Council in September had the following notice and review by Commission: 1 -any multistory structure 2 -any conversion of a one story structure to a two story structure 3 -any expansion of the second story of a two story structure which exceeds 100 sq. ft. 4 -any main structure on a hillside lot 5 -when required as a subdivision condition 6 -when a main structure is to be built on a lot of less than 5.000 sa. ft- 7-any dwelling with a height in excess of 26 ft. 8 -when gross floor area will exceed 6,200 sq. ft. 9 -when the director feels the proposal is incompatible with neighborhoods or design review findings It is my opinion that the Commission now wishes to expand its scope of review beyond that contained in the draft ordinance. It is unclear to me what a review of ALL new development as expressed by the Commission really means. ANALYSIS If they are truly concerned about notice and review of everything,then over the past twelve months the staff has handled 373 applications which have not been noticed or reviewed by the Commission. I do not think that it was or is the intention of the. Commission to hold that many more hearings annually nor have that many more public notices published in the paper. Of these 373 applications, all but 20 involved additions or remodels including exterior changes. If the Council is inclined to adopt the policy Position suggested by the Commission, it would significantly add to the staff work load, and - would add an'application tee cost of $550 for each application. In my opinion this level of review and notice with the attached costs in both time and money is not justified in the name of public notice. It must be kept in mind that, for the most part, when this level of review and notice is being considered it is the individual home owner who is going to endure the burden and the cost of this process, not some out of town developer or some contractor building a house on spec. It is for these reasons that as your city manager I advise against moving to make design review, notice and hearing requirements more comprehensive than they already are or as they are to be when the new ordinance goes into effect on November 6 1987. , The prospect of having to do an additional 350 to 400 staff reports a year means that we would have to add one more staff planner and the one half of a clerical person the Planning Director has been after me to recommend to you for the last several months. The added approximate $200,000 in fees would more than pay for the added staff but the limits on our space would make it difficult for a new person to find an adequate place to work. Our counter space would be even more crowded than it currently is. And the list goes on. In my view, Saratoga will not be adequately serving the public if the proposal by the Commission is fully implemented. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I think the basic question the Council needs to ask itself is whether or not the current level of design review has been seen as generally satisfactory to the residents of Saratoga? If not, then a new level of design review needs to be established by 2 s amending the ordinance defining the new categories of development which will be included. During the past twelve months there have been 177 design review cases filed with the Department. If 373 additional cases had had to be handled,it would have increased the staff workload by 211 %.. I do not believe either the Council members nor the Planning Commissioners who favored a broadening of the notice and review covered by the ordinance quite realized the degree to which these cases are already being handled by the staff. I expect that under the new ordinance the number of cases which go to hearing will only decrease by about 20 or about 35 a year. This will result in a loss of revenue of about $19,500 to the City. It seems to me that the Council should give this new ordinance a chance to work. See whether or not there is a substantial change in the .number of cases the Commission has to handle. See whether there is feedback from the community that applications are being processed by staff which r.esidents find objectionable. Approve the staff suggestion to create an administrative notice process for non - design review applications if you feel that is necessary. Require that such applications, as defined, either are changed to satisfy neighbor concerns or are set for hearing before the Commission as design review cases. TO ATTEMPT TO FULLY IMPLEMENT DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE 550 POTENTIAL CASES WHICH THE CITY GETS EACH YEAR AS THE COMMISSION SEEMS TO SUGGEST WOULD CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEM OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE. AS YOUR CITY MANAGER I CAN NOT RECOMMEND SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION. Harry �. Peacock jm 3 _ o00 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3.138 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager ., DATE: 10/23/87 FROM: Planning DepartmentL// SUBJECT: Building permits aopro,bed by Planning Staff Per your request, we have assessed the number of building permits issued by the Building Division between October 1, 1986 and October 16, 1987, that have been reviewed by the Planning Department staff prior to issuance. These permits did not require Planning Commission approval since they were exempt from the design review ordinance. Additions to single family homes (example: bay windows, minor expansions, second story additions less than 100 sq. ft. in area, and additions less than 50% of the existing floor area which resulted in homes within the floor area standard for the zone district 234 Remodels'(exterior and /or interior changes) 119 Decks (did not encroach upon required yards or exceed 4 feet in height) 20 Total permits 373 It you require further clarification or elaboration, please contact the Planning Department. (OT1191Y 02 0&MZU00 oz 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 I�/ I E I' � OR A N D U I� JI TO: City Council FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: Reconsideration of design review