The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-17-1987 City Council Agenda packetEXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 6/11/87 (6/17/87) ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING Final Building Site Approval for SD 87 -002 Spencer Ozawa, Douglass Lane AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution SD 87- 002.1, attached, approving Building Site Approval for SD 87 -002, Spencer Ozawa Report Summary: 1. SD 87 -002 is read for final approval. 2. All fees have been paid. 3. All requirements for City and other departments have been met. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments:/ 1. Resolution No. 87- 002.1. 2. Resolution SD 87 -002. 3. Location Map. Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: 1.2944 Acre Lot shown on final Parcel Map, prepared by Westfall Engineers and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga be approved as one 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 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 87 -002.1 RESOLUTION. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Spencer Ozawa MAYOR 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 a lot, site or subdivisions of 1 lot(s), all as more particularly set forth in Fild No. S0-87 -002 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 May 13, 1987 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the (Categorical Exemption) prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, 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 approved should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 22 day of October, 1987 and is marked Exhibit D in ditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as more particularly set forth on Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on the 13 day of May, 1987, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Harris, Guch., Burger, Callans, Clay Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tucker ADVISORY AGENCY ATTEST: trAt /!0 e retary, Planning Commission BY: Cha RESOLUTION NO.SD -87 -007 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF APN lk 397 -16 -007. Ozawa an, Planning Commission SD 87 -002 18997 Douglass Ln. EXHIBIT "A" I. The applicant shall sign the agreement to the conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. II. Specific Conditions Engineering Division 1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. 2. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation and pay required fees. (If parcel is shown in existing map of record, submit (3) to -scale prints. 3 Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20 ft. half- street on Douglass Ln. 4. Construct standard driveway approaches. 5. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway access road intersections. 6. Watercourses- must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. 7. Obtain encroachment permit from the Engineering Department for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City street. III. Specific Conditions Building Inspection Division 1. Submit detailed on -site improvement plans showing: a. drainage details b. retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 ft. or higher c. erosion control measures IV. Specific Conditions Saratoga Fire District 1. Early warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. 2. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the garage. 4. Driveways shall have a minimum 14 ft. width plus 1 ft. shoulders. 5. Driveways with slopes 0% to 11% shall use double seal coat of 0 S or better on 6" aggregate base from Douglass Ln. to the garage. 6. Driveways shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 ft. V. Specific Conditions -Santa Clara County Health Department 1. A sanitary sewer connection is required. 2. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Co. VI.. Specific Conditions -Santa Clara Valley Water District 1. The applicants shall transfer a right -of -way easement needed for Wildcat Creek as required by SCUWD. 2. Plans for the construction of the drainage system to wildcat Creek shall be approved by SCUWD. 3. All existing wells shall be sealed in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District standards. VII. Specific Conditions Planning Department 1. The applicants shall not interfere with or restrict the use of the pedestrian equestrian easement located adjacent to the subject property's south property line. 2. The applicant shall execute and record an ingress- egress easement across the property located at 19901 Douglass Ln. as shown on the plans. The foregoing conditions are hereby :ccep ted. Signature f Applicant Date ORIGINATING DEPT: SUBJECT: Attachments None Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /a3 .F6 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 17, 1987 CITY MGR. APPROVAL Community Services Staff also supports the recommendation due to the minor cost involved, and the extreme fire danger which exists in the area resulting from the abundance of vegetation and the early onset of dry, summerlike weather in spring. Fiscal Impacts The total cost for assigning a reserve unit to Bohlman Road as recommended would be $207.36. Additional Sheriff's patrol of Bohlman Road on July 3rd and 4th Recommended Motion Authorize a Sheriff's Reserve Unit to patrol Bohlman Road on July 3rd from 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and a Sherrif's Reserve Unit to establish a checkpoint at the beginning of Bohlman Road to restrict access on July 4th from 5:00 to 11:00 p.m., as recommended by the Public Safety Commission. Report Summary Over the past two years, the City Council has authorized the "closure" of Bohlman Road on July 4th due to the propensity of people living outside of the area to use Bohlman Road as a place for viewing fireworks displays. Previously, large numbers of people would take advantage of the spectacular view of a number of fireworks displays offered in the valley, and then would have parties of their own. The street closure was not a true closure in the sense that the Sheriff's officers would allow residents and guests of residents to proceed past the checkpoints established at the base or entrance of Bohlman on the evening of the 4th. In 1986, such a checkpoint was established from 6:00 p.m. to midnight. At the Public Safety Commission meeting of June 8th, 1987, a couple of Bohlman Road residents appeared before the Commission to request that the street have restricted access established on the 3rd of July, as well as on the 4th, due to the fact that the 4th falls on a Saturday, and they were concerned about people going up Bohlman Road to party on the Friday night before the 4th. However, the Public Safety Commission, noting that there were no fireworks displays being offered on the 3rd and therefore anticipating a much smaller number of outside visitors, felt that additional patrol of the street would accomplish the same public safety objectives. Therefore, the Public Safety Commimssion recommended that a reserve unit be dedicated to patrolling Bohlman Road from 5 to 11 p.m. on July 3rd, and a checkpoint be established from 5 to 11 p.m. on July 4th to restrict access to Bohlman Road as had been the practice in previous years. This proposal was also supported by the Saratoga Fire District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 99 MEETING DATE: 6 -11 -87 (6- 17 -87) ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: Recommended Motion: Inc. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Award Contract for Canyon View Drive Overlay AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL Award Contract for Canyon View Drive Overlay to the low bidder, O'Grady Paving, Repoft Summary: The City received five bids on June 9, 1987 for above project. This project was approved in 1986 -1987 Capital Improvement Budget. The lowest bid was O'Grady Paving, Inc. of San Jose, with total bid of $69,954.33. The Engineer's Estimate for this work was $84,506.50. Fiscal Impacts: $69,954.33 from Fund 0019 Street Construction Subvention. This project was approved in the 1986 -1987 Capital Improvement Budget and is part of Pavement Management Reconstruction: Project 909 in the budget. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. Motion and Vote: Staff .recommendation 5 -0. gngineer's W Amount O'GRADY W PAVING Amount RAISCH ;g CONSTR. Am mount WATTIS Wr CONSTR. Amount PIAZZA ir CONS Amc' e ni Description Quantity Chit 1 Install '2" A.C. overlay (Machine) 406 tons 50.0 2. 0,300.00 41.0 16,646,00 39.0 15,834.00 46,48 18,870,88 2.70 17,336 2 Install 2" A.C. Overlay 812 tons 50.0 40,600.00„35.10 28,501.20 39.0 31,668.00 30.76 24,977.12 2,70 34,672 7.953 1.194 10,675 3 Tnstall Fahrir Mar 6563 S.X. 1.00 6.563.00 0.51 1.147.11 0.50 1.50( 1,281.50 7,460.00 0.52 1.77 1.417.76 2,082.80 .45 .85 4 AR 4000 Asphalt Binder 1,640.00 gal 1.20 1.968.00 1. 6C 2.624.00 5 Wedge Cut 3,050.00 L.F. 1.25 3.812.50 1.6C 4.880.00 2.10 6,405,00 2,29, 6,984.50 .50 6 Asphalt Conforms 110.00 tons 45.0 4,950.00 60.0 6,600,00 39,0' 4,290.00 77.0 8,470,00 2.7C 4,697 7 Raise Manholes Mnnttmantq Valves 76 Pa 700 C. 5.200.00 700. C 5.'700.00 175.0, 0.60. 4.550.00 1.714.00 750.0 0.65. 6,500.00 1.8 80.f_ 9 880 1.0 2.850 8 Paint 4" Double Yellow 2,850 L.F. 0.3i• 1.081.00 0.64 1.881.00 9 Install Blue Pavement Markers' 5 each 60 30:00 55.0 275,00 50:0 250.00 58.0 290.00 50.0 250 TOTAL R A Sn 69_A54.11 7(1,448.50 71.440.56 84.70 4 »AT.= _.19 87 TTM oo phi. Com Devaiopment Denartntent 8ID SUMItAR OATH,: 6 -9 8 TIME= 00 P_:1 •..ILA' a: %1 g Community Development Depitrtnient. BI _PROJECT CANYON VIEW DRIVE Engineer's it Amount NORMAN [Tait pijoe ROUGE Amount Unit p Mit prir Amount Yi Amc Description Quantity Chit 1 Install 2" A.C. overlay (Machine) 406 tons 50.0 2.0,300.00 62.0 25.172•.00 2 Install 2" A.C. Overlay 812 tons 50.0 40,600.00 52.0 42,224.00 W -6 6 .Y. 1.0. se 0.72 4 725.00 4 AR 4000 Asphalt Binder 1,640.00 gal 1.20 1.968.00 1.55 2.378.00 5 Wedge Cut 3,050.00 L.F. 1.25 3.812.50 2.27 6,923.50 6 Asphalt Conforms 110.00 tons 45.0 4,950.00 47.0 5,170.00 i 7 Raise Manholes Mrrnnments A Valvpc ?f, pa 700_C 5.200,00 205.0 5.330.0 8 Paint 4" Double Yellow 2.850 L.F. 0.1`• 1.081.00 0.64 1,824.00 9 Install Blue Pavement Markers' 5 each 60 30.00 50.0 250,00 RA s06 so 93.996.86 6 OATH,: 6 -9 8 TIME= 00 P_:1 •..ILA' a: %1 g Community Development Depitrtnient. BI _PROJECT CANYON VIEW DRIVE ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Attachments: Motion and Vote: .Staff recau 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /30/ AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June, 17, 1987 CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Existing) Recommended Action: The procedure on this matter is as follows: (1) The Mayor should first acknowledge the City Clerk's report concerning the publication and posting of notices. (2) Open the public hearing to receive any protest or comments to the proposed assessments. (3) Close the public hearing and consider any protest which may have been raised. The recommended action is that all protests should be overruled. (4) Adopt Resolution No. 2420.4 confirming and imposing the annual assessment. Report Summary: On May 20, 1987, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2420.2, A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report, and Resolution No. 2420.3, A Resolution of Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The final action for the assessment proceeding is the adoption of Resolution No. 2420.4 to overrule any protest and levy the assessment in accordance with the Engineer's Report. Fiscal Impacts: The cost for the administration, maintenance and servicing of the landscaping and lighting district are charged to the various zones within the district, based upon the benefit received. The assessements will be collected by the County as part of the property tax bill and proceeds thereof will be remitted to the City. (1) Resolution No. 2420.4 (2) Engineer's Report (available in the City Clerk's Office) (3) City Clerk's report. RESOLUTION NO. 2420.4 A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FISCAL YEAR 1987 1988 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: WHEREAS, on the 15th day of April, 1987, said Council adopted its Resolution No. 2420, Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1987 1988 for the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City Engineer to prepare and file with the Clerk of this City a written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 2420; WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk of said City, whereupon said Clerk presented it to the City Council for its consideration; WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the provisions of said Act and said Resolution No. 2420, including (1) plans and specification of the existing improvements and the proposed new improvements; (2) estimate of costs; (3) diagram of the District; and (4) an assessment according to benefits; all of which were done in the form and manner required by said Act; WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and every part thereof was sufficient in every particular and determined that it should stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings under said Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to the requirements of said Act, appointed Wednesday, the 17th day of June, 1987, at the hour of 7 :00 o'clock p.m. of said day in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for hearing protests in relation to the levy and collection of the proposed assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, for Fiscal Year 1987 1988, and directing said Clerk to give notice of said hearing as required by said Act; WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were duly and regularly published and posted in the time, form and manner required by said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and Certificates on file with said Clerk, whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the time and place stated in said notice; and WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district, or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, filed written protests with the Clerk of said City at or before the conclusion of said hearing, and all persons interested desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the levy and collection of the assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, were fully heard and considered by said Council; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1. That protests against said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, for Fiscal Year 1987 1988 be, and each of them are hereby, overruled. 