ordinance. DATE: October 27, 1987 At the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission held on October 20, 1987, there was discussion on the recent Council adoption of the design review ordinance. Discussion was focused on the changes the Council made to the ordinance as recommended for approval by the Commission, Darticularly in regard to the types of applications that would be required to go through the design review process. There was concern at the loss of public noticing for certain projects and the resultant loss of opportunity for surrounding neighbors to review and comment on applications that may impact them. At the joint meeting, it was requested that this item be placed on the next Council agenda for reconsideration. Attached is the ordinance as approved by the Council on October 7, 1987. A � Yuchuek Hsia Planning Director Attachment: Design review ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 71.27 C AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO ABOLISH THE SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ELIMINATE THE AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO SAID COMMITTEE, TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS OF GROSS FLOOR AREA AND MULTI -STORY STRUCTURE, TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT LIPIIlT FOR SINGLE FAMII,Y DWELLINGS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, TO MODIFY THE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN REVIEW OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND TO MODIFY THE PROVISIONS CONCERNING ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Article 2 -16 of the City Code, entitled "Site Review Committee," is hereby repealed, including each and every Section thereof. SECTION 2: Section 14- 05.040 in Article 14 -05 of the City Code is amended to 4 read as follows: n §14- 05.040 Designation of advisory agency (a) The Planning Commission is hereby designated as the advisory agency for all decisions and determinations under this Chapter. (b) There is hereby delegated to the advisory agency the power to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove tentative maps and building sites, together with extensions and modifications thereof, the power to determine consistency or lack of consistency of a proposed tentative map or building site with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and without limiting the foregoing, the power to make the determinations prescribed in Sections 66473.5, 66474 and 66474.6 of the Subdivision Map Act." SECTION 3: Paragraph (b) of Section 14- 10.100 in Article 14 -10 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(b) Gross floor area means the total floor space under roof of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, including halls, stairways, elevator shafts, ducts, service and mechanical equipment rooms, and including also interior courts with or without a roof, but excluding basements, exterior roof overhangs, exterior unenclosed balconies, and unenclosed areas underneath exterior decks or balconies.. The floor area of a covered structure, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the area under 1 the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. Gross floor area includes all Rev. 9/16/87 -1- areas having an interior height of -at .least seven and .one -half. -feet, _except that in .... ___ the case of a sloped ceiling, roof or ground surface, the floor area shall be measured from the point at which the interior height is five feet if any portion of such area also has an interior height of at least seven and one -half feet." SECTION 4: Paragraph (b) of Section 15- 06.280 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(b) Gross floor area means the total floor space under roof of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, including halls, = stairways, elevator shafts, ducts, service and mechanical equipment rooms, and including also interior courts with or without a roof, but excluding basements, exterior roof overhangs, exterior unenclosed balconies, and - unenclosed areas underneath exterior decks or balconies. The floor area of a covered structure, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. Gross floor area includes all areas having an interior height of at least seven and one -half feet, except that in the case of a sloped ceiling, roof or ground surface, the floor area shall be measured from the point at which the interior height is five feet if any portion of such area also has an interior height of at least seven and one -half feet." SECTION 5: A new Section 15- 06.655 is added to Article 15 -06 of the City Code,-to read as follows: r "515 - 06.655 Story; multi -story i i (a) Story means that portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above, or if there is no floor above, then the space between the floor and the ceiling or roof next above. (b) Multi -story means any building having one or more stories physically located or projecting above a story, or any portion thereof, constructed and located beneath the same. Basements shall not be considered a story. "Multi- story" includes a one and one -half story (split level) structure, having the floor level of the upper story located at approximately the center height of the lower portion of the structure. SECTION 6: Paragraph (c) of Section 15- 06.670 in Article 15 -06 of the City Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 7: Section 15- 11.100 in Article 15 -11 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "515- 11.100 Height of structures (a) No single - family dwelling shall exceed twenty -six feet in height and no other type of structure shall exceed thirty feet in height. (b) No structure shall exceed two stories." Rev. 9/16/87 -2- SECTION 8: Section 15 -11.150 in Article 15 -1.1 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "515- 11.150 Design reviews The construction or expansion of any main or accessory structure in an A district shall comply with the applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15-45 or Article 15 -46 of this Chapter." SECTION 9: Section 15- 12.100 in Article 15 -12 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: tt -915- 12.100 Height of structures (a) No single - family dwelling shall exceed twenty -six feet in height and no other type of main structure shall exceed thirty feet in height. (b) No accessory structure shall exceed twelve feet in height. (c) No structure shall exceed two stories, except that pursuant to a use permit issued under Article 15 =55 of this Chapter, a three -story structure may be allowed for an institutional facility located upon a site designated for quasi- public facilities (QPF) in the General Plan, where the average slope underneath the structure is ten percent or greater and a stepped building pad is used." SECTION 10: Section 15- 12.150 in Article 15 -12 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "515- 12.150 Design review The construction or expansion of any main or accessory structure in an R -1 district shall comply with the applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15 -45 or Article 15 -46 of this Chapter." SECTION 11: Section 15- 13.100 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "5.15- 13.100 Height of structures (a) No single - family dwelling shall exceed twenty -six feet in height and no other type of main structure shall exceed thirty feet in height. (b) No accessory structure shall exceed twelve feet in height. (c) No structure shall exceed two stories." SECTION 12: read as follows: Rev. 9/16/87 Section 15- 13.150 in Article 15 -13 of the City Code is amended to -3- "515- 13.150 Design review The construction or expansion of any main or accessory structure in an HC -RD district shall comply with the applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15 -45 or Article 15 -46 of this Chapter." SECTION 13: Paragraph (c) of Section 15- 14.110 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(c) A single - family dwelling not limited by Paragraphs (a) or (b) above, shall not exceed twenty -six feet in height. Any other type of main structure not limited by Paragraphs (a) or (b) above, shall not exceed thirty feet in height." SECTION 14: Section 15- 14.160 in Article 15 -14 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: :'.'515- 14.160 Design review The construction or expansion of any main or accessory structure in the NHR district shall comply with the applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15 -45 or Article 15 -46 of this Chapter." SECTION 15: Article 15 -45 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Sections: 15- 45.010 15- 45.020 15- 45.03'0 15- 45.040 15- 45.050 15- 45_060 15- 45.070 15- 45.080 15- 45.090 15- 45.100 15- 45.110 "ARTICLE 15-45 DESIGN REVIEW: SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLINGS Purposes of Article Compliance with development standards Allowable floor area Setbacks Additional standards and guidelines Requirement for design review; public hearing Application requirements Design review findings Expiration of design review; extensions Replacement of destroyed structures Appeals to City Council 515- 45_010 Purposes of Article It is the policy of the City to review the proposed construction or expansion of single - family dwellings and certain accessory structures under circumstances where such structures might constitute an invasion of privacy, unreasonable interference with views, light and air, and create adverse impacts upon the aesthetic character of neighboring residential structures. The purpose of this Article is to establish Rev. 9/16/87 -4- C ..standards and procedures to. be followed with respect to the design review of single- family dwellings and certain accessory structures to ensure that new development occurs in a manner which is consistent with the objectives of this Chapter and the policies of the General Plan. §15- 45.020 Compliance with development. standards No single - family main structure or accessory structure shall be constructed or expanded within any A, R -1, HC -RD or NHR district unless the proposed structure or expansion complies with the floor area standards contained in Section 15- 45.030 of this Article and the setback requirements contained in Section 15- 45.040 of this Article. The Planning Commission shall have, authority to grant a variance from such regulations pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter. X15- 45.030 Allowable floor area (a) Definition. As used in this Article, the term. "allowable floor area" means the maximum gross floor area of the main structure (including any garage constituting a portion thereof) plus any accessory structure on permanent foundations, as determined under Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Section. For the purposes of calculating allowable floor area, any space with an interior height of fifteen feet or greater shall be doubled. (b) Standards. Subject to Paragraph (c) of this Section, the allowable floor area with respect to any site shall be based upon the size of the lot and calculated in accordance with the table set forth below; provided, however, that in the case of a site located within an R -1 district, the size of the lot to be utilized from the table set forth below shall be either: (i) the actual net site area of the lot, or (ii) twice the minimum net site area for the zoning district in which the lot is located (as specified in Section 15- 12.050), whichever is less. The standards contained herein are intended to be maximum figures and the Planning Commission may, in any case, require that the floor area be reduced below the applicable standard if such reduction is necessary in order to make the findings prescribed in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article. Size of Lot (Net Site Area) Less than 5,000 sq. ft. 5001 - 10,000 sq. ft. 10,001 - 15,000 sq. ft. 15,001 - 40,000 sq. ft. Rev. 9/16/87 -5- Allowable Floor Area To be determined by Planning Commission. 2,400 sq. ft. plus 160 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 5,000 sq.. ft.* 3,200 sq. ft. plus 170 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 10,000 sq. ft.* 4,050 sq. ft. plus 78 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 15,000 sq. ft.