2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require and said Council does hereby order the levy and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described in said Engineer's Report and made a part hereof by reference thereto. 3. That the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 and the boundaries thereof benefited and to be assessed for said costs for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are situate in Saratoga, California, and are more particularly described by reference to a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said City. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in said District and any zone thereof and the general location of said District. 4. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof contained in said report, be, and they are hereby, finally adopted and approved. 5. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved. 6. That the public interest and convenience require, and said Council does hereby order the improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Engineer's Report, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements. 7. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution No. 2420, and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said District as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which it applies, each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, finally approved and confirmed. -2- 8. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the said improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements, and the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof and of the expenses incidental thereto contained in said report be, and the same is hereby, finally approved and confirmed. 9. That said Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1987 1988 be, and the same is hereby, finally adopted and approved as a whole. 10. That the City Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of Santa Clara County the said assessment, together with said diagram thereto attached and made a part thereof, as confirmed by the City Council, with the certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and the date thereof. 11. That the order for the levy and collection of assessment for the improvements and the final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram and the assessment, as contained in said Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to said Report, or any portion thereof, as amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in accordance with any resolution or order heretofore duly adopted or made by this Council. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of June, 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK -3- MAYOR CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 Notices have been published and posted as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Affidavits and certificates of publishing and posting are on file in my office. A copy of the Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer was filed in my office on May 20, 1987 and has been open to public inspection since that time. Dated: June 10, 1987 CITY CLERK'S REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: June, 17, 1987 CITY MGR. APPROVAL )(7W ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Annexation) Recommended Action: The procedure on this matter is as follows: (1) The Mayor should first acknowledge the City Clerk's report concerning the publication and posting of notices. (2) Open the public hearing to receive any protest or comments to the proposed annexation and assessments. (3) Close the public hearing and consider any protest which may have been raised. The recommended action is that all protests should be overruled. (4) Adopt Resolution No. 2420.4 confirming and imposing the annual assessment. Report Summary: At its meeting on May 20, 1987, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2421.2, A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report, and Resolution No. 2421.3, A Resolution of Intention to Order the Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assessment District and the Levy and Collection of Assessments Within Said Territory Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The final action for the annexation and assessment proceeding is the adoption of Resolution No. 2421.4 to overrule any protest and to order the annexation of the areas described in the Engineer's Report and the levy of assessments upon each lot within such areas. Fiscal Impacts: The cost for the annexation proceedings and the administration, maintenance and servicing of the improvements will be charged to the various areas to be annexed, based on benefit received. The assessments will be collected by the County as part of the property tax bills and the proceeds remitted to the City. Attachments: Motion and Vote: Staff recommendation 5 -0. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL /,30 AGENDA ITEM° (1) Resolution No. 2421.4 (2) Engineer's Report (available in Clerk's Office) (3) Clerk's report. RESOLUTION NO. 2421.4 A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION 1987 -1 FISCAL YEAR 1987 1988 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: WHEREAS, on the 15th day of April, 1987, said Council adopted its Resolution No. 2421, Determining to Undertake Proceedings for the Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assessment District Known as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1" Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City Engineer (herein the "Engineer to prepare and file with the Clerk of this City a written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 2421; WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk of said City, whereupon said Clerk presented it to this Council for its consideration; WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the provisions of said Act and said Resolution No. 2421, including (1) plans and specifications of the existing improvements and the proposed improvements; (2) estimate of costs; (3) diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the areas proposed to be annexed to the existing assessment district, which are also the areas proposed to be assessed; and (4) an assessment according to benefits; all of which were done in the form and manner required by said Act; WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and every part thereof was sufficient in every particular and determined that it should stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings under said Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to the requirements of said Act, appointed Wednesday, the 17th day of June, 1987, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m. of said day in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for hearing protests in relation to the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district and the levy and collection of the proposed assessment pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and to said proposed improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and directing said City Clerk to give notice of said hearing as required by said Act; WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were duly and regularly published and mailed in the time, form and manner required by said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and Certificates on file with said Clerk, whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the time and place stated in said notice; WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district, or objecting to said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the proposed assessment district, or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, filed written protests with the Clerk of said City at or before the conclusion of said hearing, and all persons interested desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the annexation of territory to said existing assessment district and said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, were fully heard and considered by said Council; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1. That protests against the annexation of territory to said existing assessment district or against said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, were not signed by the owners of a majority or more of each area of assessable lands within said territory proposed to be annexed and assessed herein, and that said protests be, and each of them are hereby, overruled. 2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district and the levy and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described in said Engineer's Report and made a part hereof by reference thereto, which annexation is hereby ordered. 3. That the annexed territory and the boundaries thereof benefited and to be assessed for said costs for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are situate in the City of Saratoga, California, and are more particularly described by reference to a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said City. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the annexed territory included in said assessment district, and any zone thereof and the general location thereof. 4. That said annexed territory be, and it is hereby, designated as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 Annexation 1987 -1" by which name it may hereafter be referred to. -2- 5. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within said assessment district or within any zone thereof contained in said report, be, and they are hereby, finally adopted and approved. 6. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report, be, -and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved. 7. That the public interest and convenience require, and said Council does hereby order the improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Engineer's Report, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements. 8. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the annexed territory referred to and described in said Resolution No. 2421, and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said annexed territory as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which it applies, each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, finally approved and confirmed. 9. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several lots of parcels of land in said annexed territory in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto, contained in said report, be, and the same is hereby, finally approved and confirmed. 10. That said Engineer's Report be, and the same is hereby, finally adopted and approved as a whole. 11. That the City Clerk shall forthwith file with the Audior of Santa Clara County the said assessment, together with said diagram thereto attached and made a part thereof, as confirmed by the City Council, with the certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and the date thereof. 12. That the order ordering the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district and the final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram, the assessment, as contained in said Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to said Report, or any portion thereof as amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in accordance with any resolution or order heretofore duly adopted or made by this Council. —3— Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of June, 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR Dated: June 10, 1987 CITY CLERK'S REPORT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION 1987 -1 Notices have been published and mailed as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Affidavits and certificates of publishing and mailing are on file in my office. A copy of the Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer was filed in my office on May 20, 1987 and has been open to public inspection since that time. 1 4,,,, L City Clerk PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Santa Clara I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; 1 am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. 