* Greater, than-40,.000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. plus 30 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over 40,000 sq. ft.* * Where division of the met site area by 1,000 results in a fr-actionai number. the Droduct shall be rounded uD to the next whole number.) (c) Slope adjustment In the case of a hillside lot, the following portion of the site. based upon the average slope of the lot, shall be deducted from the net site area before application of the standards set forth in Paragraph (b) of this Section: (d) Abutting open space. Where a lot abuts an area which has been permanently restricted and dedicated as private common open space, the Planning Commission may consider any contribution made by such open space to the overall site and may approve a development proposal which exceeds the allowable floor area, without the necessity of a variance, if the Commission is still able to make all of the findings prescribed in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article. (e) Restriction against subdivision. Where the net site area required under this Section for all structures on the site is greater than the minimum net site area prescribed for the district in which the lot is located and such lot is otherwise . capable of being subdivided, the owner shall execute and record a restriction against any subdivision of the property in such manner as to reduce the net site area below the amount required under this Section for'all structures on the site. 515- 45.040 Setbacks Where a new structure or an addition to an existing structure will exceed twenty -two feet in height, the required setback from each property line of the site shall be increased by one foot for each foot of height in excess of twenty -two feet, such, increased setbacks to be imposed only with respect to that portion of the new structure or addition that exceeds twenty -two feet in height. Rev. 9/16/87 -6- Percentage of Net Site Area to be Deducted in Calculating Average Slope Allowable Floor Area 10.01 - 20% 10% plus 2% for each 1 percent of slope over 10 %* 20.01 - 30% 30% plus. 3% for each 1 percent of slope over 20 %* Over 30,' 60% * Where the average slope is a fractional number. it shall be rounded uD to the next whole number.) (d) Abutting open space. Where a lot abuts an area which has been permanently restricted and dedicated as private common open space, the Planning Commission may consider any contribution made by such open space to the overall site and may approve a development proposal which exceeds the allowable floor area, without the necessity of a variance, if the Commission is still able to make all of the findings prescribed in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article. (e) Restriction against subdivision. Where the net site area required under this Section for all structures on the site is greater than the minimum net site area prescribed for the district in which the lot is located and such lot is otherwise . capable of being subdivided, the owner shall execute and record a restriction against any subdivision of the property in such manner as to reduce the net site area below the amount required under this Section for'all structures on the site. 515- 45.040 Setbacks Where a new structure or an addition to an existing structure will exceed twenty -two feet in height, the required setback from each property line of the site shall be increased by one foot for each foot of height in excess of twenty -two feet, such, increased setbacks to be imposed only with respect to that portion of the new structure or addition that exceeds twenty -two feet in height. Rev. 9/16/87 -6- I 515-- 45.050 Additional standards and guidelines _.... In addition to the standards set forth in Sections 15- 45.030 and 15- 45.040 of this Article, the following standards and guidelines shall be satisfied before approval is granted for the construction or expansion of a single- family main structure or accessory structure: (a) Standards. The proposed structure shall contain architectural and design elements which serve to reduce the appearance of mass and bulk. Such elements may include: (1) Multiple floor levels which follow natural slope so as to reduce the underfloor clearance to not more than five feet; (2) Multiple roof lines; (3) Decks and balconies; (4) Foundation types that minimize cut and fill and the need for retaining walls; (5) Fence lines, walls and other features which blend with the terrain rather than angle against it. (b) Guidelines. (1) Variety in design should be encouraged in order to avoid monotony of regularly spaced buildings of uniform height. (2) On wooded hillside lots, multi -story structures may be encouraged in order to minimize grading and vegetation removal. The use of decks should be encouraged to provide usable open space, but the decks should not encroach on adjoining properties in terms of privacy. (3) The proposed structure should be designed to optimize the use of natural elements, such as solar radiation, wind and landscaping for heating, cooling and ventilation. 515- 45.060 Requirement for design review; public hearing (a) In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of a single - family main structure or accessory structure in any A, R -1, HC -RD or NHR district until such structure has received design review approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Article: (1) Any multi -story main or accessory structure to be. constructed upon a hillside lot. (2) Any conversion of a single story structure to a multi -story structure, except where such conversion does not result in any exterior modifications to the existing structure beyond the installation of skylights in the roof. Rev. 9/16/87 -7- (3) Whenever design review is specifically required. under the terms or C conditions of any tentative or final subdivision map, building site approval, use permit, variance or conditional rezoning.. (4) Any main structure to be constructed upon a lot having a net site area of less than 5,000 square feet. (5) Whenever, as a result of the construction or expansion, the gross floor area of all structures on the site will exceed 6,000 square feet. L (6) Whenever, as a result of the construction or expansion. the allowable floor area may be exceeded pursuant to Subsection 15- 45.030(d) of this Article. (7) Whenever, in the opinion of the Planning Director, the construction or expansion of a main or accessory structure may be incompatible with the neighborhood, or may create a perceotion of excessive bulk. or may unreasonably interfere with views or privacy, or may aaversely affect the natural environment. (b) A public hearing on the application for design review approval under this Article shall be required. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of the site which is the subject of the application. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. 515- 45.070 Application requirements (a) Application for design review approval shall be filed with the Planning Director on such form as he shall prescribe. The application shall include the following exhibits: (1) Site plan showing property lines, easements and dimensions, structure setbacks, building envelope, topography, location of all trees over twelve inches in diameter as measured two feet above grade, and areas of dense vegetation, and creeks. (2) A statement of energy conserving features proposed for the project. Such features may include, but are not limited to, use of solar panels for domestic hat water or space heating, passive solar building design, insulation beyond that required under State law, insulated windows, or solar, shading devices. Upon request, the applicant shall submit a solar shade study if determined necessary by the Planning Director. (3) Elevations of the proposed structures showing exterior materials, roof materials and window treatment. Rev. 9/16/87 -8- (4) Cross sections for all projects located on._a hillside lot, together _ with an aerial photograph of the site if requested by the Planning Director. (5) engineered grading and drainage plans, including cross sections if the structure is to be constructed on a hillside lot. (6) Floor plans that indicate total gross floor area, determined in accordance with Section 15- 06.280 of this Chapter. (7) Roof plans. = (8) Landscape plans. (9) Preliminary title report showing all parties having any interest in the property and any easements, encumbrances and restrictions which benefit or burden. the property. (10) Such additional exhibits or information as may be required by the Planning Director. All exhibits shall be drawn to scale, dated and signed by the person preparing the exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted shall consist of two sets drawn on sheets eighteen inches by twenty eight inches in size and eleven reduced sets on sheets eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. (b) The application shall be accompanied by the payment of a processing fee, in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. 915- 45.030 Design review findings The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures, to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to the immediate neighborhood will minimize the perception of excessive bulk. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential structures within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district, and shall not unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. Rev. 9/16/87 -9- (e) Current grading and erosion control standards. The proposed -site _ development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. §15- 45.090 Expiration of design review approval; extensions (a) Design review approvals granted pursuant to this Article shall expire twenty -four months .from the date on which the approval became effective, unless prior to such expiration date a building permit is issued for the improvements constituting the subject of the design review approval and construction thereof is commenced and prosecuted diligently toward completion, or a certificate of occupancy is issued for such improvements. (b) Design review approvals may be extended for a period or periods of time not exceeding thirty -six months. The application for extension shall be filed prior to the expiration date, and shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. A public hearing shall be conducted on the application for extension and notice thereof shall be given in the same manner as prescribed in Subsection 15- 45.060(b) of this Article. Extension of design review approval is not a matter of right and the approving authority may deny the application or grant the same subject to conditions. 915- 45.100 - Replacement of destroyed structures In the event an existing single - family dwelling having a gross floor area in excess of the standards set forth in Section 15- 45.030 of this Article or setbacks which are less than required under Section 15- 45.040 of this Article, is damaged or destroyed as a result of fire, act of God or other calamity (except for landslide. earthquake, earth movement, soil instability or flood), the structure may be replaced with a new structure having a maximum gross floor area no greater than the original structure and setbacks no less than the original structure. If design ..review approval is required for the proposed replacement structure, the provisions of this Section shall be applied in lieu of the standards set forth in Sections 15- 45.030 and 15- 45.040 of this Article. In all other respects, the replacement structure shall comply with the regulations of this Chapter, including the regulations pertaining to structure height and impervious cover. § 15- 45.110 Appeals to City Council Any decision or determination made by the Planning Commission under this Article may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15 -90 of this Chapter." SECTION 16: Section 15- 70.020 in Article 15 -70 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: " §15- 70.020 Authority to grant variances The Planning Commission is hereby designated as the approving authority under this Article with power to grant variances from. the regulations prescribed in Rev. 9/16/87 -10- this Chapter with respect to the site area, site frontage, width, depth and coverage, setbacks for front yards, side yards and rear yards, allowable floor area. height of structures, distance between structures, signs, off - street parking and loading facilities, fences, wails and hedges, and alterations or :expansions of nonconforming structures, in accordance with the procedure and requirements set forth in this Article." SECTION 17: Paragraph (d) (1) of Section 15- 80.030 in Article 15 -80 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(1) Upon the granting of a use permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to Article 15 -55, cabanas, garages, carports, recreation rooms, hobby shops and other similar structures may be located no closer than six feet from the rear property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each three feet of setback from the rear property line in excess of six feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still located within the required rear yard." SECTION 18: Paragraph (e) -of Section 15- 80.030 in Article 15 -80 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(e) Unenclosed garden structures_ Subject to approval by the Planning Director and the provisions of Paragraph (i) of this Section, unenclosed garden, ornamental and decorative structures such as gazebos, lattice work, arbors and f fountains may be located no closer than six feet from a side 'or rear property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional foot of setback from the side and rear property line in excess of six feet. up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still located within a required side or rear yard." SECTION 19: Paragraphs (j) and (k) of Section 15- 80.030 in Article 15 -80 of the City Code are amended to read as follows: Referral to P.]A� Commission. With respect to any accessory structure requiring .approval by the Planning Director, as described in Paragraphs (d)(2), (e) and (f) above, the Director may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for action thereon whenever the Director deems such referral to be necessary or appropriate. If the application relates to an accessory structure described in Paragraphs (d)(2) or (3), the Planning Commission shall follow the same procedure as set forth in Paragraph (i) of this Section. (k) Modification of standards. The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify any of the regulations set forth in Paragraphs (d), (e), (f) or (g) of this Section pertaining to the size, height or required setback of an accessory structure in a side or rear yard, through the granting of a use permit for such accessory structure pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter." SECTION 20: Section 15- 90.020 in Article 15 -90 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Rev. 9/16/87 -11- "S15- 90.020 Appeals from decision of Planning, Commission �- An appeal may be taken to the City Council by the applicant or any interested person from the whole or any portion of a decision made by the Planning Commission pursuant to any of the provisions of this Chapter." SECTION 21: Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 15- 90.070 in Article 15 -90 of the City Code are amended to read as follows :. "(b) Conduct of hearing by City Council. The City Council shall conduct a de novo review on the appeal, but no public hearing shall be required unless the decision by the Planning Commission was made in connection with a proceeding which reauired a public hearing; provided, however, that nothing herein .shall prevent the City Council, in its discretion, from receiving testimony or other evidence from any person pertaining to the subject matter of the appeal. (c) Decision by City Council. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Planning Commission, and may refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for such further action as may be directed by the Council. Where an appeal has been filed pertaining to only a portion of a decision by the Planning Commission, the City Council shall have authority to review the entire matter and may affirm, reverse or modify all or: any other portion of the decision notwithstanding the fact that no appeal has been taken therefrom." SECTION 22: Section 16- 55.060 in Article 16 -55 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "516- 55.060 Action on application The application for a grading permit shall be reviewed by the City Engineer, and if he finds the application is in conformity with all the provisions of this Article, the City Engineer may thereafter issue a permit with such reasonable conditions as he may deem necessary in order to comply with all the provisions of this Article. The City Engineer may refer any application to the Planning Commission for a decision thereon." SECTION 23: 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 24: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. This Ordinance shall not apply to any unexpired design review approval granted prior to the of f ective date- hereof; nor shall this Ordinance apply to any application for design review approval which is filed prior to the effective date hereof unless the applicant submits, at the time of. filing, a written election for the project to be governed by the regulations contained herein. Rev. 9/16/87 -12 • - r 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 held on the 7th day of October, 1987, by the following vote: AYES: Counciln -ei tiers Anderson, Clevenger, Blava, Moyles., and Mayor Peterson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None"" MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Rev. 9116/87 - -13 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL FxECUTIVE SUNtIAIZY NO. -)D( AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: 11/4/87 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk CITY MGR. APPROV SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL ELECTION 1988: ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BEFORE NOMINATION PERIOD Recommended Motion: Authorize candidate's statements of 200 (or 400) words. Direct staff