1 am the principal clerk of the printer of the SARATOGA NEWS 10950 N. Blaney Ave., Cupertino, California, a newspaper of general circulation, printed every Wednesday in the city of Cupertino, California, County of Santa Clara, and published in city of Saratoga, California, County of Santa Clara; and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, under the date of February 7, 1964, Case Number 328148 that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non pareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: June 3 all in the year 19 87 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Is true and correct. Dated at Cupertino, California, this 3rd Day of June 19 87 Signature This sp Filing f. Reac RESOLUTION NO. 2421.3 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION OF TERRI- TORY TO AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND THE LEVY AND COL- LECTION OF ASSESS- MENTS WITHIN SAID TERRITORY PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LI.G -HTING DISTRICT LLAL -1 ANNEXATION 1987 -1 FISCAL YEAR 1987 -1988 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Sara- toga, California, as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2421, A Re- solution Determining to Undertake Proceedings for the Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assessment District Known As "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA- 1", adopted on April 15, 1987, by the Council of said City, pur- suant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the Engineer of said City has pre- pared and filed with the City Clerk of this City the written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 2421, which said report has been submitted and pre- liminarily approved by this Council in accordance with said Act: NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETER- MINED and ORDERED, as follows: 1. In its opinion the pub- lic interest and convenience require and it is the intention of this Council to order the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district and the levy and collection of assessments therein pursuant to the provisions of the Land- scaping and Lighting Act of 1 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califor- nia, for the construction or installation therein of the im- provements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particu- larly described in Exnibit "A" hereto attached and by re- ference incorporated herein. 2. The cost and expenses of said improvements, in- cluding the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable upon the areas proposed to be annexed to an existing assessment district des- ignated as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA.1 Annexation 1987 -1 the exterior boun- daries of which are the com- posite and consolidated areas as more particularly describ- ed on a map thereof on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City, to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map indi- cates by a boundary line the extern of the territory includ- ed in the proposed annexa- tion and areas to be assessed and of any zone thereof and the general location of said areas. 3. Said Engineer's Report prepared by the Engineer, preliminarily approved by this Council, and on file with the City Clerk of this City is hereby referred to for a full and detailed description of the improvements and the boundaries of the areas pro- posed to be annexed herein and any zones thereof, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within said areas. 4. Notice is hereby given that Wednesday, the 17th day of June, 1987, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, be and the same are hereby appoint ed and fixed as the time and place for a hearing by this Council on the question of the annexation of territory to an existing assessment dis- trict and the levy and collec- tion_of the proposed assess- ment and when and where it will consider and determine whether the owners of a ma- jority of the area of the prop- erty to be assessed in each area proposed to be annexed herein have, at or before the conclusion of said hearing, filed written protests against said improvements, the boundaries of the area pro- posed to be annexed herein and any zone therein, the proposed diagram or the pro- posed assessment, the Engi- neer's estimate of cost there- of, and when and where it will consider and finally act upon the Engineer's Report. 5. The Clerk of said City be, and is hereby, directed to give notice of said hearing by causing a copy of this Res- olution to be published once in the Saratoga News, a newspaper published and cir- culated in said City, said pub- lication to be had and com- pleted at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing specified herein. 6. Said Clerk is hereby further directed to mail or cause to be mailed a copy of this Resolution by first class mail, postage prepaid, to all persons owning real property in the areas proposed to be annexed and assessed here- in, whose names and ad- dresses appear on the last equalized County assessment roll or, where applicable, on the State Board of Equaliza- tion assessment roll, said mailing to be had and com- pleted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of said hearing. 7. The Office of the City Engineer be, and is hereby designated as the department to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein, and may be con- tacted during regular office hours at the City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, or by calling 1408)867 -3438. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 20th day of May, 1987, by the following vote of the mem- bers thereof: AYES: Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Moy- les, Peterson, and Mayor Hlava NOES: None ABSENT: None /s/ Joyce Hlava Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Grace E. Cory City Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNEXATION 1987 -1 EXHIBIT "A" The construction or in- stallation, including the main- tenance or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 17 and' 18, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass, or other ornamental vegetation, stat- uary, fountains and other or- namental structures and facil- ities, including the cost of repair, removal or replace- ment of all or any part thereof, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including culti- vation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treat- ing for disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rub- bish, debris and other solid waste, water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. Pub.: 6 -3-87 158-SG PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Santa Clara 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled Matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the 10950 N. Blaney Ave., Cupertino, California, a newspaper of general circulation, printed every Wednesday in the city of Cupertino, California, County of Santa Clara, and published in city of Saratoga, California, County of Santa Clara; and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, under the date of February 7, 1964, Case Number 328148 that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non pareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: all in the year 19 8 7 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Cupertino, California, this 3rd Day of June 87 19 )42 (2015.5 C.C.P. SARATOGA NEWS June 3 Signature RESOLUTION NO. 2420.3 A RESOLUTION OF IN- TENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS PUR- SUANT TO THE LAND- SCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1987 -1988 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Sara- toga, Califomia, as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2420, Describing, Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1987 -1988 for City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1, adopted on April 15, 1987, by the City Council of said City, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the Engineer of said City has pre- pared and filed with the Clerk of this City the written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 2420, which said report has been submitted and preliminarily approved by this Council in accordance with said Act; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETER- MINED AND ORDERED, as follows: 1. In its opinion the public interest and convenience re- quire and it is the intention of this Council to order the levy and collection of assess- ments for Fiscal Year 1987- 1988 pursuant to the provi- sions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the con- struction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particu- larly described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by refer- ence incorporated herein. 2. The cost and expenses of said improvements, in- cluding the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable upon the assessment district docinnatari ac "City of Sara- This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF Resolution No. 2420.3 toga Landscaping and Light- ing District LLA -1 the ex- terior boundaries of which district are the composite and consolidated areas as more particularly described on a map thereof on file in the of- fice of the Clerk of said City, to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in the district and of any zone there of and the general location of said district. 3. Said Engineer's Report prepared by the Engineer of said City, preliminarily ap- proved by this Council, and on file with the Clerk of this City is hereby referred to for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and any zones there- in, and the proposed assess- ments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the district. 4. Notice is hereby given that Wednesday, the 17th day of June, 1987, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, be and the same are hereby appoint ed and fixed as the time and place for a hearing by this Council on the question of the levy and collection of the proposed assessment for the construction or installation of said improvements, including the maintenance and servic- ing, or both, thereof, and when and where it will con- sider all oral statements and ali written protests made or filed by any interested person at or before the conclusion of said hearing, against said im- provements, then b of the assessment district and any zone therein, the propos- ed diagram or the proposed assessment, to the Engi- neer's estimate of the cost thereof, and when and where it will consider and finally act upon the Engineer's Report. 5. The Clerk of said City be, and is hereby directed to give notice of said hearing by causing a copy of this Reso- lution to be published once in the Saratoga News, a news- paper published and circulat- ed in said City, and by con spiculously posting a copy thereof upon the official bul- letin board customarily used by the City of Saratoga for the posting of notices, said posting and publication to be had and completed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing specified herein. 6. The Office of the City Engineer of said City be, and is hereby designated as the office to answer inquiries re- garding any protest proceed- ings to be had herein, and may be contacted during reg- ular office hours at the City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 or by calling (408) 867 -3438. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 20th day of May, 1987, by the following vote of the mem- bers thereof: AYES: Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Moy- les, Peterson, and Mayor Hlava NOES: None ABSENT: None /s/ Joyce Hlava Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Grace E. Cory City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" r'ITV r1F C ARATr1r;A 157 -SG LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 a) The construction or in- stallation, including the main- tenance or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, stat- uary, fountains and other or- namental structures and facil- ities, including the cost of repair, removal or replace- ment of all or any part there- of, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including culti- vation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treat- ing for disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rub- bish, debris, and other solid waste, water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. b) The construction or in- stallation, including the main- tenance or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 4, 5, 6 and 7, of public lighting facil- ities for the lighting of any public places, including orna- mental standards, luminaries, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, bra- ces, transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capaci- tors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attach- ments and appurtenances, including the cost of repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part thereof, electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any' other improvements. c) The construction or in- stallation, including the main- tenance or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 8 and 16 of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, stat- uary, fountains and other or- namental structures and facil- ities and public lighting facil- ities for the lighting of any public places, including or- namental standards, lumin- aries, poles, supports, tun- nels, manholes, vaults, con- duits, pipes, wires, conduc- tors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insula- tors, contacts, switches, ca- pacitors, meters, communi- cation circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenan- ces, including the cost of re- pair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof, pro- viding for the life, growth, health and beauty of land- scaping, including cultiva- tion, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treat- ing for disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rub- bish, debris and other solid waste, electric current or lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements, water for the irrigation of any land- scaping, the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. Pub.: 6 -3-87 157 -SG PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Santa Clara 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled natter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the SARATOGA NEWS 10950 N. Blaney Ave., Cupertino, California, a newspaper of general circulation, printed every Wednesday in the city of Cupertino, California, County of Santa Clara, and published in city of Saratoga, California, County of Santa Clara; and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, under the date of February 7, 1964, Case Number 328148 that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non pareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: June 3 87 all in the year 19... I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Cupertino, California, this 3rd Day of June 19 87 Signature This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF Notice of Hearing f NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set Wednesday, the 17th day of June, 1987, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: A. Appeal of revocation of second unit use permit for property located at 14231 Douglass Lane per City Code Section 15-56.100 (SUP 12) (Appellant /applicant, C. Bolander) A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearing is on file at the office of the Saratoga City Council at 13777 Fruit vale Avenue, Saratoga. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order to be included in the City Council's irformation packets, written communica- tions should be filed on or be- fore June 11. /s/ Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk Pub.: 6 -3-87 156 -SG. 156 -SG AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICES Grace E. Cory hereby declares under penalty of perjury as follows: That on the third day of June, 1987, she caused one copy of the attached Resolution 2420.3 to be posted upon the official bulletin board customarily used by the City of Saratoga for the posting of notices. Dated at Saratoga, California, this third day of June, 1987. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: June 17, 1987 13 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: g/ ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUP -12 Bolander, Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to revoke SUBJECT: Mr. Bolander's Second Unit Use Permit for property located at 14231 Douglass Ln. Recommended Action: The City Council may affirm the decision of the Planning Commission finding that the appellant failed to comply with the original use permit conditions in a timely manner or may accept the new evidence and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. Report Summary: 1. On November 13, 1985, the Planning Commission approved with conditions Mr. Bolander's request for a use permit to legalize an existing second unit at property located at 14231 Douglass Lane. 2. On January 14, 1987, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to satisfy condition #6 of the original approval requiring a one -year review of the use permit. The Planning Commission continued the 1 -14 -87 public hearing three times (3/25/, 4/8/ 4/22) to allow Mr. Bolander additional time to complete all of the conditions of the original approval. 3. On May 13, 1987, the Planning Commission voted 3 -2 -1 to revoke Mr. Bolander's second unit use permit for failing to comply with the condition requiring Mr. Bolander secure the proper building permits for the second unit. 4. On May 20, 1987, seven days after the Planning Commission's decision to revoke his use permit, Mr. Bolander secured the required building permits for the second unit thus satisfying all of the conditions of approval. Fiscal Impacts: N/A Attachments: 1. Staff report to City Council 2. Planning Commission minutes dated 5/13/87, 4/22/87, 4/8/87, 3/25/87, 1/14/87 3. Reports to'Planning Commission dated 5/13/87, 1/4/87, 11/7/85 4, Letterssupporting revocation 5, Appeal Letter Motion and Action .Upheld Planning Commission 4 -1 (Hlava opposed). •Y BACKGROUND REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 6/8/87 COUNCIL MEETING: 6/17/87 SUP -12 Bolander, Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to revoke SUBJECT: Mr. Bolander's Second Unit Use Permit for property located at 14231 Douglass Lane The appellant, Charles Bolander, requests the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision to revoke his Second Unit Use Permit for property located at 14231 Douglass Lane. On November 13, 1985, the Planning Commission approved the appellant's application to legalize the existing second unit and imposed six conditions of approval, only two of which required further action by the appellant: abandon the existing on-site fuel tank and obtain building permits for the second unit. Also, the Planning Commission required that the use permit be reviewed in one year's time. Fourteen months later, on January 14, 1987, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the appellant's use permit and were informed that Mr. Bolander had made no effort to abandon the fuel tank nor obtain the proper building permits. On May 13, 1987, after 3-1/2 months of repeated continuances, the Planning Commission voted 3 -2 -1 to revoke the appellant's use permit for failing to comply with the conditions of approval. Specifically, although the fuel tank was certified closed on 1/27/87 (14 months after the original approval date) the requirement that the appellant obtain building permits for the second unit had not been completed. A majority of the Planning Commissioners felt that giving the appellant 18 months to complete two simple conditions was adequate time and that granting further continuances would not guarantee voluntary compliance with the conditions. Seven days after the Planning Commission revoked Mr. Bolander's use permit, he obtained the proper building permits and, therefore, has completed the last condition of approval. 1 Report to Mayor and City Council SUP -12; 14231 Douglass Ln. Bolander CONCLUSION /RECOMMENDATION While the appellant has complied with the conditions of the original approval, compliance came about only after the Planning Commission revoked the second unit use permit. In renting the second unit for the past 18 months in violation of the use permit approval, the appellant has demon- strated a flagrant disregard for the City Code and the welfare of the occupants of the second unit. However, by ultimately securing building permits for the second unit, the appellant has now completed all of the conditions of approval and recordation of the use permit can take place. The City Council may affirm the decision of the Planning Commission finding that the appellant failed to comply with the conditions of the original approval in a timely fashion or may accept the new evidence and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. If the City Council grants the appeal the appellant will be required to sign the Second Unit Use Permit agreeing to comply with all applicable restrictions and standards of the second unit ordinance. If the Council affirms the decision of the Planning Commission and denies the appeal, the applicant will have to remove the kitchen facilities from the structure and refrain from renting the building as a second unit. Yc uek Hsia P1 ning Director YH /bc /dsc 6/17/87 Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes 5/13/87 14. SUP -12 Bolander, 14231 Douglass Ln., consider revocation of a second unitiuse permit for property located at 14231 Douglass Ln. per City Code Section 15- 56.100. A Planning Director Hsia provided an update of the status of this Application. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:53 P.M. Mr. Bolander, Applicant, apologized for the delays and noted that he had a problem with time. He has paid the necessary permit fees; however, due to health problems he was further delayed. He had scheduled time within the coming week to complete the work required and would call for an inspection this coming Tuesday. He asked that the Commission continue this Item one more time. Ms. Jeanpe Johnston, 14210 Douglass Ln., Saratoga, cited the letter previously submitted on this matter and noted the time period already allowed to the Applicant. Neighbors were required to look at this property at which there was no maintenance. Mr. Bolander responded that work required on the property could not be seen by neighbors. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:53 P.M. Passed 6 -0. Commissioner Burger noted that this Application was scheduled for review since January 14, 1987, and was not convinced that there had been any real effort by the Applicant to accomplish the minor tasks required. Commissioner Siegfried stated he would make a motion to extend this Application to one more Meeting of the Planning Commission and noted that items to be corrected were interior and minor, Commissioner Callans concurred. SIEGFRIED /CALLANS MOVED TO CONTINUE SUP -12 TO MAY 27,1987. Failed 2 -3 -1, Chairwoman Harris, Commissioners Guch, Burger opposed. Commissioner Clay abstaining. BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO REVOKE SECOND UNIT USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14231 DOUGLASS LN. Passed 3 -2 -1, Commissioners Siegfried, Callans opposed, Commissioner Clay abstaining. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/22/87 MISCELLANEOUS: 18. Update on SUP -12 Bolander, 14231 Douglass Ln. Planner Caldwell updated the Planning Commission on the status of this Application; a Public Hearing was scheduled for May 13, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/8/87 9. SUP -12 Bolander, 14231 Douglass Land, setting public hearing for April 22, 1987, to revoke a second unit use permit due to noncompliance with conditions of approval. Planning Director Hsia provided an update of this Application and noted that the Applicant had not complied with the Conditions imposed. He suggested for consideration: Continuance of the Application to the April 22, 1987, meeting or, Setting of the date for a Public Hearing on the revocation of the Use Permit. Planner Caldwell added that the plans be submitted by the Applicant had not met the basic requirements of the building department. Mr. Charles Bolander, Applicant, apologized for the delay, stating it was his understanding that the Commission wanted an inspection report and required a building permit; he presented the inspection report. Requirements of the building department were cited. $1500 in required fees Drawings rendered by an architect He stated that he could not financially afford to have an architect draw plans on a building which had existed for 40 years. He presented an estimate from Mr. Dick Powell, architect, on the cost of the required drawings and asked for a further extension since Mr. Powell was out of town during the coming week. Commissioner Siegfried questioned the length of time the Applicant had taken to raise the above concerns; in response to a further question, Mr. Bolander stated that he understood the cost of fees involved only two months ago. The City Attorney reviewed the process of obtaining necessary use and building permits and noted that it was a standard requirement that buildings be brought up to code. He suggested that standard operating procedure of the building department was to require architectural drawings; however, it was the Applicant's responsibility to contact the building department for the necessary information. Commissioner Siegfried was willing to consider a continuance with an understanding that a study if considered necessary, and the Public Hearing be set for a specific date. Staff recommended that a Public Hearing for revocation of the Use Permit be set for April 22, 1987; Planner Caldwell noted the April 14, 1987, Meeting of the Committee of the Whole wherein the Applicant could present further information. Commissioner Tucker favored setting a date for a public hearing; she noted the Planning Commission's continuance of this Application on more than one occasion. Mr. Bolander responded that he was scheduled to be out of town on April 14th and his architect was out of town until the fifteenth of the month. GUCH/HARRIS MOVED TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVOCATION OF THE USE PERMIT ON APRIL 22, 1987. Passed 6 -0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/25/87 18. SUP -12 Bolander, one year review of a second unit use permit approval for property located at 14231 Douglass Ln., in the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission of March 25, 1987. Planner Calkins stated that the Applicant was having difficulty completing architectural plans to be submitted to Building Inspection Department; the Applicant had assured him that plans would be submitted within the time limits of the next Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Guch was favorable to granting the requested two-week delay and noted the desire that the Commission not give any appearance of unfairness. Commissioner Siegfried concurred. Commissioner Tucker was favorable to granting the two-week delay with the understanding that failure to come forward on April 8, 1987, would result in a negative vote. PINES /CALLANS MOVED TO CONTINUE SUP -12 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1987. Passed 5 -1, Chairwoman Burger opposed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/14/87 6. SUP -12 Charles Bolander, one year review'of a second unit use permit for property located at 14231 Douglass Lane in the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, January 14, 1987. Planner for Caldwell teti�ove the on-site f e l tank; date f c will be indicated anuary 26, 1987. Condition lion applied 1 of the Report will be complied with at that time. In response to Commissioner Tucker's questions, the Planning Director stated notification of the Hearing on the extension was done. He confirmed that the Applicant would have to comply with the age restriction on occupancy of second units. Commissioner Siegfried stated for the record that if all necessary steps were not taken, the Commission would be reluctant to consider further extension of this Application. Chairwoman Burger concurred. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:15 P.M. There were no speakers. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:16 P.M. Passed 6-0. CONTINUE SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO A OO P 12. Passed 6 SUP-12 14231 Douglass Ln. REP.Oki TO PLANNING COMMISSION Consider Revocation (g of Second Unit Use Permit Bolander REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Robert Calkins DATE: May 13, 1987 APPLICATION LOCATION: SUP 12; 14231 Douglas Ln. APPLICANT: Charles Bolander APN: 397 -24 -36 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is continued from the April 22, 1987 Planning Commission meeting when the Commission voted to consider revoking the applicant's second unit use permit for property located at 14231 Douglass Ln. ISSUES: The applicant has not satisfied all of the conditions of approval; specifically, the applicant has not received the proper building permits and the second unit use permit cannot be recorded with the Countys Recorders Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Revoke SUP -12 per City Code Section 15- 56.100(b) for failure to comply with the original conditions of Approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Notice of Correction dated 4/21/87 3. Report to Planning Commission dated 11/7/85 4. Letter supporting revocation STAFF ANALYSIS A. Racknround /Discussion The following is a chronology of the events surrounding SUP -12: November 13, 1985 The Planning Commission approves SUP -12 subject to conditions including a one -year review of the use permit. January 14, 1987 The Planning Commission holds a public hearing to review SUP -12. The applicant had not completed any of the conditions of approval. The public hearing is continued 8 weeks to March 25, 1987, to allow Mr. Bolander additional time to comply with conditions of approval. March 25, 1987 Mr. Bolander satisfies the condition requiring abandonment of the on -site underground fuel tank but states that he is having difficulty completing architectural plans to be submitted to Building Inspection Division so that permits for the second'unit can be issued. The Planning Commission continued the item to their April 8, 1987, meeting. April 8. 1987 Staff informs the Planning Commission that Mr. Bolander submitted plans to the Building Inspection Division, but that the Building Official determinted that the plans were inadequate. The Planning Commission voted to set a April 22, 1987 public hearing date to consider revoking Mr. Bolander's second unit use permit. Noticing difficulties delays this public hearing until the May 13, 1987 meeting. April 22. 1987 Staff informs the Planning Commission that Mr. Bolander applied for a building permit and an inspection of the second unit occurred on April 21, 1987. However, the Building Inspector identified several deficiencies that would need to be corrected prior to issuance of a building permit. B. Conc lusjgn /Re._AMer�d .LL n Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 86.010, the Planning Commission may revoke a use perr;it for a second unit if it finds that the "holder of the permit has violated any of the conditions" setforth in the original approval. Approximately 18 months ago, the Planning Commission approved SUP -12 and imposed six conditions of approval, two of which required further action from the applicant: abandon the fuel tank and obtain building permits. At the time that this report wa•s published and mailed to the Planning Commission, Mr. Bolander had not obtained the proper building permits for the second unit. According to the building inspector, the required corrections necessary to obtain the building permit are minimum in nature and could be completed in one day. 2 Previously, staff has recommended that the Planning Commission grant additional time so that the applicant could satisfy all of the conditions of the original approval. Staff was hesitant to recommend revocation because it appeared as though Mr. Bolander was making a good faith effort to secure the required permits. In the final analysis, however, staff feels Mr. Bolander has not made a concerted effort to obtain the necessary permits in a timely fashion. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission revoke SUP -12 for failure to comply with the original conditions of approval. 3 NI. PM JOB ADDRESS Job Description /Sq. ft. summary Date inspection requested for )4 �1 Inspection called for. by 3\1\ K21 Name Owner n jyNklQ )s A BUILDING Frame (3/4) Name Grading (3) Foundation (2/3) Retainingwall (3) Slab (2) Underfloor (1/2) Block /Masonry (2) Sheetrock (1/2) Stucco lath (2) Shear wall (2) Final (2/3) Total unit count A B C+ D+ E+ F+ G+ H Passed Failed i nspector's Signature DLLs 2- 4 MON Water service (2) Top out (2) Sewer (2) Gas Test (2) Underfloor (2) Shower pan (1) Final (1) F POOL Excavation -steel (3) Bonding -ore gunite Pre plaster (3) Pool /cover /fence (2) -'7Z. Permit No. Company 8 PLUMBING C ELECTRICAL Rough (1/2) Rough (1/2) Call back phone ft 1 A O7SIJ Temp pole (1) Services (2) Final (2) E ENERGY Underfloor (2) Frame insul. (3/2) Final (1) H ROOF Tear off (2) Progress (2) Final (2) OUTCOME OF INSPECTION UES WED THURS FRI NOTES -SITE CONDITIONS- OBSERVATIONS CORRECTION NOTICE fo owi r l g ctio must bep e jn)ee td be co r nt reir�specte Name D MECHANICAL Rough (1) Furnace (1) Water heater (1) Ducts (1) Underfloor (2) Final (1) G misc. Site check (2) Complaint (3) Landscape (2) Investigation (3) Solar (3) Correction Notice Given Unable to inspect /door tag hung LG T B 'j Vas 0 f1 No 0 0 1II 011 'ET Id ra r tNsz 6 mod_ 4.-,.e �9 L L P et .11P' I `L r l/ 1 4 s=ue AI 4,/ riy ,f/ re'" .4'1/17 .4 ea4r .:t- "ale 1 INSPEUUUN UIVI51uiv City of Saratoga 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE A Phone: 867 -4600 Correction N NAME BOLA f k.._ JOB ADDRESS /1Z3 6 1) 6 4.4 .5 Inspection of your work revealed that the following is not in accordance with the city and /or state laws governing this work. PRov/ ri b,Scp Iv N EG. r SrAAnuq 13 L2) 4&. L 1s T P/} Li/pt cc:7 These corrections must be made and are not to be covered until reinspection is made.iWhen corrections have been made, please call for inspection. Date 300.6 otice Inspector ivision DO NOT REMOVE THI,S TAG FROM: Robert Calkins DATE January 14, 1987 APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: Second Unit Use Permit, (SUP -12) One Year Review; 14231 Douglass Lane APPLICANT: Charles Bolander APN: 397 -24 -36 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: One year review of a Second Unit Use Permit (SUP -12) for existing detached second unit located at 14231 Douglass Lane in the R- 1- 20,000 zoning district. ISSUES: The applicant has not complied with the conditions of the use permit including: 1). Failing to obtain the proper permit to abandon the existing on- site fuel tank; and 2) Failing to obtain the necessary building permits for the second unit; and 3) Failing to record the Second Unit Use Permit with the County Recorders'Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant the applicant an additional six weeks or until February 18, 1987, to obtain the proper permit to abandon the fuel tank and receive the necessary building permits and continue the public hearing to its regular meeting on March 11, 1987. ATTACHMENTS: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Memorandum to Planning Commission dated 1/14/87 2. Resolution SUP -12 3. Report to Planning Commission dated 11/7/85 4. Planning Commission minutes 11/13/85 DATE: TO: FROM: January 14, 1987 Planning Commission Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ONE YEAR REVIEW OF SUP -12 (SECOND UNIT USE PERMIT) AT 14231 DOUGLASS LANE. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION MEMORANDUM On November 13, 1985, the Planning Commission approved SUP -12, legalizing an existing detached one -story second unit at 14231 Douglass Lane and conditioned the approval to require a one -year review of the use permit. In addition to the one -year review requirement, the Planning Commission imposed the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the second unit and comply with any additional requirements of the Inspection Division. 2. The 200 gallon fuel tank shall be abandoned and dispensing of fuel discontinued prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The use permit shall be recorded as required per City, Code Section 15- 56.090 within 30 days of the final approval of the use permit. -Failure to comply with the above conditions or any violation of any applicable restrictions or standards contained in the Second Unit Ordinance, could constitute grounds for revocation of the use permit as provided for in City Code Section 15- 56.100. According to the County Health Department's Hazardous Materials Division, the applicant, Mr. Bolander has not received the proper permits to abandon the existing on -site fuel tank as required by the Planning Commission. County Health Department records indicate that their only contact with Mr. Bolander regarding this matter was back in June 1985. According to the County, under normal circumstances, the permitting process usually takes between 4 -6 weeks to complete. In addition, since the issuance of building permits is directly tied to the abandonment of the fuel tank, Mr. Bolander has been unable to secure the proper and necessary building permits for the second unit from the City. Finally, the Planning staff has no record of the applicant ever recording the second unit use permit with the County Recorders office as required by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bolander has indicated via a telephone conversation on December 1, 1986, that failing to obtain the necessary permits to abandon the fuel tank was an "oversight" on his part and that he "fully intends to comply with CONCLUSION /RECOMMENDATION all the conditions of approval." Mr. Bolander has requested that the Planning Commission not consider revoking the second unit use permit at this time but grant him additional time so he may satisfy all of the conditions of approval Staff has reviewed the subject file and has found no record of any complaints from neighborhood residents regarding the use of the second unit (i.e., noise, traffic or occupancy). As such, staff feels it is reasonable to allow the applicant additional time to secure or make a good faith effort to secure the_necessary permits to abandon the fuel tank from the County and to obtain the proper building permits from the City. Staff recommends the Planning Commission allow Mr. Bolander an additional six weeks, or until February 25, 1987 t� comply with conditions 2, 4 and 5 of the approved staff report and continue the public hearing until March 11, 1987. Robert Calkins Assistant Planner REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APN: 397 -24 -3R City of Saratcg- f.1'i'Z OVED BY: 6 DATE: /I- (3-5( +La: C�- APPLICANT: Charles Elolander APPI..ICATTON NO. R LOCATTON: SUP -12, 14231 Dounlass Lane ACTION REQUESTED: Second Unit Use Permit Approval for an existing,detached, one -story second unit. OTHER APPROVALS REOUIREO: Building Permit FNUTRONMFNTAt.. ASSESSMENT: Under State law this project is exempt from CEOA. 70NTNG: R -1- 20,000 0111I7F cDe 0 EU o C� OWNER: same EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residential *Revised: 11/13/85 DATE: 11/7/85 COMMISSION MEETING: 11/13/85 GFNFRAI PI AN DESIGNATION: Residential -Low Density Single Family SURROUNDING LAND (USES: Single Family Residential PARCEL ST7E: 20 sq. ft. NATURAL FEATURES R VEGETATION: The site has shrubbery along the rear property line and in the front of the residence. Lawn areas are located to Report to Planning Commission Date: 11/7/85 SUP -12, Bolander Paoe 2 the side of the second unit, behind and on the side of the main, dwelling and in front of the circular drive. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: The site is SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: N/A fairly level EXISTING SETBACKS: Front: 151.5 ft. Rear: 3.5 ft. (35 ft. required) Left Side: 3 ft. Rioht Side: 28.5 ft HEIGHT: 11 ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 50% SIZE OF STRUCTURE: BUILDING INSPECTION FIRE INSPECTION Second Unit: Main Dwelling: Other Accessory Structures: TOTAL: 750 sq. ft. 2,077 sq. ft. 909 sq. ft. 3,736 sq. ft. ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all requirements and standards of the zoning ordinance. The structure maintains a 3 ft. side yard setback and a 3.5 ft. rear yard setback. where 15 ft. and 35 ft. are required respectively. The second unit is attached to a shop and a two car carport. Since the structures are attached, the setbacks are measured from the end of the structure and are in essence considered to he one structure. A covered parking space is not provided for the second unit. Also, the lot is not 1.6 times the standard for the zoning district. These reouirments can be varied under the use permit. MATERIALS COLORS: The exterior of the second unit•is finished in heioe stucco with a red tile roof. A building inspection was conducted by a private inspection service and a. report was prepared and submitted to the City concerning the condition of the second unit. The applicant has completed the work on the second unit in response to the building inspection report. The property has been inspected by the Fire Marshall of the Saratoga Fire District. The report from the Fire District indicates that a 200 oallon fuel tank and dispenser is located next to the cottage. The Fire District and Staff recommends that the tank be abandoned and disoensino discontinued. Report to Planning Commission Date: 11/7/85 SUP -12, Bolander Paoe 3 OCCUPANCY The applicant has indicated that the second unit will be occupied by a maximum of two persons and that he will comply with the ordinance regarding occupancy of the main dwelling and the second unit. SEWER According to the applicant the main residence and the second unit are served by sewer. PARKING The second unit is attached to a shop and two -car carport. The carport itself maintains a 3 ft. side yard setback and a 3.5 ft. rear yard setback. Two covered ;narking spaces are required for the main dwelling and one covered space for the second unit. The requirement for the second unit parking space may be waived provided that not less than three off street spaces are available on the site and there is no feasible location on the site for such covered parking space. There is an existing parking area between the main dwelling and the second unit. A covered parking space could feasibly be located in this parking area and maintain required setbacks. Staff recommends that a covered perking space be provided for the second unit. COMPATIBILITY The second unit, which is finished in stucco with a tile roof, is attached to an accessory structure with a wood exterior and a flat roof. These two structures are compatible in terms of scale, mass, and height but not in terms of the general design. The second unit is compatible with scale, mass and height of the main residence. The applicant has indicated that the second unit has existed since the mid 1940s prior to incorporation of the city. PRIVACY A small window is located on the left end of the second unit. The adiacent residence, which is at a higher elevation, has a window facing the subject site. A fence has been erected on the adjacent property. There is mature vegetation located to the rear of the second,unit. Staff noted no privacy impacts from the second unit. FINDINGS 1. The second unit does not comply with the side yard and the rear yard setbacks. However, because of the location of the windows in the second unit and the existing vegetation and the difference in Report to Plannino Commission Date: 11/7/R5 SUP -12, Bolander Paoe it elevation between the subject site and the property_ to the left. the .location is in accord with the objectives. 2. The location of the second unit and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the .public health safety or welfare, or materially iniurious to .properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The second unit will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance and the General Plan. 4. The existing second unit does not comply with the standards described in Section 16A.4 A 3.5 ft. rear yard setback and a 3 ft. side yard setback are being maintained where 35 ft. and 15 ft. setbacks are required respectively. Also, the second unit is located on a site that is the minimum lot size of the zoning district and is not 1.6 times the standard lot size. These requirements may be modified with the use permit. An additional parking space is required for the second unit if there is a feasible location for such space: A condition of approval is that one additional .narking space be provided on the site. 5. The second unit will not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoinino properties. 6. The existing second unit is not designed to be compatible with the exterior appearance of the attached.accessory structure or the main dwellino. The structure is compatible in terms of mass, scale and heioht but does use different exterior materials. 7'. The second unit is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of form, bulk, height, material and landscaping. e. The second unit will not cause unreasonable noise, traffic congestion, parking congestion, or overload existing facilities. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the second unit Use Permit. per the Staff Report dated 11/7/85, Exhibits "B" and "C subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shell provide one additional covered perking soece on site- P-I-ens she be submitted mith'the bdi +ding permit piens for the second snit- 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the exisitno second unit. The applicant shall comply with any additional requirements of the Inspection Services Division. Report to P1an.nino Commission Date: 11/7/85 SUP- 12,Bo1ander Paoe 5 3. Any violation of these conditions or any violation of the onino ordinance by this second unit shall constitute orounds for the revocation of the Use Permit per Section 16A.10. 4. The Use Permit shall be recorded as required per Section 16A.9 of the Zonino Ordinance within 30 days of the final approval of the Use Permit. 5. The 200 gallon fuel tank shall be abandoned and dispensing of fuel discontinued prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. The Use Permit shall be subject to review by the Planning Commis- sion one year from the date of approval. APPROVED: CL /dsc P.C. Agenda: 11/13/85 14210 Douglas La Saratoga, Ca. May 5, 1987 Res Notice.of Hearing Saratoga Planning Commission for May 13, 1987 Application: SUP -12, Revocation of Use Permit Location: 14231. Douglas Lane Saratoga, Ca: The Planning Commission City Of Saratoga 1377'1�4�tiiivile fi Saratoga, Ca. Attn: Mr. Robert Caulkins, Asst. Planner Dear Mr. Caulkins: Attached you will find a co t 1 t_� iyo DEPT copy of an original letter, dated Nov. 11, to the Planning Commission, signed by Mr. Johnston and me. Also attached are copies of the Saratoga Planning Commission agenda for hearings on a nse permit for Mr. Bolander'e (SUP -12) second units. These agenda are dated June 26, 1985, Sept. 25. 1985. Oc:.t. 23, 1985 and Nov. 13. 1985. There was another hearing on this use permit in 1986 and one on Jan. 13, 1987. The above letter and the copies of the agenda, including the meetings of 1986,1987 and the one called for May 13, 1987 make a total of seven hearings called for reviewing the use permit for these same second units. They most assuredly convey the fant that the Planning Commission has shown a great leniency and tolerance in this matter. It has gone on since June 1985, and it is now May, 1987. Is it not time to make a final decision to revoke, permanently, this use permit for a second unit at 14231 Douglas Lane? The facts as stated in our original letter are still (after two years) relevant. Mr. Bolander has made no effort or attempt to correct these items, nor improve his property in concurrence with the Planning Commission instructions and suggestions, under which they allowed him a second unit at the hearing on Nov. 3, 1985. In justice to Mr. Bolander, the number of care parked in and around the property, is somewhat less than two years ago. However there is still no proper garaging for the cars still there. The property is still overcrowded with all the many unite, and the lack of covered or closed car shelters only adds to the feeling of clutter and makes it most un- attraot*ve from the street. The granting of those variances necessary to allow the existance of the second units, a 3.5 foot rear yard set back and a 3 foot side yard set back, where 35 feet and 15 feet are required, only adds to the sense of overcrowding and makes it a. further eyesore. Unless the property is well maintained and brought morein keeping with the appearance of the rest of th' neighborhood, we do not feel the second units on Mr. Bolander's property belong there. We feel that Mr. Bolander has taken advantage of both the Planning Commission and the neighbors, by continuing to live here, recieving continuances and extensions from the planning Commssion using the income from his rentals, and doing nothing to improve or upgrade his property. Caw "4;;E VET) r 1987 Page 2 This neighborhood and the City of Saratoga has waited patiently since Nov. 1985 for the necessary improvements to be made, and they have not been dons. We feel, most strongly, that Mr. Bolander has had more than enough time to complete these improvements. We urge the Planning Commission to revoke this second use permit. 'This matter has taken years and a great deal of time, and still Mr. Bolander has shown no sense of responsibility towards rectifying the problem. It would deem he wants the income from his second units without the necessity of meeting the City's rules and regulation. He has totally disregarded all injunctions by the city to bring his property up to code in all these years. We suggest the City has spent enough time and thought, and will now revoke his second unit use permit. Very truly you a, 1 ei Jeanne G. Johnston J.F.B. Jb inston B�� co The Planning Commission City of Saratoga, Ca. 95070 14210 Douglas La:._ Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: Report To The Planning Commission Dated 11/7/85 Application No. SUP -12 Location: 14231 Douglas Lane Saratoga, Ca. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission: Shortly after Mr. and Mrs. Bolander moved into their house (1977) on Douglas Lane, Mr. Bolander's parents came to live with them, and moved into an existing second unit on the property. Mrs. Bolander's mother Dams to stay with them also, sometime. around 1979, at which time Hr. Bolander built (without a permit) another second unit, attached to the original, into which Hrs. Bolander's mother moved and lived. After their parents died, Hr. and Mrs. Bolander rentrd out these two separate unite to a succession of young women. Two years ago they rented one of the units to an elderly couple from the east coast who Dame here for the winter only, and used one of the unite a second time for the same purpose. After a short vacancy, he rented one of these units to the presnt tenant. He is now applying for a use permit for a single second unit, with two bedrooms. Obviously he has installed a door or hall (or installed it when the second, second unit was built) in order that the two separate units he has been previously renting out, can now be turned into one. We feel he has misinformed the Council and Planning Commission on the status of these units. The Report to the Planning Commission dated 11/7/85, recommended that a second unit use permit be granted. We recommend strongly against a use permit for the following reasons: 1. The property as it now stands, is overcrowded, and the accessory structures are an eyesore from the street. There has been little or no perceivable maintainence during the years the Bolanders have lived there. The situation has become a nuisance. Over these years Mr. Bolander has rented these units, he has given no thought for the neighbors, in the amount of traffic in and out of his driveway, and the number of oars always parked in and about the house and the tenant units. 2. If variances are granted for the required setbacks, and another garage added, it will engender further overcrowding, with the main house, the two second units, the sheds, the added garage and the front and aide driveways. To consider giving variances and adding another building, will indeed make it an eyesore and moat certainly not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood and the open space ambience of this street. 3. Mr. Bolander surely could not have lived on this street, in Saratoga, since 1977, and not known that having two rental unite was against all zoning rest- rictions for this completely reidential only neighborhood. The h.ietory Mr. and Mrs. Bolander's use of this property since the death of their respective parents has been totally for profit, with no regard to senior citizen housing. At no time during these years have they made any attempt to comply with the existing applicable zoning regulations. They have utilized the property with a complete disregard to the neighbors and to the laws of the City of Saratoga. Page 2 We strongly urge no second unit use permit be granted. The existing units could be utilized as a two -car garage, thereby taking some of the heavy traffic from the aide and front of the house. The present shed, now used as a shop, should hgve a door on it which should be kept closed at all times. The other two sheds could be town down. This would allievate the need for granting side variances. There is a precedent which has been established in this neighborhood for the din- allowing of a second unit permit. In the spring of 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Rohrig sold their two -acre property on the corner of Douglas Lane and Durham Court to the Long Meadow Development Co. (Mr. Griffith), which was situated almost across the street from Hr. Rolander's property. A meeting was held before the Planning Commission to decide on the sub- division of the acreage. The residents of Durham Court eomplained'about a second unit which was on the property, and requested that it be torn dowi. Theirr reason was that it created congestion and was a nuisance. The Planning Commission granted their request, and the second unit was torn down. If a second unit is granted, we sincerely hope it will be granted for senior citizens only. There should be some guarantee that only one unit will be used by only one family unit. Thank you for your consideration of this matter which most assuredly affects the residents at this end of Douglas Lane. Very truly yours, Jeanne G. Johnston J.F.B. Johnston Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Hearing regarding revocation of second unit use, Bolander June 8, 1987 X 07 14300 Douglass Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Deputy City Clerk and Council Members: Since I will be out of town on the evening of 17 June, I would request that this letter in regards to the revocation of the second unit use for Mr. Bolander suffice in lieu of my presence. While Mrs. Lohr and I have only owned our Douglass Lane property for less than three years, one of the reasons that prompted our purchase and move was the quiet esthetics of the neighborhood. In addition, we heard that the City of Saratoga had tough city codes and enforce them. Were we hearing falsely? or Were we just gullible in both cases? Without allowing this to become a lengthy diatribe, let me state a few facts as I see them. I was present at the Council meeting where you granted the gentleman the 18 -month permissive period, in which to put his house in order. He did not do it...DENY the appeal. Compared to the building permits that I have purchased, the work that I have done, the amount of improvements that I have made to my property in this same time span, I cannot understand why the appellant was not able to get the requirements finished to code. The above paragraph contains the conclusive argument, he did not do as he promised. The following contains some comments directed towards esthetics. In either case, Council Members, I charge you to vote to DENY this appeal. Vote with your head and not your heart, no matter what type of story is presented. As I sit in my dining area and look down Douglass Lane, I can see the front yard of the Bolander property. I see several Palm trees seriously in need of a trimming and brown dirt. No grass, no green. If the landscaping were meant to be a desert motive, I could understand this lack of green vegetation. The addition of rock or gravel would tend to soften this area of total neglect. Water savings must be terrific. As you drive by, there are usually five to seven automobiles parked in a somewhat haphazard manner, an open ended shed and an assortment of outbuildings in need of TLC. It at least looks lived in, by how many people I would not venture to guess. Not a sight to charm or to please. As I explained before, neither you nor I have the time to waste on the chance that there is some humanistic need for the further consideration of this appeal. The man did not fulfill the pro- mises he made to you. He has obviously never done anything to make his property harmonious with his peers. Although I have purchased many building permits, it is my understanding that he has never applied or purchased appropriate building permits.from you for his property. It doesn't seem quite fair to me, one who is striving to become a good Saratogan. My tax dollars are newer, but just as good. I would urge you to vote and DENY the appeal or any use permit for the property other than single unit family and pressure Mr. Bolander to clean up his act. A good place to start would be to tear down and clean up the back area and eliminate those outbuildings and the need for a granting of variances. Please, give this matter your honest consideration. The man has had adequate time to do what was requested, STOP the procrasti- nation NOW. S Dr. Robert M. Lohr 1 300 Douglass Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 Ladies and Gentlemen of the City Council: J 10 ,)907 14210 Douglas Lane Saratoga, Ca, Re: Notice of Hearing with Saratoga City Council Application :SUP -12 Appeal of Revocation of Second unit Use Permit Location: 14231 Douglas Lane, Saratoga, Ca, We sincerely hope the City Council will not reinstate the second unit use permit for 14231 Douglas Lane. We do request it to be permanently revoked. Our reasons' have been contained in our letters to the Planning Commission, dated May 1987 and Nobember 1985, and are restated below as follows: 1) When Mr. and Mrs. Bolander purchased their property in 1977, there was only one second unit on it. They built an additional second unit illegally (i.e. without a building permit) in 1979, and connected it to the original unit. Allegedly, they are now renting them as one, two bedroom unit. 2) After the deaths of their respective parents, the Bolanders did rent them as two separate units, listing them as a one bedroom unit and a studio unit, and charging separate rents for each one (i•el one rent for one and one rent for the other). None of the people to whom they rented these units was a senior citizen. They were all young women, who seemed to be coming and going with some frequency, causing the property to be very overcrowded with cars, noise and congestion. 3) Because the Planning Commission granted a second unit use permit for the connected two units in November of 1985 (now to be listed as one, two bedroom unit), the variances necessary for the existence of this unit were allowed. These are large variances, and because of the second unit, the structures are very close to the adjacent properties. 4) It seems there has been little to no perceptible maintainence on the property since 1977, and it has the appearance of being run down. Together with the added clutter of the second unit, a shed, plus no garaging for any of the cars, it is certainly not compatible with the wellymaintained residences of this street. 5) The Planning Commission has dealt with Mr. Bolander and his second unit problems since 1985. The Commission finally tevoked his second unit use permit in May, 1987, as he still had not met the simple building inspection requirements. 6) Mr. Bolander's cavalier attitude towards the city requirements has been reflected in his record of use of this property since he moved to Saratoga. He built the additional second unit and it seems, either did not want to know, or never inquired as to whether this building was allowed in this area. He paid no attention to the current zoning laws. 7) After building the additional unit, he then rented these two units to non family members, none of whom, to our knowledge, were senior citizens, again not complying with the zoning regulations for this completely single fermi *y, all residential street. To us, it shows a total lack of any sort of civic responsibility, and certainly a disregard for his own neighborhood. 8) Mr. Bolander has had many reviews and continuances from the Planning Commission during the years from 1985 to the present time, and it is only under the duress of the revocation of the second unit use permit that he has, finally at the eleventh hour, met the bare minimums which were required in 1985. It was also only under duress of the second unit ordinance which was passed in 1984, that he rented his unit to senior citizens at all. This is not a record of good faith. 9) He had to meet simple conditions to maitain his use permit, and he did not do so until forced. Meanwhile he has collected his rent, even though by city ordinance, this building failed to pass the Building Inspector's requirements. We have no assurance that if the second unit use permit is reinstated, he will not again violate the city ordinances, as he has so flagrantly done in the past. The record shows he has not complied with them in all these years, unless he was forced to do so. We recognize the wish of the City Council for adequate senior citizen rental housing. However, we feel that Mr. Bolander failed to addess the senior citizen's housing problem as such, instead concentrated his efforts on personal financial gain, while successfully skirting the legal require- ments of Saratoga. Only after the Planning Commission on May 13, 1987 revoked his. use permit, did he take any steps to comply with the require- ments on which the permit was predicated. We are sure that you, as members of the City Coucil recognize that every downward step of erosion of the quality and tone of a neighborhood is historically irreversible.. The process is comparable to that of price or tax increases; they never reverse. We may stand alone, but at least we request that we be counted as opposing Mr. Bolander's appeal for reinstate- ment of his use permit. As members of the neighborhood for 24 years, we have done our utmost toward maintaining the quality of this area. Thank you for your consideration of this long- standing problem, and for recognizing that there is more than just senior citizen housing involved in this case. It is also, very much the adverse impact that this particular second unit has had on our neighborhood. Rune 9, 1987 Page 2 Very t yours, cap 'K�11V�- ►.--7 anne G. Johnsto 9-.9. 13 J.F.B. nston rhP Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): (See Letter: attached).io Name of Appellant: C. M. Bolander Trust Address: 14231 Douglass'Lane Saratoga Telephone: 1)8 7L1 l n Name of Applicant: Charles Bolander 77Z-ciS1 t— Project File No.: SUP 12 Project Address: SAme Project Description: 2nd Unit Decision Being Appealed: Appealing the Use prermit revocation by Planning Commission per their meting May 13, 1987 *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. TIIIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITI•IIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OVI9iE DECISION. APPEAL APPLICATION Appellant's Signature Date Receiv d i Hearing Date z47 8 Fee CITY USE ON C.M. -May 21, 1987 City of Saratoga Attn: Members of the City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members: C. M. Bolander Trustee for the C. M. Bolander Trust BoL A NDE R 14u1 Douelaaa Laa� 8aratoga. CA 96070 I T REI ST (408) 880.8271 Re: Appeal of 2nd Unit Use Permit SUP -12 to be reinstated on the above named. The C. M. Bolander Trust had at the time of the commencement of the 2nd Unit ordiance in the City Saratoga applied for and received necessary applications which were completed and filed with the City Planning commission. Unfortunately, time elapsed and some of the necessary corrections were not made to timely complete the corrections. An endeavour was made in the past few months to accomplish the work requried by the planning commission and the building department. Due to out of town travel in regard to my work and a continuing back problem after I began the final completition of the work the Planning commission felt that adequate time was given to complete the work, and since the work was not completed after continuances denied the use permit of the 2nd unit at the above property on May 13, 1987. Since that date the requirements have been completed as indicated by the building department and as of May 20, 1987 the property improvements were inspected and signed off by the building department. Therefore, it is my understanding that the reason for the denial was because the final inspection was not made. I have no intention of vacating the 2nd unit and will continue as in the past to meet the requiremnts of the City in regard to second units. I have paid over $2,000 to the city in permits and fees. The unit is enjoyed on a continuing basis and has been rented without change for the past year. Please repeal the denial of the planning commission so the necessary recording can be made at the County Recorder's office to fully complete the use permit of the second unit. If you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA, 95070 Attn. Mr. Robert Caulkins Assistant Planner Dear .1r. Caulkins: Yours truly, eAAX Gladys C. Wood 14161 Douglass Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 June 10, 1987 REV:Ell/ED JUN 1 1987 PLANNING DEPT. Bolander, of 14231 Douglass Lane, is asking that his use permit be reinstated for a second unit. This is a unit with a 3.5 rear yard setback and a 3 foot side yard setback, in an area in which 35 feet and 15 feet are required. We respectfully request denial. Revocation of the permit was made in :Jay, 1987, after Mr: Bolander had received continuances from the Planning Commission in 1985, 1986, and another in January, 1907, to complete required work. When we applied for a 10.5 side yard variance this spring, along the same boundaries on which the house was extended in 1962, the Planning Commissioners explained they regretted they could not grant the request; the side yard setbacks must be followed now, they said. Now, Ur. Bolander is requesting a new use permit this s*oring, after failing to meet requirements set in earlier years for a permit. We would think the same rules for following side yard requirements would apply to this new application of his, as they were applied to ours. Otherwise, the "equal administration of justice" principle would seem to be violated. C. M. June 11, 1987 To: Council Members City of Saratoga B01 A N DE 1 uglass Lane Saratoga, CA 960 (409)8004274 Frorn: Charles Bolander, Trustee of the C. M. Bolander Trust Re: Additional comments in regard to the Appeal application dated 5 -21 -87 I would like to briefly reply to comments in letters from Dr. Lohr and the Johnston's which have been presented to the City Council requesting the second unit permit (SUP -12) not be reinstated. Dr. Lohr states in his letter he moved into the Douglass Lane property about three years ago. Our family has lived on Douglass Lane for over 10 years. Surely he made a determination of the neighborhood before moving here. The Lohr property is located over 300 feet from the Bolander property. Automobiles on the property are placed such as not to detract. At present our children's two 1965 Mustang's are parked on the circular drive in front of the house. Daughter is on vacation and will be returning June 15 and return to her home in Sacramento. Son returns from school and will about July 28 take his car to Washington State where he will continue with his college education. This leaves one car on the circular drive in front of the house which my wife drives. Two more autos are in the carport at the rear of the property and three cars in the backyard of the property. One car on the circular drive in the front of the house (never on the street or any other car on the street) should not be determined excessive. Any night drive down Douglass Lane and you will find more cars in the street and front driveways of properties than are parked in front of the Bolander house. In fact, next door (toward Saratoga Avenue) to the Johnston's 4 or 5 cars are in the front yard, no cars in the garage and occassionally cars are parked on the street overnight. From the time the second unit ordnance went into effect permits were applied for the second unit on the Bolander property. Over $1,500.00 has been paid in fees alone. A person 65 years or older has lived on the property since the ordnance went into effect and a 65 year old at this time continues to live on the property. In fact the 10 years Bolander's have been on the property well over 75% of the time a 65 year or older person has lived on the property with no more than two people in the two bedroom unit. This is in compliance with the ordnance. Attached is a plot plan indicating property surrounding the Bolander property. Although the plots of given property are not drawn to scale, it does reason- ably show the location of the Johnson and Lohr properties. Also attached is a statement from three neighbors with whom I was able to visit who have no Page 2 City council problem with the existence of the second unit. If necessary, more signatures can be obtained. As a responsible citizen I have and intend to maintain the property for the good of all concerned including senior citizens for whom the ordnace was created. Unfortunately different families have different priorities. The Bolander's will continue to be a friend to those in the neighborhood. Please allow me to provide further information you may need to further evaluate the appeal, if so needed. Ito Rancho b 22 7 43 m J1 20 s l' GI 8 1, 3 47 45' J� 93 53 d�( 64.25 /S q S4 2S Aso U J. /4 44 J8 \0 IN /0 44 S9 I S3 SS 0 0 fl J 57 I )6 )a O Sb /2 e3 s 202.57 O Q \a- 64 6 64 Se J0 SS hryo., TRACT N° 3912 COLONY HEIGHTS 102 27 12295 12905 65 r 66 lc; 67 r 44<ig 1 2 ;N 63 n 'a, S 62 P 7 103 24 I i76i 61 5 6 so v E 6 l J 4 A' ti 60 b .j+ z,; ti 'rt9 plat is brie led as Qrd '15J 3me 15 vie beli e'F be -.'d by i, comps. ire', *r.;.n or... A w 52 AVE \L' Z6d49 ;tCS.sa) 2.3'6 ,<\Q' 27 1.25 AC GR. "Y \28 N 29 matter of information °nay moiled frarr, information .orrect, no':ability is y as to ti cog rectne" 0 39 ot-Na6-6-- (Cu A- I R►. P1,0 On c-0.5 TO ac,1 L. ,)011.14 h 14 b R a b 14 6-0-gbaw sike 24 0 City of Saratoga Attn: Joyce Hlava, Major Council Members: Karen Anderson, Martha Clevenger, David Moyles, Donald Peterson Re: Appeal to the City Council by the C. M. Bolander Trust to reverse the planning commission decision to disallow the second unit (SUP -12) The undersigned are aware of the second unit on the property of the C. M. Bolander Trust lcoated at 14231 Douglass Lane. By signing below so state there is no objection to the second unit on the property. Names /J/2� l g T 1001 Vaal d uG ra- SS 5 '40.}./ acK3-A"7 Amte `0.7 i 6 is Ig Address Date 1_172_ Did P C 6-41 cw/voth nECEIVE Jo 16 1987 PLANNING DEPT. itVp7 d,44X j cJ4 o 9 3 dt 74 4-caei wv/u2-ei- /mil✓+ 4 ¢0'/1l t/MRS. RALPH M. METCALF 14150 DOUGLASS LANE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 sA 7 41/Pi 6, 9ij 7a /ih2W /0-/-~446,,d", fra-arin/ d mod- Z a-Iv& &IA-3, ci,4% av4i 2 12m. 7/7 7/6P7 de7L- 9(o 7' 3/ „eate-e--fre_, L/9e- 5 (1),d-e0- /3 777 2 1) .l�QJ iGG22 G�e2��'✓�G 9$ 7 6) o2) ,om STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA mow. hdebi AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES File No. (See list attached hereto and made part hereof. being duly sworn, deposes and says: that he is a citizen of the United States, over the age_ of,18..years.;_, that acting for the City of Saratoga City Council on the 6° day of .244(. ,MP? he deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, California, a NOTICE OF DARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to -wit: that said persons are the owners of property who are entitled to Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that the said persons and their said arir?resses are those shown on the most recent records of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular co munication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. A TEXT CONSISTING OF: NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set WEDNESDAY, the 17th day of June, 1987, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on: APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF SECOND UNIT USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14231 DOUGLASS LANE PER CITY CODE SECTION 15-56.1000 (SUP -12) (APPELLANT /APPLICANT, C. BOLANDER) WAS MAILED TO THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS: SISTERS OF MERCY 2300 ADELINE DR BURLINGAME CA 397/16/006 PARSONS HARRIET T 651 SINEX AV APT H-116 PACIFIC GROVE CA 397/16/007 PASTRE GARY L AND SALLY S 14230 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/010 JOHNSTON JAMES F AND JEANNE G I 14210 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/011 FERGUSON LEE 0 AND MARILYN J i 14190 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/012 MILLER JONATHAN W I 14170 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/013 METCALF RALPH M AND HELEN A 14150 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/014 KELCH J E AND KAAREN D 14130 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/015 STRATTON HOWARD M AND SELENA F 14171 W00DVIEW LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/021 TUBBS WILLIAM B AND CHARLOTTE H 14191 WOODVIEW LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/022 ALLESHOUSE WILLIAM 0 AND HONORA B 14231 WOODVIEW LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/023 BURKET MARGUERITE M 14200 WOODVIEW LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/024 DANNER ALDEN E AND ANN 2 QUAIL ACRES SARATOGA CA 14190 WOODVIEW LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/053 GOLDMANN LEN N AND VIERRA 397/16/057 RIDLEY JEAN J AND JOYCE H 14322 DOUGLAS LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/123 LOHR ROBERT M AND MARY K 14300 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/124 LOOMER EDITH S ET AL 19974 DURHAM CT SARATOGA CA 397/16/125 WOOLSEY ROBERT S AND ANNETTE P TR P 19952 DURHAM CT SARATOGA CA 397/16/126 CORRY ROBERT E AND CAROLYN K ff 19930 DURHAM CT SARATOGA CA 397/16/127 BONSALL LAWRENCE AND MARJORIE I 14131 WOODVIEW LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/132 SMITH ELIZABETH 0 14151 WOODVIEW LN SARATOGA CA 397/16/133 MAY HOWARD M ET AL 19931 DURHAM CT SARATOGA CA 397/16/136 SUN PETER T TRUSTEE 19951 DURHAM CT SARATOGA CA 397/16/137 OSTERLUND ENTERPRISES INC PO BOX 700 BLAIRSDEN CA 397/16/138 LONGMEADOW DEVELOPMENT CORP 210 N 04TH ST SAN JOSE CA 397/16/139 MULLIGAN KATHLEEN A 14125 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/030 NICHOLS ANN 1 14137 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/031 WOOD NEWELL E AND GLADYS C TRUSTE 14161 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/032 PHIPPS HARRIET 14175 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/033 FIGLIOMENI MARILYN J 14191 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/034 LONG JOSEPH P AND RUTH M TRUSTEE P 0 BOX 95 SARATOGA CA 397/24/035 BOLANDER VICTORIA TRUSTEE ET AL 14231 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/036 HENDON HARRY H AND PATRICIA C 14257 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/037 VIADA FRANK F AND SHIRLEY M 14211 JUNIPER LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/043 LETSON DOUGLAS N AND DOROTHY A 14221 JUNIPER LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/044 GARVEY EDWARD C AND CYNTHIA P 14231 JUNIPER LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/045 BRENNER RICHARD M AND ELIZABETH A j 14241 JUNIPER LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/046 ARCHER ROBERT A AND LYNNE R 14251 JUNIPER LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/047 VON DORSTEN EVELYN S �1 14120 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 397/24/052 FISHER JACKSON B AND GAIL 1 14278 BARKSDALE CT SARATOGA CA 397/24/053 GRANT WILLIAM A AND BARBARA B TRU 14266 BARKSDALE CT SARATOGA CA 397/24/054 ZODROW WARREN W AND MARY T 14254 BARKSDALE CT SARATOGA CA 397/24/055 COLLINS DENNIS J 14240 BARKSDALE CT SARATOGA CA 397/24/056 FEATHERS LOUIS A AND DOROTHY B 14232 JUNIPER LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/057 SEDARATI SHOKROLLAH AND EHTERAM 14230 JUNIPER LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/058 1 EPPLER WALTER G AND GLORIA 14228 LOVELAND CT SARATOGA CA 397/24/059 PIENKOS WALTER S AND DEBORAH A 14224 LOVELAND CT SARATOGA CA 397/24/060 MONTROSE JOHN R AND JACQUE L TRUS 14222 LOVELAND CT SARATOGA CA 397/24/061 KRICHMAN HAROLD S AND ROLENE 14220 LOVELAND CT SARATOGA CA 397/24/062 HANSEN TERRANCE C AND MARLENE F 14218 LOVELAND CT SARATOGA CA 397/24/063 AUSTIN ROGER D AND ELLEN M 14216 JUNIPER LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/064 WILLIAMS DAVID S AND JEAN T 14198 JUNIPER LN SARATOGA CA 397/24/065 TAM BING K AND ROSE 14164 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 397/24/066 KOSICH OBREN AND DOROTHY 14140 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA CA 397/24/067 SPAICH BROS INC ■EDJO SPAICH PO BOX 363 SARATOGA CA 397/24/074 6 TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICED: 55 BILLING FOR THIS MAILING: $47.10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /o 4-7 MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPT: City Engineer SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Recommended Motion: Adoption of ordinance. AGENDA ITEM e/3 CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Adoption of Ground Movement Potential Maps for the Lower Saratoga Hillsides Report Summary: Pursuant to authorization from the City Council, a set of Ground Movement Potential Maps covering the lower Saratoga hillside area was prepared by Terratech, Inc. Such maps have now been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and should be formally adopted by the City as part of Article 16 -65 of the City Code. The proposed ordinance will accomplish this purpose by amending Section 16- 65.020 to include the Terratech maps with the other Ground Movement Potential Maps prepared by William Cotton and Associates. An amendment to Section 16- 65.040 is also necessary since the Terratech maps include some geotechnic classifications which are not shown on the Cotton maps (specifically Sff, Pfs, and Pdf). It should be noted that the Ground Movement Potential Maps represent only a preliminary determination concerning the geologic characteristics of a specific site. Any property owner has the right to demonstrate that a different (and possibly safer) classification should be applied to his property by furnishing to the City a geotechnic report showing actual conditions which may differ from the conditions indicated on the Ground Movement Potential Maps. According to Mr. Cotton, the City of Saratoga is only one of two jurisdictions nationwide that have adopted Ground Movement Potential Maps to regulate development activity. The maps have been extremely useful to the staff and also provide valuable information for property owners who intend to develop their land but may be unaware of existing geotechnic problems. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: Proposed ordinance. Motion and Vote: 3/18: Introduced ordinance 4 -0. 4/15: Staff recommendation 4 -0. ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ARTICLE 16-65 OF THE CITY CODE TO INCLUDE THE GROUND MOVEMENT POTENTIAL MAPS OF THE LOWER SARATOGA HILLSIDE AREA The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Paragraph (a) of Section 16- 65.020 in Article 16-65 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "(a) Reference is hereby made to the following maps, copies of which have been filed with the City Engineer for use and examination by the public, which maps are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference, together with any amendments thereto: (1) Ground Movement Potential Maps of the Upper Calabazas Creek Watershed, dated January, 1980, prepared by William Cotton and Associates, Geotechnical Consultants. (2) Ground Movement Potential Map of the Congress Springs Study Area, dated May 31, 1977, prepared by William Cotton and Associates, Geotechnical Consultants. (3) Ground Movement Potential Maps of the Lower Saratoga Hillside Area, dated December,. 1985, prepared by Terratech, Inc. Reference is further made to the designations of slope stability shown on said maps, consisting of Sbr, Sls, Sun, Sff, Sex, Pfs, Pmw, Ps, Pd, Pdf, Ms, Md, Mrf and Psf, which designations graduate generally from the most stable areas to the least stable areas. The precise location of the boundary of each designated area is subject to adjustment by the City on the basis of a site specific geologic and soils report prepared by a certified engineering geologist licensed by the State." SECTION 2: The title and first paragraph of Section 16- 65.040 in Article 16 -65 of the City Code are amended to read as follows: "S16- 65.040 Sls, Sun, Sff, Sex, Pfs, Pmw, Ps, Pd, Pdf and Ms Area restrictions No tentative or final subdivision or building site approval shall be granted, nor shall any building or grading permit be issued for the construction or installation of any new building or structure or addition to any existing building or structure, nor shall any new building or structure be constructed or installed in any Sls, Sun, Sff, Sex, Pfs, Pmw, Ps. Pd, Pdf or Ms area unless and until all of the following requirements have been fully satisfied:" SECTION 3: 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 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK 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 day of 1987, by the following vote: MAYOR