to prepare resolution requiring that candidates pay costs of candidate's statement, with advance deposit of $87.50 if 200 -word limit is set and $175 if 400 -word limit is set. Report Summary: Municipal election is June 7, and nomination period is in early February. Certain issues must be decided before nomination period. Filing fee of $25.00 can be set, but if there is a filing fee a procedure in lieu of filing fees must be set through requiring additional signatures on the nomination papers. Staff feels that a filing fee would serve no purpose. It is more useful to recoup the costs of the candidate statements by requiring advance payment of the estimated costs, with any excess payment being refunded. If desired, however, the City can pay for the statements. For the last several elections, no filing fee has been set; length of the candidate's statement has been 400 words; advance payment has been required for candidate's statement. Fiscal Impacts: Filing fee is maximum of $25.00. Payment of candidate statement costs in advance would ensure City reimbursement of costs. Attachments: None. Motion and Vote: a SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. % AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: November 4, 1987 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney SUBJECT: REGULATION OF VICIOUS ANIMALS Recommended Motion: Introduction and adoption of ordinance amending Article 7 -20 of the City Code. Report Summary: The proposed ordinance will strengthen existing regulations pertaining to vicious animals as described in the memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. Fiscal Impacts: None. The City has delegated to the County all responsibility and authority for the administration and enforcement of the regulations pertaining to vicious animals. Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney to City Council. (b) Proposed ordinance. Motion and Vote: Introduced 11/4/87; adopted 1.1/18/87. PAUL S. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR. HENRY D. CRUZ ATKINSON • FAIRASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 04042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL FROM: Hal Toppel, City Attorney DATE: October 29, 1987 RE: REGULATION OF VICIOUS ANIMALS J. M. ATKINSON (1892-1982) L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979) The City of Saratoga has delegated to the County all responsibility and authority for enforcement of certain animal control regulations as set forth in Article 7 -20 of the City Code. In order to establish a uniform system of rules and to facilitate the administration thereof, the City has generally adopted animal control ordinances as and when requested by the County. The latest request is for the adoption of an ordinance for special regulation of dogs commonly known as "pit bulls ". The ordinance would basically prohibit the ownership of any pit bull within the City if the animal was born after the effective date of the ordinance, and would similarly prohibit the bringing of any pit bull into the City after such effective date. The ordinance also contains definitions of "dangerous dogs" and "potentially dangerous dogs" and establishes special requirements for the registration, confinement, leashing and muzzling and liability insurance with respect to such animals. Prior to drafting the proposed amendment to the City Code, I reviewed a rather extensive quantity of materials relating to this subject, including an information packet apparently sent to all local governments by the American Kennel Club, an information packet furnished by the Humane Society of the United States, and a very detailed and lengthy ordinance (39 pages) recently adopted by the City of San Jose. Based upon these materials, it is my conclusion that any ordinance which distinguishes between various breeds of dogs raises numerous legal and practical problems which can easily be avoided. The critical issue is not the breed of any particular dog, but the manifestation of vicious behavior which constitutes a threat to the public health and safety. Thus, a comprehensive definition of "viciousness" which applies to any animal, regardless of breed, together with detailed requirements for the control of animals by their owners, would seem to be a more logical and justifiable way of dealing with this problem. This approach has been followed in the proposed ordinance, which does not contain any reference to pit bulls or other specific breed of animal. The main features of the ordinance are as follows: I. Section 1 amends the definition of "vicious animal" as currently set forth in Section 7- 20.010 of the City Code. The language has been strengthened and expanded to include circumstances or behavior characteristics which, under the existing code, might not be characterized as "vicious ". For example, the definition now includes animals which have been specifically trained as attack animals or are being kept for the purpose of animal fighting. It should also be noted that under subparagraphs (2) and (3), the threat of attack is sufficient to classify an animal as Memorandum to Saratoga City Council October 29, 1987 Page 2 vicious, without such attack having actually occurred. In other words, there is no "free bite rule" established under the ordinance whereby the animal is not considered vicious until it has bitten someone. 2. Sections 2 and 3 of the proposed ordinance are technical amendments to separate the category of diseased animals from vicious animals. Under the existing code, these categories are combined and regulated in the same manner. 3. The specific regulations concerning vicious animals are contained in Section 4 of the proposed ordinance, which adds a new Section 7- 20.145 to the City Code. These regulations basically follow the proposed ordinance submitted to us by the County. It is rather interesting to compare these provisions with those now contained in Section 7- 20.140 of the City Code. The comparison demonstrates that these amendments basically add more detail to existing regulations, and do not constitute a material change of substance. For example: The existing ordinance authorizes the animal control officer to impose requirements for confinement and the posting of warning signs; the proposed ordinance specifies to some extent the confinement measures which must be taken. The existing ordinance requires the leashing and muzzling of vicious animals; the proposed ordinance will impose the same requirement. The existing ordinance authorizes the animal control officer to require liability insurance for vicious animals; the proposed ordinance specifies that such insurance must be not less than $50,000. The existing ordinance requires the issuance of a oermit for the keeping of a vicious animal; the proposed ordinance similarly requires the registration of such animals. On balance, I believe the proposed ordinance represents a strengthening of our existing regulations concerning vicious animals, but avoids the charge of over- reaction to what is characterized as some dog proponents as "pit bull mania." The Council should be alerted to the fact that the notice of public hearing on this ordinance as published in the Saratoga News was based upon the form originally submitted to us by the County which specifically prohibited pit bull dogs. The notice described this ordinance as intending to do the same thing. If you accept my recommendation that the ordinance should not distinguish between breeds of animals, it should be made clear at the outset of the public hearing that we have rejected the County's method of dealing with this problem. The ordinance treats all animals in a generic fashion and there should be no need for protracted public testimonmy in defense of pit bulls. PPEL, Sara-Coga'City Attorney S¢ t OCTOBER 70987 MAYOR PETERSON & CITY COUNCIL SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA GREETINGS I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU AGAIN, (ENCLOSED DESCRIPTION), OF THE WAY SARATOGA HANDLES A VICIOUS DOG SITUATION. I FEEL ALL SARATOGANS WOULD AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT RIGHT AND ENCOURAGES CRIME RATHER THAN CONTAIN IT? I FEEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE DRASTIC CHANGES IN THIS WAY OF HANDLING SUCH A SENSITIVE SITUATION. I EXPECTED THE CITY TO AT LEAST ENFORCE CONTAINMENT OF THIS EXPLOSIVE SITUATION. THE OTHER DAY, A YOUNG LIFE WAS WASTED IN MORGAN HILL BECAUSE OF A VICIOUS DOG. IT EASILY COULD HAVE HAPPENED IN SARATOGA, THANK GOD IT DIDN'T. IT EASILY COULD HAVE ENDED THE LIFE OF SOMEONE CLOSE TO ME. THANK GOD IT DIDN'T. THE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS ARE STILL THERE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN RESOLVED. HAVEN'T WE SUFFERED LONG ENOUGH? BECAUSE OF THE SEVERITY OF THIS PROBLEM, I AM REQUESTING THAT YOU CONSIDER PUTTING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE "DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE" TOTALLY IN THE HANDS OF THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. YOURS TRULY BERT MARTEL SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA cc: DISTRIBUTION MY FAMILY EXPERIENCED MANY ABUSES FROM A NEIGHBOR AROUND THE START OF SARATOGA`S COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICER PROGRAM. THESE INCLUDED LITTER THROWN IN OUR YARD, HI -FI PLAYED FULL BLAST, AND THREATENING ATTACTS DIRECTED TOWARDS MY FAMILY AND OUR GUESTS CONCERNING TWO VICIOUS DOBERMANS. I WROTE A KIND LETTER TO MY NEIGHBOR ONLY TO HAVE THINGS GET WORSE. THESE VIOLATIONS ARE COVERED BY CITY CODES, SO I ASKED FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT FROM THE SARATOGA CITY CODE ENFORCER OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. THE CRIMES WERE DESCRIBED AND THE CODES VIOLATED WERE POINTED OUT. THERE WAS AN EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER POSSIBLE "INJURY OR DEATH" BECAUSE OF THESE ATTACTS AND A REQUEST FOR CONTAINMENT. THERE WAS A REQUEST TO SIGN A FORMAL COMPLAINT, AND A REQUEST TO COME OUT AND SEE, AND HEAR, AND TAKE A REPORT ON ALL THESE VIOLATIONS. NONE OF OUR REQUESTS WERE CARRIED OUT. FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD, MANY LETTERS FOR HELP PRODUCED NO HELP AND THE MANY TELEPHONE CALLS FOR HELP TO COMMUNIT`( SERVICES WERE NEVER RETURNED. ALL THIS WHILE THE CRIMES WERE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE. ASKING MY CITY FOR HELP WAS A MISTAKE I WILL ALWAYS REGRET. INSTEAD OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM, IT WAS "PIGEON HOLED" IN THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION. THIS WAS DONE WITHOUT CONSULTING US ON THIS ACTION, WITHOUT TAKING ANY POLICE REPORTS FROM US AND WITHOUT CONTACTING THE VIOLATOR. WE OBJECTED VIOLENTLY TO BEING FORCED INTO "SNAIL PACE" MEDIATION, AGAINST OUR WILL, WHILE THE DAILY CRIMES WERE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE. WE WERE ONLY CITIZENS ASKING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT WE FOUND OURSELVES BEING FORCED AWAY FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT. WE COULDN'T BELEIVE THIS WAS HAPPENING IN SARATOGA. INSTEAD OF ENFORCING THE CODES, WE WERE TOLD THAT THE SARATOGA CODES WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED FOR US UNLESS THE HUMAN 1 4 • RELATIONS PERSON SAID SO. (THREATENING VICTIMS LIKE THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED). WE FELT BETRAYED AND BEWILDERED BY A SYSTEM WE NATURALLY COUNTED ON. (WE HAVE SINCE BEEN TOLD THAT THESE CRIMES CONCERNING THE DOG ATTACTS COULD BE POSSIBLE FELONS WHEN THEY WERE COUPLED WITH COMMANDS OF "GO GET 'EM ". "SIC 'EM" AND "KILL 'EM"). WE FEEL THAT IF THE CODE ENFORCER IS NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THE LAW, HE SHOULD PASS A CITIZEN'S CONCERNS ONTO AN AGENCY THAT WILL. WE FEEL THAT SUCH CONDUCT IS UNCALLED FOR. OH YES, THE VIOLATOR MUST HAVE SENSED THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR HE CONTINUED TO TORMENT US "AT HIS PLEASURE ". AT A RECENT COUNCIL MEETING, ONE COUNCILPERSON BRAGGED ABOUT THE CITY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. IT'S SAD AND UNFORTUNATE THAT THEY ARE BLIND TO WHAT GOES ON IN THE REAL WORLD IN SARATOGA. %z BERT MARTEL SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA I