HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-07-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAAGENDA BILL NO. (� 4 Cl
DATE: April 7, 1982
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services
CITY OF SARATOGA
SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR CITY TRUCKS
Issue Summary
Initial:
Dept. Hd. M^
The 1981 -1982 Capital Improvement Budget included an allocation of $52,500 for purchase
of three trucks, including a one -ton dump truck for the Parks Division, and both a
six to eight yard dump truck and a one -half ton pick up truck for the Streets Division.
Staff submitted bid specifications to agencies in the area who could provide this type
of vehicle.
Only two bids were received by the deadline, from South Bay Ford Truck Sales and Swanson
Ford. South Bay Ford was the low bidder submitting a bid of $45,718.53 for the three
trucks, less trade -ins, including sales tax and alternates one and two. A bid summary
is attached for your review.
Recommendation
Award truck bid to South Bay Ford Truck Sales in the amount of $45,718.53.
Fiscal Impact
A total of $52,500 was budgeted in the 1981 -1982 Capital Improvement Budget for these
three vehicles. Awarding a bid of $45,718.53 will provide a savings of $6,781.47, a
portion of which will be used to support the cost of transferring the oil drum from the
old truck to the new six to eight yard dump truck.
Exhibits /Attachments
Bid Summary.
Council Action
4/7: Watson /Mallory rroved to award contract to South Bay Ford Truck Sales in the amount
of $45,718.53. Passed 5 -0.
BID SUMMARY - VEHICLES - MARCH 23, 1982
,.t
'ESTIMATE.
SOUTH BAY FORD
SWANSON FORD
I. COST OF NEW TRUCKS
$52,500
$47,150.00
$51,525.14
II. AMOUNT FOR TRADE -INS
(6,000.00)
(2,300.00)
III. NET COST
41,150.00
49,225.14
SALES TAX
3,064.75
3,349.13
IV. TOTAL
44,214.75
52,574.27
ALT. #1 - Tool Box
548.28
562.00
V. Including Tax
ALT. #2 - Hydraulic
958.50
1,139.00
Lift Gate - Inc. Tax
TOTAL
$52,500
$45,718.53
$54,275.27
,.t
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: April 7, 1982
f� �1• IV
CITY OF SIUZRIIOGA
SUBJECT: GF -337, Specific Plan Implementation Ordinances
Initial:
Dept. Hd. U
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Issue SL=ary: Planning Commission has held several public hearings on the implementing
ordinances for the Specific Plan (Measure "A ") area. As a result they
have been modified extensively from that submitted by the consultant. The Commission
recommends to the City Council approval of these ordinances..
A clear consensus could not be reached by the Commission re: 1. Should Section 3B.6(a)
(1) viii) be included, 2. Which alternative should be included for Section 3B.6(c), 3:,
Which alternative should be included for Section 3B.7(c) (2). Council must determine
which of these shall be included.
For consistency between NHR and HCRD the alternative determined for Section 3B.7(c) (2)
should be included in the HCRD Ordinance.
Ordinance should be adopted by May 2, 1982 so as to be effective by June 2, 1982.
Recommendation: Hold public hearing, determine which alternative shall be included,
and approve either as recommended by Commission or as modified,as a
result of public hearings.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Exhibits /Attachments:
1. 313:0 Staff memo to City Council
2 3/19,, 3/4,.'2/19 .Staff memo to Planning Commission (Exhibit C)
3. Resolution
4. Exhibit B (Proposed NHR Ordinance)
5. Blayney proposed NHR Ordinance Draft
6. Blayney recommended changes to Grading.Ordinance
7. Staff recommended changes to-Grading Ordinance
8. Blayney recommended changes to Subdivision Ordinance
9. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3/24/82 (Unapproved)
, Council Action:
4/7: Consensus to continue to 4/21.
4/21: JENSEN/NALLORY MOVED TO INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVING FURTHER READING, WITH ADDITION
OF "UNREASONABLE" IN SECTION 3B8A AND ADOPTION OF MEMID SECTION ON CLU&JtRING.
Passed 5 -0.
4/27: JENSEN /MALIORY MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NS 3.49 AS AMENDED. Passed 4 -0 (Watson
absent) .
AGENDA BILL NO. 247B
iiiji
Is I Ra I
"s; -T.
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL .
DATE: 4 -16 -82
COUNCIL MEETING: 4-21-82
SUBJECT: GF -337, Specific Plan Implementation Ordinances
At your study session of April 13, 1982, during your review of
the Specific Plan Ordinances, there were several areas that
require decisions at your next meeting prior to passage of the
ordinance. These are as follows:
1. The three items left undecided by the Planning Commission
(a) Section 3B.6(a) (1) (iii)
(b) Section 3B.6(c)
(c) Section 3B.7(c)(2)
2. Development Credits - Should they be included?
3. Clustering - Should it be included?
4. Private Roads - Should a policy encouraging private
roads be included here as well as in the Subdivision
Ordinance?
S. 'Mass Grading - Should it be allowed?
The Deputy City Attorney is providing wordage to insert under the
density paragraphs relative to further reduction in density due to
peculiarities of the site.
Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
REPORT
N �ITI 1111 1111111
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
-A /
DATE: 3/30/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 4/7/82
SUBJECT: GF -337, Specific Plan Implementation Ordinances
GF -333, HC -RD Density Revisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
After holding several public hearings and discussing the measures at
their interim study sessions, the Planning Commission is recommending
the attached documents to you for your consideration.
By State law, this recommendation shall be rendered "in the form of a
written recommendation to the legislative body ", including, "the reasons
for the recommendation, the relationship of the proposed ordinance or
amendment to applicable general and specific plans" (Section 65855).
Since the proposed ordinance includes alternative sections, the Planning
Commissioners may submit several written recommendations along with their
resolution for your review.
Also attached are the original drafts submitted by Blayney- Dyett, the
consultant hired by the City to do the Specific Plan Implementation Ordi-
nances. John Blayney will be present at your meeting of April 7, 1982
to present these draft ordinances and answer any questions you may have.
The Planning Commission considered the revisions of the slope- density
provisions in the HC -RD Zoning District concurrently with the Specific
Plan Ordinances and is also (per the NHR district) recommending these
same density standards be applied to the HC -RD zoning district.
Supplementary and background memorandums to the Planning Commission on
these ordinances are attached for your review.
A A_�,
R Shook
Director of Community Development
RSS:dc
EXHIBIT C
o�
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 3/19/82
Commission Meeting: 3/24/82
SUBJECT GF -337, Specific Plan Implementation Ordinances
GF -333, Revision to Slope Density Provisions in the HC -RD
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
These two items are being considered concurrently since the slope
density provisions are expected to be- :.similar.
GF -337, Specific Plan Ordinances`
At your recent study session you reviewed the proposed ordinance
and suggested changes which have.been included in the attached
draft ordinance. These changes are located in:
1. Section 3B.4(;g), Neighborhood Recreational Facilities
2. Section 3B.4 (!a) and (b) Community Facilities
3. Section 3B.3(e) & 3B.4(c), Reeping of Horses
4. Section 3B.6(ii), Quarries
5. Section 3B.7(c)(2) Location of :Building Sites
6. Section 3B.7(c)(3) Location of Structures with Respect
to Ridge
7. Section 3B.8(c) Flat Visible Pads
The sections of the ordinance that you agreed would need a vote
have been so marked in the draft.
If the Commission wishes to recommend the proposed ordinance to:
the City Council they will need to make the following findings:
1. That the change is required to achieve the objectives
of the Zoning ordinance prescribed in Section 1.1
(attached).
2. That the proposed amendment will be in conformance with
the 1974 General Plan and the Northwestern Hillside
Specific Plan.
3. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the
EIR for the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan.
With respect to California Environmental Quality Act requirements,
an EIR was certified for both phases of the project, the Specific
GF -337 & GF -333
March 19, 1982
Page 2
Plan and its implementation measures, the Ordinance to be enacted
pursuant to the Specific Plan.
Also attached to the draft ordinance. are the issues and proposed
changes for the Grading Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance on
which recommendation can be sent separately to the Council.
Change to these Ordinances do not require public hearing. How-
ever modifications to the Design Review Ordinance, suggested in
your hearings and the original proposed draft, will need to have
public hearings.
Recommended Action:
Take votes on the separate issues in question and make the appro-
priate findings tailored to specific ordinances and recommend
adoption of the ordinance to the City Council.
GF-333, Revision to Slope Density Provisions in the HC -RD
The proposed revision differs from the proposed NHR draft
ordinance in that no deductions for quarries or areas classified
as Ps are presently proposed.
Again, if the Commission wishes to recommend the ordinance to the
City Council they need to make the following findings:
1. That the change is required to achieve the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance prescribed in Section 1.1.
2. That the proposed amendment will be in conformance with
the 1974 General Plan.
3. That the proposed rezoning will not have a significant
impact on the environment (Negative Declaration determined
to be an appropriate document).
Recommended Action:
Make the appropriate findings and recommend adoption of the
ordinance to the City Council.
Kathy )ferdLfs
AssociVte Planner
KK /mgr
c
{( ARTICLE 2 A A(MIC TURAL DISTRICT
Section 2.1 Purposes. In addition to the objectives
prescribed in Section 1.1, the A agricultural district is
included in the zoning ordinance to achieve the following
purposes:
(a) To reserve for exclusive agricultural use appro-
priately located areas which are suitable for raising crops.
(b) To ensure adequate light, air and privacy for each
dwelling unit.
(c) To prevent premature development of certain lands
which eventually will be appropriate for urban uses until
the installation of streets, utilities and community facil-
ities makes orderly development possible.
Section 2.2 Permitted uses. (a) Raising of field
crops, fruit and nut trees, vegetables, horticultural spe-
cialties and timber.
(b) Processinq of products produced on the premises.
(d) Home occupations, conducted in accord with the
regulations prescribed in Article 12.
(e) Incidental and accessory structures and uses lo-
cated on the same site'with a permitted use including barns,
stables, coops and other farm outbuildings; private garages
and carports; one guest house or accessory'living quarters
without a kitchen for each residence on the site; store-
houses, garden structures, greenhouses, recreation rooms
and hobby shops.
(f) Private stables for the keeping of, or the keeping
of, one horse for each forty thousand square feet of site
area, subject to the regulations and license provisions of
Division 5, Article 1 of Chapter 8 of the Saratoga City Code,
provided that no stable or corral shall be located closer
than fifty feet to any property line of the site or to any
dwelling or swimming pool on the site, nor closer than one
hundred feet to any dwelling not on the site, except that a
corral may be located no less than thirty feet from the
right -of -way of any side or rear street bordering on the
site; and provided further, in Equestrian Zone (1) only,
that one additional horse may be permitted on the first
forty thousand square feet of site area, and an additional
horse for each additional forty thousand square feet of
site area, upon the obtaining of a horse license therefore
in accord with the above - referred to provisions of the
Saratoga City Code.
(g) Swimming pools used solely by persons resident
on the site and their guests, provided that no swimming
pool or accessory mechanical equipment shall be located in
19
Section 2.11 Off - street parking and loading facilities.
Off - street parking facilities and off - street loading facili-
ties shall be provided on the site of each use as prescribed
in Article 11.
Section 2.12 Design review. Conditional uses shall
be subject to design review as prescribed in Article 13.
Section 2.13 General provisions and exceptions. All
uses shall be subject to the general provisions and excep-
tions prescribed.-in Article 14.
ARTICLE 3 R -1 ONE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Section 3.1 Purposes. In addition to the objectives
prescribed in Section 1.1, the R -1 one - family residential
districts are included in the zoning ordinance to achieve
the following purposes:
(a) To reserve appropriately located areas for family
living at a reasonable range of population densities con-
sistent with sound standards of public health and safety.
(b) To ensure adequate light, air, privacy -and open
space for each dwelling. ?
(c) To protect one - family dwellings from the conges-
tion and lack of privacy associated with multi - family dwell-
ings.
(d) To provide space for community facilities needed
to complement residential areas and for institutions which
require a residential environment.
(e) To minimize traffic congestion and to avoid the
overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of
buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around
them.
(f) To provide necessary space for off- street parking
of automobiles and, where appropriate, for off - street load-
ing of trucks.
(g) To protect residential properties from the hazards,
noise and congestion created by commercial and industrial
traffic.
(h) To protect residential properties from noise, il-
lumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, dirt, smoke, vibra-
tion, heat, glare and other objectionable influences.
(i) To protect residential properties from fire, ex-
plosion, noxious fumes and other hazards.
Section 3.2 Permitted uses. a O -
aising of fruit and nut trees, vegetables and
horticultural specialties not including nurseries, green-
houses, or storage of landscaping equipment, products or
supplies for commercial uses.
22
I
UMI 05
C �2)&M&UQXR&
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 3/4/82
Commission Meeting: 3/10/82
SUBJECT' GF -337, Specific Plan Implementation Ordinances
GF -333, Revision to Slope Density Formula in the HC -RD District.
These two items are being considered concurrently since their provisions are
expected to be similar.
The attached ordinance needs to be additionally revised to reflect the
concerns, (but not consensus determinations) discussed at.your recent
Committee -of- the - Whole:
1) addition of agricultural uses as a permitted use
2) addition of "quarries" to deductions from gross land area and
deletion of phrase, "and those areas having a slope exceeding
40V.
3) rewriting of proposals a) to deduct additional geological areas
from the gross land area b) to minimize grading in Ps areas
and c) to revise process to change geologic maps. (requires review
by City Geologist and City Attorney)
4) addition of Grandfather clause in conformance with Specific Plan
5) addition of notice of requirement for residents to participate in
storm drain, street improvement, and other special assessment
districts
6) Addition of limitation to potential Chang cs to the Specific Plan to
occur a maximum of once a year, if approved by City Attorney
7) Addition, after review of proposal to add Section 36.23 entitled
Offers of Dedication and Standards for Site Maintenance (policy
to not accept non - connecting streets as public right -of -way and
to include provisions for maintenance of streets, landscaping slopes
and common area by residents in CC «R's)
Report to Planning Commission March 4, 1982
GF -337, GF -333 - Page Two
8) Inclusion of Reference to Resolutions 941 establishing a $1,000 /lot
C
fee for flood and erosion control and a $477/lot fee for fire
protection
9) Revision to grading section to state "prior specific approval"
regarding grading on over 300/0' slopes
10) Revision to proposed changes to Grading Ordinance, Section 3 -40.2,
replacing "or" with "and ". (A current grading ordinance is included
in the packet to assist with your review of the proposed.changes).
Staff will be working on these revisions and preparing a cohesive draft
ordinance with the City Attorney and City Geologist during the week of
March 8 -12th. This item is again scheduled for your Committee -of- the -Whole
Meeting on Tuesday, March 16, 1982.
Approved: 4
Kathy Kerdus, Associate Planner
KK:1 t
P. C. Agenda: March 10, 1982
ED
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 2/19/82
Commission Meeting: 2/24/82
SUBJECT= GF -337 Specific Plan Implementation Ordinances
GF -333 Revision to Slope Density Formula in the
----------------- - - - -HC-RD-District --------------------------------------
These two items are being considered concurrently since their
provisions are expected to be similar.
The attached ordinance reflects consensus deletions and additions
7N at the recent Com_*nittee -of- the- rghole meeting. On February 2,
1982 the Commission deleted references to transfer development
C rights and mass grading from the
proposed NHR Ordinance. Then
on February 16, 1982 the Commission agreed 1) to place Section
3.23 Development Criteria of the HCRD Ordinance into the
proposed NHR District; 2) to consider two alternatives to the
density provisions (Section 3A.24 rewritten with the Measure A
slope density formula or the proposal of Commissioner Crowther
per his letter dated February 10, 1982); 3) to remove references
to "cluster" and "attached "; 4) to replace 3B.14 with Section
3.26(b) of the HCRD Ordinance using the setbacks of the
R -1- 40,000 zoning district; 5) to replace "designated as
stable" in 3B.10, first paragraph, with "categorized as "; 6)
to encourage common recreational facilities (pools anj tennis
courts); and 7) to provide for 1 acre minimum lot sizes.
Again, the moratorium for the Specific Plan Area will end on
June 2, 1982 so that the Council will need your recommendations
by the end of March if this deadline is to be met. This item
has been placed on your next Committee -otc- the- Whole Agenda and
the consultant, John Blaney will be there to answer any
questions. He has been asked to make a presentation on the
design review portions of the proposed draft ordinance.
The issues and recommendations on the Grading and Subdivision
Ordinances are also included in this packet for your review
and direction.
Approved:
Kathy Kordus', associate Planner
n, /clh
vw
t
RESOLUTION NO. GF -337 -1
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE
NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ADDING ARTICLE 3B
ESTABLISHING A NORTHWESTERN HILLSIDES
RESIDENTIAL (NHR) ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on June 2, 1981, the City of Saratoga adopted
the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan and, in conjunction there-
with, an Environmental Assessment was prepared which resulted in
the preparation and approval of an Environmental Impact Report;
and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan requires adoption of certain
action programs and mitigation measures, including appropriate
ordinances to implement the purpose and intent of the Specific
Plan and the initiative passed by the voters on April 10, 1980,
commonly known as Measure "A "; and
WHEREAS, a proposed amendment to Ordinance NS -3, the
Zoning Ordinance, has been presented to the Planning Commission
for consideration, such amendment adding a new Article 3B
establishing the Northwestern Hillsides Residential (NHR) Zoning
District constituting the area covered by the Northwestern
Hillside Specific Plan, as shown on the map attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings on the proposed
amendment were conducted by the Planning Commission oTi January 27,
1982, February 10, 1982, February 24, 1982, March 10, 1982 and
March 24, 1982, at which time any person interested in the pro-
posed amendment was given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration of the proposed
amendment, a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B"
and incorporated herein by this reference, the Planning Commission
w
.,
�;!?..:;rksr •Ft��, >`��. °.-vii- i; %�;�r
set forth in the Specific Plan and the objectives prescribed in
Section 1 -1 of Ordinance NS -3; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission is of the opinion that
the proposed amendment should be recommended to the City Council
for adoption;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission
of the City of Saratoga that the proposed amendment to the zoning
map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and the proposed amendment to
Ordinance NS -3, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" be and hereby are
affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of
Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of said City,
and that the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of
which report is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated
herein by this reference, be and hereby is approved, and
RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the Secretary of the Planning
ewi.�r
Commission is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Resolution
with the attached proposed amendments and Report of Findings, and
a summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council
for further action in accordance with State law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of
March, 1982, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Schaefer, Laden, Zambetti, Bolger and
Crowther
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners King and Monia
ATTEST:
Secretary
-2-
Chairman of the Planning Commission
s r
' -. .. a4 ...'•tii Ate ^'� � _ � : • -.....
I
u �
rt
1r� A
l
0
A
HC- RD
A
A
/ + HC -RD
NHR zc,N � N
NORTH
IIllll ill,
HC-RD
WF ST[. RN REGION HA► OtG.7p .p
A
0
HC -RD
A
C- RD
HC-R
R-
MC- II D
A
A
R -I
HC-RD
15,00
A
0
HC -RD
A
C- RD
HC-R
R-
MC- II D
A
A
Blayney - Dyett
Urban and Regional Planners
John A. Blayney, AICP
Michael V. Dyett, AICP
MEMORANDUM
To: Saratoga City Council
From: John Blayne
Date: March 26, 198
RE: Corrected Drafts of Northwestern Hillsides Regulations
The accompanying drafts are corrected versions of the proposals we prepared in
December 1981. The corrections were made following a meeting with the Planning
Commission on March 2, 1982, but do not include changes made by the Commission
or staff. We understand that a separate draft of the Commission's proposals is being
distributed.
sp
Enclosures
177 Post Street, Suite 750
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 421 -7735
Section
3B.1
3B.2
3B.3
3B.4
3B.5
3B.6
3B.7
3B.8
3B.9
3B.10
3B.11
3B.12
3B.13
3B.14
3B.15
3B.16
3B.17
3B.18
3B.19
3B.20
3B.21
3B.22
D R A F T December 17, 1981
Revised March 3, 1982 S
NORTHWESTERN HILLSIDES RESIDENTIAL (NHR) DISTRICT
Title
Purposes
Definitions
Permitted uses
Conditional uses
Fences, walls, and hedges
Density
Transfer of development credits
Site area
Clustering requirement determination
Geology and soils
Grading; slopes
Gross floor area
Height of structures
Yards
Visible bulk
Signs
Off - street parking and loading facilities
Design review
Guidelines for design review
General provisions and exceptions
Regulation of storage of automobiles, boats, etc.
Variance powers
i
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO.
An ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending Ordinance NS -3, the Zoning
Ordinance, by establishing a Northwestern Hillsides Residential (NHR) District by
adding article 3B thereto.
The city council of the City of Saratoga does ordain as follows:
Article 3B is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3 of the City of Saratoga to read as
follows:
Article 3B. NHR - Northwestern Hillsides Residential District.
Sec. 313.1. Purposes.
In addition to the objectives prescribed in sec. 1.1, the NHR Northwestern
Hillsides Residential District is included in the zoning ordinance to achieve the
following purposes:
a. To maintain to the maximum degree feasible the natural environment and
existing-rural character of the area to which the district is applied.
b. To encourage development of gently sloping and densely wooded sites in
preference to steep, visually exposed sites.
c. To implement the open space element of the Saratoga General Plan by
ensuring maximum preservation of open space, including major ridgelines, densely
wooded areas, and riparian vegetation.
d. To prevent development that would be subject to significant uncorrectable
geotechnical or flood hazards.
1
0
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
DRAFT
Sec. 313.2 Definitions
For the purposes of this article, certain words and terms used herein, in addition
to those defined in sec. 1.5, Definitions, are construed and defined as follows:
a. Clustered dwelling units. Units grouped on a portion of a site and attached
or closely spaced.
b. Development credit. A whole number or a fraction of .50.or greater
obtained by application of the slope- density formula in sec. 313.6, Density, to a site in
the NHR district. One dwelling unit shall be permitted on a site for each credit held
by the site.
c. Donor site. A site from.which development credits are transferred.
d. Large -scale recontouring. Substantial alteration of the natural landform on
more than one building site carried out at one time and establishing new grades that
shall be deemed natural grades for the purpose of measuring heights regulated by this
article.
e. Receiver site. A site to which development credits are transferred.
f. Ridge, major. A line connecting the points of highest elevation at the top of
and parallel to the long axis of the lines of hills designated as major ridges on the
map "Major Ridges: NHR District" adopted as a part of this article.
g. Ridge, minor. A ridge other than a major ridge that is 50 feet or more above
two points 150 feet distant from the top of the ridge on either side.
h. Transfer of development credits. The process prescribed in sec. 313.7
whereby development credits may be extinguished on one site and added to another
site within the NHR district.
2
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
DRAFT
1 i. Visible. Capable of being seen by a person standing at any one point on any
2 existing road or road on a recorded subdivision map that provides access to three or
3 more dwellings or building sites. The visible area of a structure shall not include
4 portions that will be shielded from view by landscaping other than vines within a
5 five -year period as determined by the city planning commission at the time of design
6 review.
7
Sec. 3B.3 Permitted uses.
a. Detached or attached one - family dwellings.
b. All uses permitted by sec. 3.2 b, c, d, and g, R -1 One - family residential
districts, permitted uses.
c. Private stables for the keeping of one horse on a site of one acre and two
horses on a site of two acres or more, subject to regulations and license provisions of
division 5, article 1, of chapter 1 of the Saratoga City Code, provided that no stable
or corral shall be located closer than 50 feet to any property line or to any dwelling
or swimming pool on the site, nor closer than 100 feet to any dwelling not on the site
or any stream; and provided further that the average natural grade of a corral shall
not exceed 15 percent slope and that any cut or fill slopes shall comply with
sec. 3B.11, Grading; slopes.
d. Swimming pools used solely by persons resident on the site and their guests,
provided that no swimming pool or accessory mechanical equipment shall be located
in a required front yard or in a required side yard or less than 6 feet from a property
line; and provided further than any cut slopes or fill slopes shall comply with
sec. 3B.11, Grading; slopes.
3
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
DRAFT
Sec. 3B.4. Conditional uses.
The following conditional uses shall be permitted upon the granting of a use
permit, in accord with the provisions of article 16.
a. All uses conditionally permitted by sec. 3.3 a, b, h, and i, R -1 One - family
residential districts, conditional uses.
b. Plant nurseries, excluding sales of items other than plant materials.
c. Wineries, excluding tasting rooms or retail sales.
d. Community or commercial stables.
e. Recreational courts used soley by persons resident on the site and their
guests, where such court: (a) does not exceed 7,200 square feet in area; (b) has no
lighting for night use; (c) does not have visible opaque screening exceeding 60 lineal
feet; (d) has no fencing exceeding 10 feet in height; and (e) has cut and fill slopes, if
any, in compliance with sec. 3B.11, Grading; slopes.
f. Community (not for profit) recreational facilities, including swimming pools
and recreational courts, serving mainly residents in the immediate vicinity.
Sec. 3B.5. Fences, walls, and hedges.
Fences, walls, and hedges, except fencing for recreational courts, shall not
exceed 6 feet in height, provided that no fence, wall, or hedge in a required front
yard or within 50 feet of curb lines at a street intersection shall exceed 3 feet in
height above the established grade of any adjoining street where the street grade is
higher than the natural grade at the fence line. Where natural grade at the property
line is equal to or higher than street grade, no fence, wall, or hedge in a required
front yard shall exceed 3 feet in height.
4
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
DRAFT
Chain link fencing shall be permitted only for recreational courts. Opaque
fences and walls, except retaining walls, shall not have a visible length exceeding
60 feet.
See. 313.6. Densitv.
The number of dwelling units permitted on a site shall equal the number of
development credits. A fractional development credit of .50 or greater shall permit
a dwelling unit or may be transferred, while a fractional credit of less than .50 shall
not permit a dwelling unit and shall not be transferable.
The number of credits accruing to a site shall be determined as follows:
a. Slope shall be calculated by the formula:
S = I L (.00229) where
A
S = Average ground slope in percent, calculated for the entire site parcel and
rounded to the nearest whole number.
I = Contour interval in feet. The contour interval shall be 10 feet or less.
L = The combined length of all contour lines within the site.
A = Gross area of the site in acres prior to further subdivision.
.00229 = The factor for conversion of square feet to acres x 100 %.
b. Following calculation of the average slope of a site, the potentially devel-
opable area shall be determined by deducting the area of those portions designated
Md or Mrf on the Ground Movement Potential Maps of the Upper Calabazas Creek
Watershed maintained by the city. Any additional area that is unsuitable for devel-
opment because of geotechnial hazards, as determined by the city, also shall be
6i
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
DRAFT
deducted. An applicant may present evidence supporting revision of the Ground
Movement Potential Maps.
c. The number of development credits shall be calculated by a straight line
formula applied to the potentially developable area that requires two acres per
credit at 0 percent slope and 10 acres per credit at 50 percent or greater slope as
f ollows:
Q
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
6
Bla%-ne%,- D%-ett Urban and Regional Planners
DRAFT
SLOPE - DENSITY TABLE
Average Slope
Development
Gross Acres
in Whole Numbers
Credits Per
Per Develop -
(From Slope Formula)
Gross Acre
ment Creditl
0
.500
2.00
1
.492
2.03
2
.484
2.07
3
.476
2.10
4
.468
2.14
5
.460
2.17
6
.452
2.21
7
.444
2.25
8
.436
2.29
9
.428
2.34
10
.420
2.38
11
.412
2.43
12
.404
2.48
13
.396
2.53
14
.388
2.58
15
.380
2.63
16
.372
2.69
17
.364
2.75
18
.356
2.80
19
.348
2.87
20
.340
2.94
21
.332
3.01
22
.324
3.09
23
.316
3.16
24
.308
3.25
25
.300
3.33
26
.292
3.42
1All site measurements are prior to further subdivision.
7
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
DRAFT
Average Slope
Development
Gross Acres
in Whole Numbers
Credits Per
Per Develop -
(From Slope Formula)
Gross Acre
ment Creditl
27
.284
3.52
" 28
.276
3.62
29
.268
3.73
30
.260
3.85
31
.252
3.97
32
.244
4.10
33
.236
4.24
34
.228
4.39
35
.220
4.55
36
.212
4.72
37
.204
4.90
38
.196
5.10
39
.188
5.32
40
.180
5.56
41
.172
5.81
42
.164
6.10
43
.156
6.41
44
.148
6.76
45
.140
7.14
46
.132
7.58
47
.124
8.06
48
.116
8.62
49
.108
9.26
50 and up
.100
10.00
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
DRAFT
Sec. 3B.7. Transfer of development credits.
One or more development credits or fractional credit of .50 or more may be
transferred to another site in the NHR distict, provided that the total credits
accruing to the receiver parcel shall not be increased by more than 20 percent as a
result of transfers, and provided further that provisions for maintenance of open
space shall be approved by the city planning commission.
Notice of development credit transfer shall be recorded by the fee owners of
each donor and receiver site and the city in the office of the recorder of Santa Clara
County. Such notice shall recite the number of credits originally assigned to each
donor site and receiver site, the number of credits transferred, and the number of
credits remaining on each site, and shall state that the number of dwelling units to
be built on each site shall not exceed the number of development credits.
Remaining credits on a donor site may be used or subsequently transferred as
provided in this section. The fee title to a donor site from which all credits have
been transferred shall be merged with a contiguous site holding development credits
or may be transferred to a public or privater owner which,.. in the. judgment. of the
city planning commission, is capable of maintaining it in perpetuity as open space.
Sec. 3B.8 Site area.
The number of dwelling units on a site shall not exceed the number of develop-
ment credits as determined by secs. 3B.6 and 3B.7.
Subsequent division or subdivision shall not affect the total number of develop-
ment credits, but no subdivision map shall be approved unless it shall indicate on
each site created the number of development credits assigned to that site. A site
from which all development credits have been transferred shall apear on the sub-
division map with a notation that it is not a building site and stating the provisions
made for maintenance as open space.
9
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
DRAFT
1 The site of one or more attached or detached single - family dwellings shall con -
2 tain a designated building area of 2,000 square feet or more, having no dimension less
3 than 30 feet, exclusive of front, side, and rear yards as prescribed in sec. 3B.14. A
4 corridor providing access from a street to a building site shall have a minimum width
- 5 of 30 feet.
6
7 Sec. 313.9 Clustering requirement determination.
8
9 Dwelling units may be clustered or attached, subject to the yard requirements in
10 sec. 313.14 and the visible bulk limitation in sec. 313.15.
11
12 Prior to preparation of subdivision or development plans for a parcel site five or
13 more development credits, an applicant shall request a determination by the city
14 council as to whether clustered dwelling units shall be required. The council shall
15 require clustering if it finds that achievement of the purposes of this article will be
16 significantly furthered while allowing reasonable use and enjoyment of the site. A
17 finding requiring clustering shall state the reasons and shall indicate the portions of
18 the site to remain in open space.
19
20 Sec. 313.10. Geology and soils.
21
22 In locating building sites, preference shall be given to areas designated as stable
23 (Sbr, Sls, Syn, Sex) on the Ground Movement Potential Maps maintained by the city.
24 Sites on potentially moving slopes (Pmw, Ps, Pd) and moving slopes (Ms) shall not be
25 approved unless geologic and soil engineering analyses provided by the applicant
26 demonstrate long -term stability to the satisfaction of the city. The city may require
27 slope stability analyses showing a building and its immediately surrounding area
28 having a factor of safety against failure of at least 1.5 in the event of an 8.3
29 magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault.
30
31 The city also may require the following studies:
32
33 a. All sites: Soil and foundation engineering investigation by a registered civil
34 engineer addressing site preparation (clearing and stripping), grading requirements
35 (cut and fill design and construction), pavement design, drainage (surface and sub-
10
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
DRAFT
1 surface), utility trench backfilling, design parameters for foundations and retaining
2 walls, soil stability, technical plan review, and field inspection procedures.
3
4 b. All terrain on or within 100 feet of a significant recognized landslide deposit:
5 In addition to the soil and foundation engineering investigation, an investigation by a
6 certified engineering geologist including a detailed evaluation of the natural slope
7 conditions and recommendations for the treatment or correction of any unstable
8 slopes. Slope stability studies may require extensive subsurface work.
9
10 c. Areas within 100 feet of a recognized trace of the potentially active
11 Berrocal Fault: In addition to the soil and foundation engineering, an investigation
12 by a certified engineering geologist addressing the seismic hazards related to the
13 nearby trace, with particular emphasis on evaluation of possible surface faulting.
14 Investigative techniques will require subsurface trenching and possibly geophysical
15 traverses unless clear evidence is presented to show that no fault crosses the site of
16 a habitable structure.
17
18 The results of the investigations shall be reviewed and approved by the city and
19 shall become conditions of approval of a development proposal. The soil engineer
20 and the engineering geologist may be required to submit reports during grading,
21 during construction, and following completion of the project. The final report shall
22 affirm that the grading and foundation excavations were done under the supervision
23 of a soil engineer and /or engineering geologist, shall describe the as -built condition
24 of the project, and shall contain such other information as may be required by the
25 city.
26
27 Sec. 313.11 Grading; slopes.
28
29 a. Grading. Where large -scale recontouring is inconsistent with the purposes of
30 this article, grading shall be limited to the minimum necessary for use of a site, and
31 portions of a site exceeding 30 percent slope shall not be graded except as may be
32 necessary for approved roads and turnarounds or where slopes or retaining walls
33 meeting the standards in sec. 313.11c of this section are to be constructed.
34
35
11
Blaney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
DRAFT
1 Large -scale recontouring shall be permitted only if approved by the city council
2 after finding that it will result in a less hazardous or more natural- appearing
3 environment than would result without large -scale recontouring. The council shall
4 consider an application for large -scale recontouring after receiving a recommenda-
5 tion from the planning commission. Large -scale recontouring that requires clearing
6 densely wooded areas shall not be permitted if alternative development consistent
7 with the purposes of this article is feasible.
8
9 The final rough grade established on completion of large -scale recontouring shall
10 be deemed the natural grade for application of the slope, fence, wall, hedge, and
11 structure height provisions of this article.
12
13 b. Natural slope under structure. The average natural ground slope of the area
14 within the shortest rectalinear perimeter, including all supports for a structure, shall
15 not exceed 40 percent as calculated by the formula in sec. 313.6a, Density.
16
17 c. Cut and fill slopes. Visible cut or fill slopes shall not exceed 3 horizontal to
18 1 vertical, provided slopes as steep as 2 horizontal to 1 vertical may be approved by
19 the city upon finding that the appearance or stability of the completed project
20 resulting from the change will be superior to the result that would be obtained by
21 adhering to the 3:1 standard.
RX
23 d. Wall heights and spacing. The maximum height of a retaining wall shall be
24 5 feet and the maximum height of planted cribbing shall be 8 feet. Parallel vertical
25 walls or cribbing shall be separated by a horizontal distance of not less than 5 feet.
26 The maximum visible combined height of walls adjoining a structure, recreational
27 court, terrace, swimming pool, or corral shall not exceed 10 feet within a horizontal
28 separation of 30 feet perpendicular to the mean direction of the walls.
29
30 Sec. 313.12. Gross floor area.
31
32 Maximum gross floor area of all structures on a site shall not exceed 6,000
33 square feet per development credit. Floor area in excess of 6,000 square feet shall
34 be approved only on a site holding 1.50 or more development credits. Floor area
35 shall be measured to the exterior face of studs or other structural members in
12
Blavney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
DRAFT
exterior walls or to a point 4 feet from the face of roof eaves at the floor level
nearest a roof, whichever results in the larger total area. Sec. 1.5g, Floor area,
gross, shall not apply to this article.
Sec. 313.13. Height of structures.
No structure shall exceed the following heights as measured from a warped
plane parallel and conforming to the natural grade:
a. No structure shall extend above a major ridge that does not have dense tree
cover.
b. No main structure shall extend more than 12 feet above a minor ridge that
does not have dense tree cover.
c. A main structure not limited by a or b above shall not exceed 30 feet.
d. An accessory structure shall not exceed 12 feet.
Sec. 313.14. Yards.
The minimum yards for a main structure shall be:
front yard: 25 feet
side yard: 25 feet, provided that the side yard on a legal site created prior
to the effective date of this article, the minimum side yard shall not be
required to exceed 10 percent of the. site. width.
rear yard: 25 feet
Single - family dwelling units may be attached, provided that the minimum space
between main structures shall be 30 feet, and the minimum interior side yard of a
clustered single - family dwelling unit adjoining the site of a clustered single - family
dwelling unit shall be 15 feet.
The minimum yards for an accessory structure shall be the same as for a main
structure, except that a minimum rear yard of 6 feet on a site other than a reversed
corner lot may be permitted as a conditional use.
13
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
DRAFT
Sec. 3B.15. Visible bulk.
a. The portion of a structure that is visible; as defined in sec. 3B.2, Definition,
shall not exceed 2,000 square feet in area when projected horizontally to a vertical
plane perpendicular to the viewer's line of sight. For purposes of this section, one or
more separated structures on the same site shall be considered to be part of the
same structure if they are visible as one structure.
b. No visible portion of a structure other than a retaining wall shall exceed
40 feet in length or 16 feet in height measured parallel to the surface of the
structure unless it shall have an offset of 4 feet or more. The horizontal dimension
of an offset to limit length and the vertical dimension of an offset to limit height
shall be 6 feet or more. Porches and balconies that do not support a roof shall not be
deemed offsets.
c. A visible roof plane shall not exceed a parallelogram 600 square feet in area
measured parallel to the roof plane without a change in pitch of 3 in 12 or greater or
a vertical offset of 2 feet or more. The area of an offset roof plane or change of
pitch satisfying the requirement for change in roof plane shall not be less than 150
square feet.
Sec. 3B.16. Signs.
No sign, outdoor advertising structure, or display of any character shall be
permitted except as prescribed in article 10.
Sec. 3B.17. Off - street parking and loading facilities.
Off - street parking facilities and off - street loading facilities shall be provided on
the site of each use as prescribed in article 11.
14
Blavne}? -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
DRAFT
Sec'. 3B.18. Design review.
All permitted uses, conditional uses, and accessory structures or additions
exceeding 400 square feet gross floor area or 12 feet in height shall be subject to
design review as prescribed in secs. 13.1 and 13.3 through 13.6. Ordinance NS -3.47,
Design Review, shall not apply in the NHR district.
a. Application requirements. Application for site and design review shall be
made to the Director of Community Development and shall be accompanied by the
application fee precribed in The application shall include:
1. A site plan showing the location and dimension of property lines, easements,
structures, and yards; the location of all trees over 12 inches in diameter 24 inches
above natural grade; areas of riparian vegetation; and the boundaries of densely
wooded areas. The topographic contour interval shall not be greater than 10 feet.
The site plan shall show each structure, the locations from which it is visible,
and the dimensions of the visible portion as prescribed in sec. 313.2, Definitions.
The site plan shall show all geologic information from the city's Ground
Movement Potential Maps and shall show any pertinent information resulting from
the studies required by sec. 313.10, Geology and soils.
2. A vicinity map at 1 inch = 100 feet.
3. Floor plans in sufficient detail to allow determination of gross floor area,
uses of rooms, and location of windows in each room; calculation of gross floor area.
4. Elevations of proposed structures showing windows and roof lines and with
materials and colors designated. The natural grade and the location of a warped
plane indicating the applicable height limit shall be shown.
15
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
DRAFT
1 Sec. 313.19. Guidelines for design review.
2
3 In addition to the purposes stated in sec. 13.1 and sec. 313.1, the city planning
4 commission in carrying out its design review duties shall be guided by the following
5 standards, which are not subject to absolute numerical specification:
6
7 a. Avoidance of open slopes. Structures shall occupy the least visible portion of
8 a site consistent with reasonable enjoyment of sun and views. Structures not located
9 in or adjoining densely wooded areas that exist on a site shall be approved only on a
10 finding that such requirement would conflict with other purposes of this article.
11
12 b. Vegetation removal. Trade -offs between minimizing grading and minimizing
13 vegetation removal shall be determined with consideration for minimizing geologic
14 hazards, erosion, and visible cut and fill slopes, and shall take account of the variety
15 and quality of existing vegetation and the potential for substantial replacement
16 within 2 to 5 years.
17
18 c. Landscaping. Visible planting shall be harmonious with the character of
19 existing vegetation that is visible from the same locations.- Where proposed land -
20 scaping is required to reduce the visible area of a structure, the applicant may be
21 required to post a cash or surety bond to guarantee installation, maintenance, and
22 any replacement necessary.
23
24 d. Views and privacy. A structure shall not block views from or infringe upon
25 the privacy of a dwelling if these impacts can be avoided without substantial
26 additional cost or loss of use and enjoyment of property. Decisons shall consider
27 alternative opportunities for securing views and maintaining privacy on the site of an
28 existing dwelling as well as on the site of a proposed dwelling.
29
30 e. Relationships among structures. Designation of building sites and design of
31 structures shall avoid a regimented look which can result from uniform heights, floor
32 elevations, spacing, or relationship to streets.
33
34
'35
16
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
DRAFT
1 f. Materials and colors. Visible materials and colors shall not be of such high
2 reflectance as to prevent a structure from blending harmoniously with its surround -
3 ings. If more than 10 percent of a visible facade or roof other than standard
4 reflectance glass exceeds a Munsell value of 8.5 or Munsell chroma strength of 8.0,
5 approval shall require a specific finding that the materials or colors will be consis-
6 tent with the purposes of this article. Visible paving shall not exceed a Munsell value
7 of 8.5 or Munsell chroma strength of 8.0. The city shall maintain color samples that
8 illustrate the allowable maximum value and chroma.
9
10 Sec. 313.20. General provisions and exceptions.
11
12 All uses shall be subject to the general provisions and exceptions prescribed in
13 article 14, except that sec. 14.8, Height limitations - measurement, shall not apply.
14
15 Sec. 313.21. Regulation of storage of automobiles, boats, etc.
16
17 Secs. 3.14 and 3.14 -1 shall apply.
18
19 Sec. 313.22. Variance powers.
20
21 In addition to the variance powers prescribed in Sec. 17.2, the city planning
22 commission may grant variances to the regulations prescribing maximum slope per -
23 centages or ratios and slope and wall heights prescribed in sec. 313.11, gross floor
24 area prescribed in sec. 313.12, and visible bulk prescribed in sec. 313.15.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
17
Blayncy- Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
150'
'_ 50'
150'
'_ 50'
SECTION SHOWING MINIMUM DIMENSIONS DEFINING MINOR RIDGE
ROAD PROVIDING ACCESS
TO 3 OR MORE DWELLINGS
LOCATION OF VIEWER
w
0
y
,moo
t�
4�
I
I 04- tyf
I �UIIdf� th x 9 �
°Ps � `e L•
1 IS, - Bye ek'I
Ulk ght
Offset D
Offset Width
.A
VISIBILITY DETERMINANTS - PLAN
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
I o
�
Iy
VISIBILITY DETERMINANTS - PLAN
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
Lon[
L = Foreshortened Length as Seen from Viewpoint
H = Average Height of Elevation
Li L2
LiH1 + L 2 H 2 = Visible Bulk
Viewpoint
VISIBLE BULK: METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Blavney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
z
lf7
10' MAX.
COMBINED HEIGHT
a
a
z
O
H
z
0
M
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
0
0
z
A
w
w
U
W
a
a
A
w
z
O
U
O
w
0
z
U
a
A
z
H
x
c�
w
x
a
a
U
ca
M
U
N
to
Name/Street
Lon nusiue►icc
Old Oak Way
Mayo Residence
Montewood Drive
d
,; Hidalgo Residence
Kittridge Road
COMPARISON OF FIVE SARATOGA HOUSE
DESIGNS WITH STANDARDS IN NHR DISTRICT DRAFT
Gross Floor Visible Bulk Offsets Maximum Roof
Footprint Area (So. Ft.) (So. Ft.) Compliance Plane (Sq. Ft.)
(Sq. F t.)
2,577
5,727
4,061
3,267
3,914
4,914
Dividend #4
No
Carnelian Glen
a
3,364
z
0 0
Rodriguez Residence
5,686
Carnelian Glen
b
181
6,568
2,289
v
543
COMPARISON OF FIVE SARATOGA HOUSE
DESIGNS WITH STANDARDS IN NHR DISTRICT DRAFT
Gross Floor Visible Bulk Offsets Maximum Roof
Footprint Area (So. Ft.) (So. Ft.) Compliance Plane (Sq. Ft.)
(Sq. F t.)
2,577
5,727
4,061
3,267
3,914
4,914
Z,64U
No
l,uav
6,613
3,364
No
688
5,686
2,556
No
181
6,568
2,289
Yes
543
6,317
3,095
Yes
341
aFor these calculations it is assumed that a viewpoint (Sec. 3B.20)) could be anywhere
off the site. As sited, some of these homes may be "visible" from fewer locations or an
entire facade may not be visible.
Blayney -Dyett
12/23/81
Revised 3/3/82
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVD
SAAR 3 0 1982
-e�
To: City of Saratoga
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
From: Blayney -Dyett
Date: December 17, 1981 (Revised March 3, 1982)
RE: Recommended Amendments to Ordinance 38.83, Excavation and Grading, to
Implement the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan
Boldface indicates additions; strikeout indicates deletions.
Sec. 3 -40.1. Engineering geologist.
Engineering geologist shall mean a gee1-e94-at experieneed and knowledgeable lx
eng +neer4ng geolegy.
a registered geologist certified by the State of California to practice engineering
geology.
Sec. 3 -40.2. Permit required.
No person shall do any grading removal of 50 eub-ie yards or more of maters w4h+n
a one year period without first.... (eliminates redundancy).
Sec 3 -40.4. Application for grading permit.
(b) Both the plans and specifications shall be prepared and signed by a Civil
Engineer and an Engineering Geologist when required by the Building Official.
(c)
(7) Indication of the area and type of vegetation to be removed.
Sec. 3 -40.6. Action on application.
Insert new sentence in next to last line, p. 5:
The city planning commission shall hold a public hearing on an application for
engineered grading.
Sec. 3 -40.7. Engineered grading requirements.
First paragraph, fifth line from bottom:
... specified in Sec. 7006, Uniform Building Code.
Add to last paragraph:
The soil engineer and the engineering geologist may be required to submit reports
during grading and during construction as well as the final reports required by
Sec. 3- 40.19.
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
Memo re Recommended Amendments
December 17, 1981 (Revised March 3, 1982)
Page 2
Sec. 3- 40.14. Grading criteria.
(A) Cut slopes
Encl.
Unless other standards are required by the zoning ordinance or are etherwise
recommended in the approved.... .
(B) Fill slopes
Unless other standards are required by the zoning ordinance or are otherwi-se
recommended in the approved....
(H) Driveways.
(2)
(b)... minimum inside curve radius of 42 25 feet.
(g)... minimum 42 25 -foot effective inside radius....
Blayney -Dyett Urban and Regional Planners
4
:�IE�1C�)R�NDtiti1
Uguw @:T 0&M&UQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SAR.ATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
�+7
TO: Director of Community Development DATE: January 13, 1982
FROM: Senior Inspector
SUBJECT: Recommended Amendments to Ordinance 38.83, Excavation and Grading
These changes include those recommended by Blayney -Dyett for
implementation of the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan as
well as my own. The changes are primarily for clarification
with the exception of the following areas:
1. The method of determining when a permit is required for
removal of vegetation would be changed from a percentage
to a square foot basis. Removal of vegetation would be
changed to regular grading and could be permitted by
staff.
2. The'Grading Committee would be eliminated since all of the
members are now incorporated in the Community Development
Department and hence the Building Official would replace
the Grading Committee. -
3. The minimum bench width would be changed from 10' to 6'.
The 10' width is not appropriate for many projects, parti-
cularly small ones.
4. The erosion control requirements are strengthened.
Underlining indicates additions; strikeaut indicates deletions.
Richard H. Harison
Senior Inspector
RHH /clh
Attachment
11
MEMORANDUM 1/13/82
Ord. 38.83 Page 2
Sec. 3 -40.1 Definitions
Bedrock is in -place solid consolidated rock.
Engineering geologist shall mean a geologist experieneed
and knowledgeable in engineering geelegy- Registered
Geologist a person certified by the State of California
to practice engineering geology.
Sec. 3 -40.2 Permit Required
No person shall do any grading removal ei 59 eubie yards
or mare or material within a one year period or removal
of vegetation of more than 40,000 square feet without
Hirst having obtained a grading permit therefore from
the Building Official, except for the following:
(g) Any excavation or fill which is, less than 2 ft. in
depth, or which moves or removes less than 50 cu. yds.
of material.
(h) Excavation or fill of less than 50 cubic yards on a
slope of less than 20 percent.
(i) Discing or plowing for fire prevention or agricul-
tural purposes.
Sec. 3 -40.4 Application for Grading Permit
(b) Both the plans and specifications shall be prepared
and signed by a Civil Engineer and an Engineering
Geologist when required by the Building Official.
(c)
7 Indication of the area and type of vegetation to be
removed.
Sec. 3 -40.5 Grading Designations
Where the aggregate volume of grading on any site or
contiguous group of sites is in excess of 1000 cubic yards,
or the proposed cuts and /or fills exceed 10 ft. vertical at
their maximum point, or where 39% or more ei the vegetation
is to be removed -from any vaeant land,- the same shall be
deemed to be and to require engineered grading. All other
grading, 50 to 1000 cubic yards of material, shall be deemed
regular grading.
i
MEMORANDUM
Ord. 38.83
Sec. 3 -.40.6 Action on Application
1/13/82
Page 3
Where the application for a grading permit is for regular
grading, the same shall be reviewed by e eemm4:ttee eempesed
of the Building Official, the Planning Bireeter and the eitp
Engineer; and if it is sa4-d ea m4:ttee fines found the
application is in conformity with all the provisions of
this Article, the Building Official may thereafter issue a
permit with such reasonable conditions as he may deem
necessary in order to comply with all the provisions of
this Article. The eemm4 -ttee er the Btdileing 6 € €4:eial The
Building Official may refer any such application to the
Planning Commission for a report and recommendation prior
to the issuance of any permit.
Where the application is for grading which is deemed to be
engineered grading, the eenm4:ttee Building Official shall
first review the application and thereafter prepare and
submit a report and recommendation to the City Planning
Commission. The City Planning Commission shall hold a
public hearing on an application for engineered grading.
The Planning Commission shall approve, with reasonable
conditions, or disapprove any application for engineered
grading, and the Building Official may not issue any permit
for engineered grading without the affirmative approval of
such Commission. Failure of the Planning Commission to act
on any application within sixty (60) days after submission
to it will be deemed to constitute approval of such applica-
tion.
Sec. 3 -40.7 Engineered Grading Requirements
First paragraph, fifth line from bottom:
....specified in Sec. 7006, Uniform Building Code.
Add to last paragraph:
The soil engineer and the engineering geologist shall may
be required to submit reports during grading and during
construction as well as the final reports required by
Sec. 3- 40.19.
Sec. 3 -40.8 Regular Grading Requirements
The Building Official may require inspection and testing
by an approved testing agency and /or the soil engineer.
Sec. 3 -40.9 Deviations from Standards
The Building Official shall have authority to permit minor
changes, modifications, and other deviations from the
design standards set forth in the sections on cuts, fills,
setbacks, drainage and planting above, upon his finding
MEMORANDUM 1/13/82
Ord. 38.83 Page 4
that any such change, modification or deviation will not
detrimentally alter the resultant stability..and drainability
in relation to the use to be made of the graded area. Where
the proposed change, modification, or deviation from design
standards involves more than a loo change in the total
amount of cut-and fill, or in the height of any cut or fill
bank, the same shall be deemed to be a major change or devia-
tion, and prior to such deviation being permitted the same
must first be reviewed and approved by the eenn.ittee
Planning Commission for engineered grading. The Building
Official may impose such conditions as appear reasonably
necessary in order to secure the objectives of this
Article on permitting any such change, modification or
deviation.
Sec. 3 -40.13 Bonds
Every gerrrtittee Permittees may be required to post a cash
or surety bond with the Building Official in an amount
sufficient to cover the cost of the project, including
corrective work necessary to eliminate any hazardous
conditions, to insure that the work will be completed
strictly in accord with the approved plans and specifica-
tions. Bonding for the erosion control portion of the
work, where required, shall be in the form of cash. Each
bond shall insure that the permittee shall comply with
all the provisions of this Article and all other applicable
laws and ordinances, that he will comply with all the
terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of
the Building Official, and that he will complete the work
within the time limits as specified in the permit. In the
event of any failure to complete the work or failure to
comply with all the conditions and terms of the permit, the
Building Official may order the work required by the permit
to be completed to his satisfaction and the surety shall
continue to be firmly bound under a continuing obligation
for the payment of all necessary costs and expenses that
may be incurred or expended by the City in causing any
and all such work to be done, including engineering fees
and attorney's fees.
Sec. 3 -40.14 Grading Criteria
(A) Cut slopes
Unless other standards are required by the zoning
ordinance or are etkerw4:9e recommended in the approved
soil engineering and /or geology report, cuts shall
conform to the provisions of this section.
(B) Fill slopes
Unless other standards are required by the zoning
ordinance or are etherwise recommended the approved
J
MEMORANDUM
Ord. 38.83
1/13/82
Page 5
soil engineering report, fills shall conform to the
provisions of this section. All compacted fills
shall be inspected by a licensed civil engineer when
required by the Building Official.
(D) Preparation of Ground
The ground surface shall be prepared to receive fill
by removing vegetation, non - complying fill, top -soil
and other unsuitable materials scarifying to provide
a bond with the new fill, and, where slopes are steeper
than five to one; an6 or the height is greater than 5
feet, by benching into sound bedrock or other competent
material as determined by the soils engineer. The bench
under the toe of a fill on a slope steeper than five
to one shall be at least 19 6 feet wide. The area beyond
the toe of fill shall be sloped for sheet overflow or
a paved drain shall be provided. ;where fill is to be
placed over a cut, the bench under the toe of fill
shall be at least 19 6 feet wide but the cut must be
made before placing fill and approved by the soils
engineer and engineering geologist as a suitable founda-
tion for fill. Unsuitable soil is soil which, in the
opinion of the Building Official or the civil engineer
or the soils engineer or the geologist, is not competent
to support other soil or fill, to support structures
or to satisfactorily perform the other functions for
which the soil is intended.
(G)• Drainage and Terracing
2 Swales or d
gradient of
less than 3
paving- If
the deepest
of 5 feet.
(H) Driveways
itches on terraces shall have a minimum
5 percent and with reinforced concrete not
inches in thickness, or an approved equal.
paved they shall have a minimum depth at
point of 1 foot and a minimum paved width
2
b The driveway must have minimum inside curve radius of 42
25 feet.
g Centerline perpendicular to the right -of -way at the
point of their intersection or present a minimum 42
25 foot effective inside radius to vehicles departing/
entering the public street from both sides.
(I) Erosion Control
Slopes. The faces of cut and fill slopes shall be
prepared and maintained to control against erosion.
All cut and fill surfaces subject to erosion shall be
-? MEMORANDUM
Ord. 38.83
:.1
1/13/82
Page 6
Planted with ground cover which is compatible wit
the natural ground covers in h
thrive with little maintenance. City and which will
fertilizing, and mulchin Seed bed preparation,
to insure growth, g shall be provided
to
encourage E slopes shall— b� as necessary
g landscaping. Cut and fill alongour graded
roads may be required to be
the natural surroundin s• landscaped to blend into
heights which will g Plants used shall be at
ces on not obstruct vehicular sight distan-
cs on. city Adequate site distance shall be
shall be determined by the City Engineer. All plant materials
y to the City Planner.
Sec. 3 -40.19 Completion of Work
(a) F }aI Reports. Upon completion of the yea h v
Of grading work and l the final completion of t ti-
the Building arious stages
supplements thereto: may require the following reports
and
Sec. 3 -20.21
Appeal
Any decision of the Building Official in denying a Grading
may be appealed b g a Grading Permit with conditions,
Where the application the applicant as herein set forth.
shall be pplication is for. regular
made to the Plannin Commission- grading, the appeal
tion is deemed to require engineera Where the a
shall be to the grading, PPlica-
shall City Council. shall the appeal
g of a written notice thereof ewiththherna de by the
within fifteen (15) days after the date the decision
from was made Building Official,
set forth in the notice no ground ro of a isica appealed
y be raised loroconsideredaatythe
time of the hearing on the appeal.
heard by the body to whom thea Each appeal shall be
regular meeting thereof that falls made at the thirty (30) days less than ter�next a
and the Bul y after the date of filing, and the
shall be ing Official whose decision is applicant
given notice of the same b being appealed
five (5) days prior to the date y regular mail
on appeal, the decision of the Building Upon least
hearing. U on the hearing
sustained, overruled or modified Official may be
appeal shall be final and conclusive on the decision on said
on all persons.
J
Blayney - Dyett
Urban and Regional Planners
John A. Blayney, AICP
Michael V. Dyett, AICP
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Saratoga
From: Blayney -Dyett
Date: December 22, 1981
RE: Subdivision Ordinance Changes Needed to Implement the Northeastern
Hillside Specific Plan
This memorandum notes sections of the Subdivision Ordinance needing revision, but
does not propose ordinance language.
1. The present ordinance does not require a Preliminary Map (see Los Altos Hills
excerpt enclosed). Although detail is required when the site development plan
required by Sec. 13.9 is included, the lack of a preliminary map requirement may
result in too much engineering time having been spent before the City staff and
Planning Commission have an opportunity t9 comment — increasing resistance to
change and possible future reluctance to insist upon it.
2. Sec. 13.3 -4, Cul -de -sac streets, should be revised to allow back - and -turn
(hammerhead) turnarounds for hillside cul -de -sacs.
3. Sec. 13.9 -2 (a), Data on site development plan, appears to assume that all
structures have been designed at the time a tentative map is presented. This should
be modified to require only that the location, grading, and extent of proposed
building site be shown.
4. Sec. 18.2 (e). Filing of final map with city engineer. CC &Rs should be required
and should specify obligations for maintenance of all private streets and streets
offered for dedication but not accepted, including paving, lighting (if any), signing,
slope maintenance, and landscape maintenance. Because the Specific Plan calls for
CC &Rs to be enforceable by the City (p.9), the City should prepare standard
language for incorporation.
This section should be made applicable to subdivisions of four or less lots.
5. Sec. 18.3 W. Language is needed here and possibly elsewhere to make clear the
intent not to accept all offers of dedication. This might read: "The City may
decline to accept offers of dedication of streets or other easements that are not
essential to the citywide systems of streets, storm drains, open space, or other public
facilities systems." How should trail easements be handled?
177 Post Street, Suite 750
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 421 -7735
City of Saratoga
December 22, 1981
Page 2
6. TABLE II, REQUIRED STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY AND PAVEMENT WIDTHS. Los
Altos Hills and San Mateo County, which permit hillside streets 18 to 22 feet wide,
prohibit on- street parking. Los Altos Hills requires 6 off - street parking spaces for
each dwelling. Most NHR homes will have this many spaces, assuming tandem
parking, but requiring on -site spaces that result in extra paving and grading is not
consistent with the purposes of the Specific Plan unless street space can be reduced.
Older cities such as Mill Valley, Belvedere, and Berkeley have fairly heavily traveled
streets that provide only one lane opposite a parked car. On some of these streets
curb parking is fully occupied much of the time. We do not think that a higher
standard in Saratoga to increase convenience and reduce the possibility of an
emergency vehicle being blocked need include a complete parking prohibition. With
an average of more than 200 lineal feet of curb space per lot, there will be no
substantial demand for curb space in the NHR district except during parties. We
recommend allowing one -side parking on up to half of the length of an 18 foot street,
thus creating opportunities for passing and preserving sight distances on curves.
The Nolte study for the Specific Plan (1980,1981) assigned local streets an
environmental capacity of 500 vehicles per day (vpd) and collectors 1,500 vpd. Old
Oak Way with 360 vpd was the most heavily used local street for which traffic was
projected. With peak hour volume at 10 percent, the 36 cars expected to use the
street would be unlikely to meet even if half were inbound and half outbound.
Driving the half mile length of such a street at 15 Mph takes two minutes. Under the
worst case assumption in which all cars drivb the length of the street, there would be
an average of only 1.2 cars moving at any time.
On collector streets such as the SW -NE Road, Nolte sets an environmental capacity
of 1,500 vpd and projects up to 1,730 vpd. Theoretically, two cars will pass in
opposite directions every 42 seconds during the peak hour. Los Altos Hills and
Portola Valley require 22 feet with no parking for "minor" collectors, while the San
Mateo County standard for a "rural" collector is 28 feet with parking on one side.
We recommend 22 feet with no parking except where 6 foot parking bays are
provided. The location and number of parking spaces required in bays would be
determined during preliminary subdivision map review and would depend on the
topography and the destinations of users.
7. TABLE III. TREE PLANTING STANDARDS. It should be made clear that NHR
district tree planting is to be determined by design review.
M
JENNINGS - WDERMOTT - HEISS, INC.
JMH SUITE 200 286 -4555
925 REGENT STREET-SAN JOSE, CA. 95110
Civil Engineering Land Planning Land Surveying
April 6, 1982
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: NHR Zoning Ordinance
Honorable City Council:
On April 7, 1982, you will be conducting your first public hearing
for adopting the NHR Zoning Ordinance which implements Measure "A ".
I attended most of the Planning Commission meetings and hearings and
appreciate the effort put into this project by the Planning
Commission.
At one of the last meetings, an item was introduced into Section
3B.6-Density which did not have unanimous support. This is sub-
paragraph iii) which reduces density beyond what was agreed to in
the Measure "A" specific plan. Considering the severity of the
basic Measure "A" Ordinance and the elimination of the MD and MR
geologic catagories, this latest proposal seems to be a drastic over-
kill. Requiring, for instance, that 65% of the PS Lands be elimin-
ated would seem to represent a total economic kill for any logical
and sensible development of the hillside area.
I have one basic question. Utilizing the City's geologic maps,
what would be the probable density if sub - paragraph (iii) were
implemented. It seems mandatory to know what yield to expect if
this program of further reduction in density were implemented. I
would not be surprised if the number of possible units estimated in
the Measure "A" specific plan would be cut in half by this proposal.
Do to a prior commitment, I will not be able to attend the April
7th meeting so I have taken the liberty to put my thoughts in letter
form to you. In my opinion sub - paragraph (iii) should be eliminated
since it is not a part of Measure "A" specific plan and seems an
excessive waste of land.
WEH /nr
Very truly yours,
William E. Heiss
� s
�f
March 29,
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Calif. 95070
Dear Council members;
'IAR 2 9 1982
1982
The undersigned owners of Santa Clara County parcel number
503 -15 -1 hereby request that the City of Saratoga zone
said parcel for the pre- moratorium usage of R- 1- 40,000,
and exclude it from the Northwest Hillside Residential
District, the creation of which you are currently considering.
This parcel is virtually surrounded by residential development
completed prior to the measure A moratorium. To allow the
possible future residential development of this property
in a manner consistent and in harmony with the surrounding
neighborhood would be detrimental to no one, and could
contribute several very prestigious and attractive
residential properties to the area.
To virtually prohibit development of this property is
grossly unfair to our interests. Value of our property
would be almost totally sacraficed while inordinate open
space and enhanced value would accrue to the surrounding
properties developed under the pre- moratorium R- 1- 40,000
zoning.
Furthermore, development of this parcel at pre- moratorium
levels might make economically feasible the complete and
proper repair of areas of slide activity on this and
adjoining properties, which may threaten these contiguous
developments in the future if not corrected.
We would greatly appreciate your recognition of the
distinguishing characteristics of this parcel and the
surrounding properties.
Sincerely,
Dorothy E. Gloyd Douglas A. Bowie
20311 Argonaut Dr. 711 Shell Blvd., 4108
Saratoga, Calif. 95070 Foster City, Calif. 94404
Loren E. Bowie
1323 Sierra Ave.
San Jose, Calif. 95126
CITY Or SAruLTOCA
Ate- �IDA BILL NO. q--7A
DATE: 4 -. -82
DEP ..'TENT: Community Development
--------------------------------------------
SUBJECr: G.F. 333, HC -RDO Density Revision
---------------------------
Issue SLunnary
Initial: /J
Dept. ljd. J
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Planning Commission has held several public hearings on the proposal to have density in the
HCRD (Hillside Conservation Residential District) be the same as proposed for the NHR(North-
western Hillside Residential). The Commission recommends that these densities be identical.
However, the Commission did not have consensus relative to reducing density as indicated in
paragraph (iii) of the attached HCRD amendment. Council must determine if this paragraph
shall be included in the amendment.
Under Agenda Bill 234, the Planning Commission recommended modification of Section 3.24 (c)
of the HCRD ordinance, which is attached for Council action.
Reccmr,endation
Hold public hearing and approve amendment either as recommended by Commission or as modified.
Set public hearing on Section 3.24 (c) -of HCRD ordinance as submitted by Agenda Bill 234
or as consistent with that approved for.NHR ordinance. ,
S /S: Have second reading and approve adoption of Ordinance NS -3.S0.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. 3 /30.'Staff_Memo' to City Council>
2..' 3/19, 3/4, 2%19 Staff Memo to Planning Commission
3• Planning Commission Resolution
4.. Proposed HCRD amendment
5. Agenda Bill 234
6 Planning Commission Minutes 3/24/82
Council Action
4/7: Consensus to continue to 4/21.
4/21: Jensen/Watson moved to read by title only, waiving further reading. Passed 5 -0.
5/19: Clevenger /Jensen moved to read Orel. NS 3.50 by title only, waiving further reading.Passed5 -i
JenseviClevenger moved to adopt. Passed 5 -0.
%xa'tl*4 3t4.»V"'
y� s'k�gi3�la5f
V �
A.
0.
fL�i
f r,
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 3/30/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 4/7/82
SUBJECT: GF -337, Specific Plan Implementation Ordinances
GF -333, HC -RD Density Revisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
After holding several public hearings and discussing the measures at
their interim study sessions, the Planning Commission is recommending
the attached documents to you for your consideration.
By State law, this recommendation shall be rendered "in the form of a
written recommendation to the legislative body ", including, "the reasons
for the recommendation, the relationship of the proposed ordinance or
amendment to applicable general and specific plans" (Section 65855).
Since the proposed ordinance includes alternative sections, the Planning
Commissioners may submit several written recommendations along with their
resolution for your review.
Also attached are the original drafts submitted by Blayney - Dyett, the
consultant hired by the City to do the Specific Plan Implementation Ordi-
nances. John Blayney will be present at your meeting of April 7, 1982
to present these draft ordinances and answer any questions you may have.
The Planning Commission considered the revisions of the slope- density
provisions in the HC -RD Zoning District concurrently with the Specific
Plan Ordinances and is also (per the NHR district) recommending these
same density standards be applied to the HC -RD zoning district.
Supplementary and background memorandums to the Planning Commission on
these ordinances are attached for your review.
R Shook
Director of Community Development
RSS:dc
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 3/19/82
Commission Meeting: 3/24/82
SUBJECT: GF -337, Specific Plan Implementation Ordinances
GF -333, Revision to Slope Density Provisions in the HC -RD
These two items are being considered concurrently since the slope
density provisions are expected to be;,�siru lar.
GF -337, Specific Plan Ordinances
At your recent study session you reviewed the proposed ordinance
and suggested changes which have been included in the attached
draft ordinance. These changes are located in:
1. Section 3B.4(g), Neighborhood Recreational Facilities
2. Section 3B.4(a) and (b) Community Facilities
3. Section 3B.3(e) & 3B.4(c), Keeping of Horses
4. Section 3B.6(ii), Quarries
5. Section 3B.7(c)(2) Location of :Building Bites
6. Section 3B.7(c)(3) Location of Structures with Respect
to :Ridge
7. Section 3B.8(c) Flat Visible Pads
The sections of the ordinance that you agreed would need a vote
have been so marked in the draft.
If the Commission wishes to recommend the proposed ordinance too:
the City Council they will need to make the following findings:
1. That the change is required to achieve the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance prescribed in Section 1.1
(attached).
2. That the proposed amendment will be in conformance with
the 1974 General Plan and the Northwestern Hillside
Specific Plan.
3. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the
EIR for the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan.
With respect to California Environmental Quality Act requirements,
an EIR was certified for both phases of.the project, the Specific
GF -337 & GF -333
March 19, 1982
Page 2
Plan and its implementation measures, the Ordinance.to be enacted
pursuant to the Specific Plan.
Also attached to the draft ordinance: are the issues and proposed
changes for the Grading Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance on
which recommendation can be sent separately to the Council.
Change to these Ordinances do not require public hearing. How-
ever modifications to the Design Review Ordinance, suggested in
your hearings and the original proposed draft, will need to have
public hearings.
Recommended Action:
Take votes on the separate issues in question and make the appro-
priate findings tailored to specific ordinances and recommend
adoption of the ordinance to the City Council.
GF -333, Revision to Slope Density Provisions in the HC -RD
The proposed revision differs from the proposed NHR draft
ordinance in that no deductions for quarries or areas classified
as Ps are presently proposed.
Again, if the Commission wishes to recommend the ordinance to the
City Council they need to make the following findings:
1. That the change is required to achieve the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance prescribed in Section 1.1.
2. That the proposed amendment will be in conformance with
the 1974 General Plan.
3. That the proposed rezoning will not have a significant
impact on the environment (Negative Declaration determined
to be an appropriate document).
Recommended Action:
Make the appropriate findings and recommend adoption of the
ordinance to the City Council.
K thy b rd s
Associ to Planner
KK /mgr
Ugu W @,T M,,k Q)O&
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 3/4/82
Commission Meeting: 3/10/82
SUBJECT' GF -337, Specific Plan Implementation Ordinances
GF -333, Revision to Slope Density Formula in the HC -RD District.
These two items are being considered concurrently since their provisions are
expected to be similar.
The attached ordinance needs to be additionally revised to reflect the
concerns, (but not concensus determinations) discussed at your recent
Committee -of- the - Whole:
1) addition of agricultural uses as a permitted use
2) addition of "quarries" to deductions from gross land area and
deletion of phrase, "and those areas having a slope exceeding
40V.
3) rewriting of proposals a) to deduct additional geological areas
from the gross land area b) to minimize grading in Ps areas
and c) to revise process to change geologic maps. (requires review
by City Geologist and City Attorney)
4) addition of Grandfather clause in conformance with Specific Plan
5) addition of notice of requirement for residents to participate in
storm drain, street improvement, and other special assessment
districts
6) Addition of limitation to potential Change; to the Specific Plan to
occur a maximum of once a year, if approved by City Attorney
7) Addition, after review of proposal to add Section 36.23 entitled
Offers of Dedication and Standards for Site Maintenance (policy
to not accept non - connecting streets as public right -of -way and
to include provisions for maintenance of streets, landscaping slopes
and common area by residents in CC «R's)
t
Report to Planning Commission March 4, 1982
GF -337, GF -333 Page Two
3) Inclusion of Reference to Resolutions 941 establishing a $1,000 /lot
fee for flood and erosion control and a $477 /lot fee for fire
protection
9) Revision to grading section to state "prior specific approval"
regarding grading on over 30% slopes
10) Revision to proposed changes to Grading Ordinance, Section 3 -40.2,
replacing "or" with "and ". (A current grading ordinance is included
in the packet to assist with your review of the proposed changes).
Staff will be working on these revisions and preparing a cohesive draft
ordinance with the City Attorney and City Geologist during the week of
March 8 -12th. This item is again scheduled for your Committee -of- the -Whole
Meeting on Tuesday, March 16, 1982.
Approved:
Ka -'thy KerAus, Associate Planner
KK:1 t
P. C. Agenda: March 10, 1982
ARTICLE.2 A AGRIC TURAL DISTRICT
Section 2.1 Purposes. In addition to the objectives
prescribed in Section 1.1, the A agricultural district is
included in the zoning ordinance to achieve the following
purposes:
(a) To reserve for exclusive agricultural use appro-
priately located areas which are suitable for raising crops.
(b) To ensure adequate light, air and privacy for each
dwelling unit.
(c) To prevent premature development of certain lands
which eventually will be appropriate for urban uses until
the installation of streets, utilities and community facil-
ities makes orderly development possible.
Section 2.2 Permitted uses. (a) Raising of field
crops, fruit and nut trees, vegetables, horticultural spe-
cialties and timber.
(b) Processin of roducts 12roduced on the remises
(d) Home occupations, conducted in accord with the
regulations prescribed in Article 12.
(e) Incidental and accessory structures and uses lo-
cated on the same site'with a permitted use including barns,
stables, coops and other farm outbuildings; private garages
and carports; one guest house or accessory living quarters
without a kitchen for each residence on the site; store-
houses, garden structures, greenhouses, recreation rooms
and hobby shops. . '
(f) Private stables for the keeping of, or the keeping
of, one horse for each forty thousand square feet of site
area, subject to the regulations and license provisions of
Division 5, Article 1 of Chapter 8 of the Saratoga City Code,
provided that no stable or corral shall be located closer
than fifty feet to any property line of the site or to any
dwelling or swimming pool on the site, nor closer than one
hundred feet to any dwelling not on the site, except that a
corral may be located no less than thirty feet from the
right -of -way of any side or rear street bordering on the
site; and provided further, in Equestrian Zone (1) only,
that one additional horse may be permitted on the first
forty thousand square feet of site area, and an additional
horse for each additional forty thousand square feet of
site area, upon the obtaining of a horse license therefore
in accord with the above - referred to provisions of the
Saratoga City Code.
(g) Swimming pools used solely by persons resident
on the site and their guests, provided that- no swimming
pool or accessory mechanical equipment shall be located in
19
Section 2.11 Off - street parking and loading facilities.
Off - street parking facilities and off - street loading facili-
ties shall be provided on the site of each use as prescribed
in Article 11.
Section 2.12 Design review. Conditional uses shall
be subject to design review as prescribed in Article 13.
Section 2.13 General provisions and exceptions. All
uses shall be subject to the general provisions and excep-
tions prescribed in Article 14.
ARTICLE 3 R -1 ONE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Section 3.1 Purposes. In addition to the objectives
prescribed in Section 1.1, the R -1 one - family residential
districts are included in the zoning ordinance to achieve
the following purposes:
(a) To reserve appropriately located areas for family
living at a reasonable range of population densities con-
sistent with sound standards of public health and safety.
(b) To ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open
space for each dwelling.
(c) To protect one - family dwellings from the conges-
tion and lack of privacy associated with multi - family dwell-
ings.
(d) To provide space for community.facilities needed
to complement residential areas and for institutions which
require a residential environment.
(e) To minimize traffic congestion and to avoid the
overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of
buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around
them.
(f) To provide necessary space for off- street parking
of automobiles and, where appropriate, for off - street load-
ing of trucks.
(g) To protect residential properties from the hazards,
noise and congestion created by commercial and industrial
traffic.
(h) To protect residential properties from noise, il-
lumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, dirt, smoke, vibra-
tion, heat, glare and other objectionable influences.
(i) To protect residential properties from fire, ex-
plosion, noxious fumes and other hazards.
Section 3.2 Per
aising ot fruit and nut trees, vegetables and
horticultural specialties not including nurseries, green-
houses, or storage of landscaping equipment, products or
supplies for commercial uses.
22
U
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 2/19/82
Commission Meeting: 2/24/82
SUBJECT' GF -337 Specific Plan Implementation Ordinances
GF -333 Revision to Slope Density Formula in the
----------------- - - - - HC-RD-District --------- - - - - --
--------- ----------------- - - - - --
These two items are being considered concurrently since their
provisions are expected to be similar.
The attached ordinance reflects consensus deletions and additions
at the recent Committee -of- the - Whole meeting. On February 2,
1982 the Commission deleted references to transfer development
rights and mass grading from the proposed NHR Ordinance. Then
on February 16, 1982 the Commission agreed 1) to place Section
3.23 Development Criteria of the HCRD Ordinance into the
proposed NHR District; 2) to consider two alternatives to the
density provisions (Section 3A.24 rewritten with the Measure A
slope density formula or the proposal of Commissioner Crowther
per his letter dated February 10, 1982); 3) to remove references
to "cluster" and "attached "; 4) to replace 3B.14 with Section
3.26(b) of the HCRD Ordinance using the setbacks of the
R -1- 40,000 zoning district; 5) to replace "designated as
stable" in 3B.10, first paragraph, with "categorized as "; 6)
to encourage common recreational facilities (pools and tennis
courts); and 7) to provide for 1 acre minimum lot sizes.
Again, the moratorium for the Specific Plan Area will end on
June 2, 1982 so that the Council will need your recommendations
by the end of March if this deadline is to be met. This item
has been placed on your next Committee -of- the -Whole Agenda and
the consultant, John Blaney will be there to answer any
questions. He has been asked to make a presentation on the
design review portions of the proposed draft ordinance.
The issues and recommendations on the Grading and Subdivision
Ordinances are also included in. this packet for your review
and direction.
Approved:
Kathy K&rdus', Associate Planner
KK /clh
RESOLUTION NO. GF -333 -1
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 3A -24 OF ORDINANCE NS -3, PERTAINING TO
DENSITY AND SITE AREA OF THE HC -RD ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, a proposed amendment to Section 3A -24 of
Ordinance NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance, has been presented to the
Planning Commission for.consideration, such amendment revising
the standards for density and site area applicable to the HC -RD
Zoning District so as to be consistent with the standards set
forth in the Specific Plan for the Western Hillside area of the
City; and
WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings on the proposed
amendment were conducted by.the Planning Commission on November
17, 1981, December 9, 1981, January 27, 1982, February 10, 1982,
February 24, 1982, March 10, 1982, and March 24, 1932, at which
time any person interested in the proposed amendment was given
an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration of the proposed
amendment, a true copy of which is attached.hereto as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated herein by this reference, the Planning Commission
finds that such amendment will promote the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance prescribed in Section 1 -1, and in particular, the
objectives as set forth in subparagraphs a, e, k and 1 thereof;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is of the opinion that
the proposed amendment should be recommended to the City Council
for adoption,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Saratoga that the proposed amendment attached hereto
as Exhibit "A" be and hereby is affirmatively recommended to the
City Council for adoption, and
-1-
',� S. I
e
1
r
RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the Secretary of the Planning
Commission is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Resolution
and the proposed amendment attached hereto, together with a copy
of the staff report and summary of hearings held by this Commission
to the City Council for further action in accordance with State law
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of March,
1982, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Laden, and.Zambetti
NOES: Commissioner Schaefer
ABSENT: Commissioners King and Monia
Chairman, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary
-2-
'S� ; I f44 4. J t y 4 f•
I
p.. y'ri.Z.r N�T'S' ."�'•''' i 4 is"+.l"`5
ORDINANCE NS- J•.Sd
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
SECTION 3A.24 OF ORDINANCE NS -3, PERTAINING TO DENSITY
AND SITE AREA OF THE HILLSIDE CONSERVATION
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
ordain as follows:
Section 3A.24 of Ordinance NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance,
is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 3A.24 - Site Density, Area and Building Sites
(a) Density (Maximum Dwelling Units per Area).
(1) Subject to the provision set forth in Subpara-
graph (a)(5) of this Section 3A.24, the maximum number
of dwelling units (density) for each development. shall
be determined by dividing the "net land area" of the
parcel being subdivided by the average acres per dwell-
ing unit rounding down to the next whole number. The
term "net land area," as used in this Article, shall
mean that portion of the gross land area of the parcel
being subdivided remaining after deducting therefrom the
following:
(i) Those areas which are classified in the
City's geologic maps as Md or Mrf; and
(ii) Any quarries, unless shown to be suitable
for development, as determined by a detailed
geotechnical analysis approved by the City geologist.
(2) The average acres per dwelling unit shall be
determined by the following slope /density formula:
average acres per = 1
dwelling unit (AC /DU) 0.5 - .00SS
where: S = average slope in percent,
rounded to nearest whole percent
(3) The average slope of the parcel being sub-
divided shall be determined by the following formula,
and rounded to the nearest whole percent:
Rev. 5/3/82
S
`iY,`,�•'�A'i�;.tt w K 3.,7y. -.,i �. ,. v.ti 1- .!`;Ci. � ..��" J .,-; �. � -� �` „ r' ��� �_;, ..^. { .., �� ... - .. ..
ua�,? nut „ra�''•.a�+wA�roa,r.,�- ?aat;y;:
Average _ .00229 IL
Slope A
where: I = contour interval in feet (at
intervals of not more than 5
feet)
L = combined length of contour
lines in scale
A = gross land area of parcel being
subdivided
The slope calculation shall be based upon the entire
gross land area of the parcel being subdivided.
(4) The following slope /density table generally
represents the average acres per dwelling unit deter-
mined by the slope /density formula set forth in subpara-
graph (a)(2) of this Section 3A.24. Such table is for
illustration purposes only and the slope /density formula
shall take precedence over the table in all cases.
AVG
SLOPE AC /DU
AVG
SLOPE AC/DU
AVG
SLOPE
AC/DU
AVG
SLOPE
AC /DU
AVG
SLOPE
AC /DU
0 21
10
2.38
20
2.94
30'
3.85
40
5.56
1 2:03
11
2.43
21
3.01
31
3.96
41
5.82
2 2.07
12
2.48
22
3.09
32
4,09
42
6.10
3 2.10
13
2.53
23
3.16
33
4.24
43
6.41
4 2.14
14
2.58
24
3.25
34
4.39
44
6_96
5 2.17
15
2.63
25
3.33
35
4.55
45
7.14
6 2.21
16
2.69
26
3.42
36
4.72
46
7.53
7 2.25
17
2.75
27
3.52
37
4.90
47
8.06
8 2.29
18
2.81
28
3.62
38
5.10.
48
8.62
9 2.34
19
2.87
29
3.73
39
5.32
49
9.25
50•
10
*Where the average
slope
of the gross.land area
exceeds
50
percent,
each lot
or building site
must be
at
least 10 acres.
#�
(5) The City may require a reduction in the number
of dwelling units below the maximum number otherwise
permitted under Subparagraph (a)(1) of this Section
3-4.24 if the City determines that such reduction is
necessary or appropriate by reason of site restrictions
or geologic hazards.
(6) Upon recordation of a final subdivision or
parcel map covering any land within the Northwestern
Hillsides Residential Zoning District, no lots or
l
parcels shown on such map may thereafter be further
subdivided so as to increase the total density permitted
under this section for the entire subdivision or parcel
depicted on the final map.
(b) Minimum Site Area.per Dwelling Unit. The minimum
site area per dwelling unit shall be no less than 43,560
square feet and the average acres for all dwelling units
within the parcel being subdivided shall be as determined by
the slope /density formula set foth in subparagraph (a)(2) of
this Section 3A.24.
(c) Location of Building Sites. The average natural
grade of the footprint underneath any home, swimming pool or
other structure shall not exceed 30 percent slope, and no
home, swimming pool or other structure shall be built upon a
slope which exceeds 40 percent natural slope at any location
under the structure between two 5 foot contour lines, except
that: (1) a variance pursuant to Article 17 may be granted
where the findings prescribed in Section 17.6 can be made,
and (ii) an exception under Section 15.2 of Ordinance NS -60,
the Subdivision Ordinance, may be granted."
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City
Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares -that it would have
passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence,
clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be
held invalid of conconstitutional.
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after
its passage and adoption.
Rev. 5/3/82
-3-
`:.
` :./ ti.., r^ ti r � �. ` a 1 �S;.a .,,.c,`+'L+ 3� .'�j4`�'CVftnikyyr�2V;1'3*'r�'; �• G� 9i
'. -.�;; �' ,.:'' ''�':?'E. �"t"�:.9h ter•..- ,.: C dsn''9 ��� . ?. Vic+~ .. M .. -v�� °,.. '�+k., .? .,...,;:c .. ...'`'i
.i:,Vti:. M1:.:f'w:- ''`w.4:ii..�,;(tq,f ': •lA � : - ..
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held
on the day of 1982, by the following vote:
AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
M
t:
rte•
. ii xq� rlu?" .i �yl k i(`� j ljVv Y'l -•i�> l Ir
Rev. 5/3/82 -4-
CITY OF SARAZIOGA L-
Initial: V
AGENDP.. BILL NO. a2 3 4 Dept. Hd.
DATE: February 17, 1982
DEPAKIM]T: Community Development
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Modification of Section 3.24(c) of the HCRD Ordinance
Issue Summary
The Planning Commission is currently reviewing portions of the HCRD Ordi-
nance as it relates to density and slopes on which structures can be
constructed. They have determined to have the density matters move along
with their hearings on the Specific Plan Ordinances for consistency there -
with'.* However, they have recommended revision to the provisions for
defining slope on which structures can be constructed, per the attached
report. This will be incorporated into the Specific Plan Ordinance. It
allows for a variance procedure relative to building on steeper slopes.
Staff does not feel that administration of this will be unduly burdensome.
Recomnendation
Set public hearing to receive public input relative to this -proposed
modification.
Staff recommends approval of the Planning Commission's recommended change
to the HCRD Ordinance.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Director of Community Development's Report dated 2 -09 -82
2. HCRD Ordinance
3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 1- 27 -82.
Council Action
3/3: Callon /Watson moved to send Alternative 1 to Planning Co m mission to be taken care of
when they consider that area in the General Plan. Passed 5 -0.
a� SAIR�9
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 2 -09 -82
COUNCIL MEETING: 2-17-82
SUBJECT : Modification .of Section 3.24(c) of the
HCRD Ordinance
The Planning Commission, at their meeting on January 27, 1982,
considered modification of Section 3.24(c) of the HCRD Ordinance.
After considerable discussion, they moved to recommend approval
of this modification to the Council, with the following wording:
"No home or other structure shall be built upon a slope
which exceeds 40% natural slope at any location between
two S foot contour lines, except that a Variance per
Article 17 o t e 'Zoning Ordinance maybe granted w ere
e fin-dings under Section 17.6 can be made, an an
exception under Section 15.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance
may be granted." Underline wor ing indicates the modi-
fication to the current HCRD Ordinance.)
i
Robert S. Shoo
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
ORDINANCE NS -3. 33
AN ORDI::t:NCE' OF THE CITY OF SAI.ATOGA AMENDING ORDINANCE
NS -3, THE Z01UNG ORDINANCE, BY ESTABLISHING A HILLSIDE
CONSUVAIION RF`,I►jE,IT IAL ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
BY ADDING ARTICLE 3 -A THERETO
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTIO'N' 1: Section 1.6 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended by adding
to it the following additional zoning district classification:
HC -RD - HILLSIDE CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
SECTION 2: Article 3 -A is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3 of the City
of Saratoga, which Article shall read as follows:
SECTION 3.20. PURPOSE.
The IIC Zoning District is established to achieve the following purposes:
(1) To create a zoning district and regulations therefor to implement the
open space element of the Saratoga General Plan, directed to the preservation
and conservation of the natural landscaping and open space at the same time as
permitting orderly and regulated residential development, aM
(2) To create a zoning district which will be compatible with and consis-
tent with the slope conservation areas presently shown on the Saratoga General
Plan, so that a rezoning of any Part of said slope conservation areas to the
IIC -F1 district will be consistent with such General Plan, and
(3) To create a special zoning district which establishes•developrnent
density on guidelines and criteria based upon steepness of slope and other
matters relating to development capability, and 'by such district to replace the
present open space regulations of this City which consist of a combination of
R -1- 40,000 :zoning district regulations together with slope density and other
C
C
development formulas and criteria set forth in the Subdivision Ordinance of
this City, and
(4) Upon application of such zoning district regulations to the foothill
and mountainous- portions of this City, to insure an orderly and harmonious
single - family residential development which will result in a minimal amount of
disturbance to the natural terrain, and
(5) Through a coordination of design and engineering skills to insure
land use in balance with its natural.ability to support development, and
(6) To require geological and soils and other investigations and reports
so as to minimize hazards, and
(7) To protect and promote the health,.safety and general welfare of
the co-,nunity, and
(8) In so doing, to create a zoning district classification for applica-
tion to open space areas which is reasonably adaptable to being combined with
planned community development regulations (presently termed P -C) so as upon
any such combination, to permit the clustering of homes upon concurrent dedi-
cation of open space easements pursuant to the 1974 amendments to the Government
Code (Government Code Sections 51070 - 51095), or as - such Government Code may
hereafter from time to time be amended in relation to the dedication of such
easements, and thus to additionally supplement the open space•element of the
General Plan.
SP.CtIO'N 3.21. PERMITTED USES.
The following uses are permitted in an 11C -RD Zoning District:
(a) Detached one - family dwellings;
(b) Raising of vegetables, field crops, fruit and nut trees-and horti-
cultural specialties, and the processing of such products as arc so raised or
groc,n on the premises;
(e) Fences, walls and hedges . otherwise complying with the regulations
. `2-
set forth in Section 3.4 hereof, and which are proximate to the principal
structure and in no event to enclose or encompass an area in excess of
4,000 square feet;
(d) All other permitted uses as listed in Subsections (c), (d), (e),
(f) and (g) of Section 3.2 of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3.22. CONDITIONAL USES.
The following conditional uses shall be permitted, but only upon the
prior granting of a Use Permit therefor in accord with the provisions of
Article 16 hereof:
(a) Swi= -ing pools and tennis courts for colmnunity use;
(b) Any other use listed as a permitted or a conditional use in an "A"
(agricultural) or an "R -1" (residential) zoning district which is iiot listed
in Section 3.21 hereof.
SECTI0'N 3.23. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA.
The following listed regulations shall be in addition to and not in lieu
of, any and all other development criteria and requirements set forth in the
Subdivision Ordinance of this City.
No use shall be established, and no building or other structure shall be
erected or constructed in an 11C -RD Zoning District, nor shall any building or
other permit-be issued therefor, unless and until the following development
standards have been complied with:
(a) Site Development Plan.
A site development plan has been prepared and approved by the
Advisory Agency in accord with Section 13.9 of Ordinance 60, the Subdivision
Ordillallce, and the physical location of each such use and structure is as is
set forth on such approved plan. The planting and landscaping portion of said
plan shall, insofar as is reasonably practical, provide for the retention of
existing vegetation and land formations, and shall include an erosion and
C
a
sediment control element setting forth reasonable mitigation measures in accord
with the excavating and grading and Subdivision Ordinances of the City. Grad-
ing shall be representative of adiacent topography and be an extension of
C. natural contours-insofar as reasonably practical, and be designed to minimize
cut and fill and to avoid erosion, flooding, slides and other hazards. Water,
sewer and other utility services, streets and other access routes which tra-
verse any geologic or soils hazard shall be specifically engineered to eliminate
the risk of failure or collapse, and set backs from hazard areas shall be in
accord with the geologic and soils investigation.report and recommendations.
(b) Geologic and Soils Report.
A combined preliminary geologic and soils investigation and report
prepared by a registered engineering geologist certified by the State of California
and by a registered Civil Engineer qualified in soils mechanics by said State,
shall be filed in conjunction with the site development plan unless the City
Geologist determines that existing information pertinent to the Subdivision or
Site Approval makes preliminary analysis unnecessary. The geologic and soils
report shall fully and clearly present:
(1) All pertinent data, interpretations and evaluations based on the
most current professionally recognized soils and geologic data
(i.e., California State Mines and Geology, USGS, etc.),-
(2) The significance of the data, interpretations and evaluations
with respect to the actual development or implementation of the
intended land use through the identification of any significant
geologic problems, critically expansive soils or other unstable
soil condition which if not corrected may lead to structural
damage or aggrevation of future geologic problems both on and
off the site;
-4-
(3) Recommendations for corrective measures deemed necessary to
prevent or significantly mitigate potential damage to the
proposed project and adjacent properties or to otherwise insure
safe development of the property; and
(4) Recor.Lmendations for additional investigations that should be
made to insure safe development of the property.
(c) Design Review.
Design review of all structures and landscaping has been granted
pursuant to Article 13 hereof. Siting of structures and structural elevations
shall be cor,.patible with natural landscape and so located as not to substantially
disrupt the natural silhouette of prominent ridges and ridge lines.
SECTION. 3.24. SITE AREA AND DENSITY.
(a) Density (Maximum Dwelling Units per Area). f
The maximum number of dwelling units (density) for each development
shall be determined by dividing the gross land area of the parcel being subdivided
by Che - average gross land area per dwelling unit rounding down to the next whole
number. No parcel or portion thereof which can independently be further divided
br subdivided shall be included in the gross area used to determine the maximum
number of units permitted.
The average gross land area per dwelling unit shall be as determined
by th ' fo ula and as generally represented in the following slope density table:
.1VC SLOPE
U.
A \'C SLOPE
AC /D.U.
AVG SIOPE
AC /D.U.
AVC SLOPE
AC /D.U,IAVC
SLOPE
AC /D.U.
0
1.10
10
1.31
20
1.64
30
2.16
40
3.18 I
1
1.12
11
1.34
21
1.G8
31
2.23
41
3.34
2
1.14
12
1.37
22
1.72
32
2.30
42
3.50
3
1.16
13
1.40
23
1.76
33
2.38
43
3.70
4 Y*
1.18
14
1.43
24
1,81
34
2.47
44
3.91-
5
1.20
15
1.46
25
1.66
35
2.57
45
4.15
6
1.22
16
1.49
26
1.91
36
2.67
46
4.43
7
1.24
17
1.52
27
1.97
37
2.78
47
4.74
8
1.26
18
1.56
28
2.03
38
2.90
48
5.09
9
1.28
19
1.60
29
2.09
39
3.04
49
5.51
50*
6.00
*Miere the site exceeds a slope of over 50 %, no site should be less than 6,0 acres.
(Note: Expressed in gross acres.)
mini» In 1 cases
ses the following formula s b
g the aver III
all. take
age gross land Precedence in deter -
area per dwcllin, unit:
\ a - 1
.9091 _ ,014985S •`
(b) I-linimum Site Area. '
The minimum net
43 560 site area
' square fee per dwelling unit shall be
and the average o less
8e site area per dwelling han
dete1T1ined by the above sit forth slo
g unit shall be as
pe density table.
The average slope of the parcel be'
by the fcllowir.� being subdivided shall be
o formula: determined
. rmined
S - .00229 I L
Where: S
= average slope in •-
percent� rounded
I to neares
� = contour interval in feet t whole percent
A
. gross area in acres of the total
(c) Fort" Percent Parcel being developed
40% SIo e' Prohib'
No home ition,
or % her structure ot
40
. shall be built upon P a slope which exceeds
SPCTTO-N 3.25, ,
MI111MU,t FRONT ;Gg WIDTH ATfi -
N..cep
site width and site depth shall b or a set forth, the minimum site r
e as follows; on e
Fromm`
T•1- i dth
80 ft.
D tli
100 ft.
150 ft.
0i1 a cuI -cle -s
ac turnaround, the miriir.;LLm frontage shall b
75% or more of tl�e frontage adjoins tti
e e 60 feet where
turnaround.
SECTIO ?N 3.26. COVERAGE, YARDS, BUTT.DIIIG IMIGHT AP;D ACCESS ROADS.
The maximum impervious surface and building coverage shall not exceed
257. of the --ite area or 15,000 square feet, whichever is the lesser.
(b) "and Setbacks.
The minimum front, side and rear yards of the main residential
structure on each site shall be as follows:
Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
25 ft. ft. 35 ft.
Notzaithstanding the foregoing, the minimum setback of any building
or structure from any planned or designated arterial or collector street shall
be 75 feet from the curb line thereof, and where no established curb line exists
the setback shall be 100 feet from the centerline of such street.
(c) Building Height.
No principal structure shall exceed 30 feet in height as measured
from a warped plane parallel and conforming to the natural grade, and no
accessory structure shall exceed 12 feet 'In height as measured in the same.manner.'
f,
� a>amum 30,
/
Ile ight
cy I 1tJ Natural Grade
MaxiMUM Building Neignt of 30' neasured parallel to natural ground line.
-7-
(d) Grade of Private Accrss Roads and Driveways.
Unless otherwise required by the Advisory Agency, no private access
roadway or driveway to or on any site shall exceed a grade of 18% for a dis-
tance in excess of 50 feet.
[T�/nr n♦ f n� ��nrr r.Tn....T r.....
1h e Advisory Agency may, in addition to the foregoing, impose additional
conditions and restrictions to the development in said zoning district, and
may grant modifications to the regulations prescribed herein with respect to
fences and walls, site area, width, frontage, density, depth and coverage, and
front, side and rear yards, at the time of approval of the site development
plan for the entire property being developed, and without compliance with the
provisions of.Article 17 of this Ordinance relating to variances.-.The approval
of a site development plan shall automatically constitute a granting and per-
mitting of such modifications as are shoo-in and delineated on the face`of said
plan. Such additional conditions and restrictions, and such modifications
and deviations shall only be.made and granted on a finding that the same is in
the interests of the public health, safety and general welfare and in furtherance
of purposes for the creation of the within zoning district classification, and
in order to achieve compliance with one or more of the following guidelines and
criteria:
(a) To preserve trees and tree clusters;
(b) To minimize grading;
(c) To minimize site disruption;
(d) To minimize the distance from public services;
(e) To mnximize access;
(f) To minimize paving and other erosion producing activities;
(g) To avoid hazardous and sensitive areas;
-8-
MM
(h) To protect\ critical features of the natural landscape;
.,
(i) To protect the existing topographic character of a parcel or area; and
(j) To protect the view of and from the steeper slopes in the City.
IC is understood that the above- mentioned development criteria may or may
not have an impact upon the site area and density (Section 3.24) permitted an
individual. application under the provisions of this ordinance. In those cases
where it is determined that the development criteria will have an impact due to
seismic safety, slides, public service, etc., it is expected that this will affect
the maximum number of dwelling units per acre as reflected in the table of Section
3.24. Such impact may reduce the number of allowable dwelling units per acre.
SECTION 3.25. RETROACTIVITY.
Wherever property is rezoned to an HC -RD zoning district from another district
classification, the density regulations herein shall not be retroactively applied
so as to invalidate any site development plan that had theretofore been previously
approved by the Planning Commission, so long as the development of such property
in accord with said site development plan is completed within the time limits as
specified in the ordinance or other regulation under which development in accord
with said site development plan was required and imposed. The intent of this
Section is to permit a site having an area, frongage, width or,depth different
from the minimums prescribed by the imposition of the within density regulations
on such zoning, to continue as a non- conforming site to permit the use thereof
for the permitted use in the IIC -RD zoning district notwithstanding such variation,
So long as the development progresses and is concluded within the time limits as
specified in the regulations governing development under such site development
plan. The within provisions shall be in addition to those of Section 14.3 of this
Ordinance.
SEC1'I0:1 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
this ordinance is for any reason held by a court of cor;petent jurisdiction to be
invalid, such decisioll sh111 not affect the validity of. the remaining portions
of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that
MM
it would have passes: this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause"
and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-
sections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional.
The above and foregoing Ordinance, after hearings thereon held before
Cthe Planning Couanission of this City, was thereafter introduced, and after public
hearing held thereon by the City Council of said City, was thereafter passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 7th day of
April 197G , by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Kraus, Corr, Matteoni
NOES: Councilman Brigham
,kESENT: Councilman Bridges
10 —
MA
,.mot= ^.:�iC ^•'�:;:�';:� �'- ;2���� ^; - �,:r;; _.::d
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes - 1/27/82
Page 3
b. Consideration of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision
OrdinanceXand the Grading Ordinance for the Specific Plan Area
Staff intr duced John Blayney, the consultant preparing the ordinances
for the Spe ific Plan. It was noted that public testimony will be
taken on th s matter and it will be continued to a study session on
February 2, 982 and the regular meeting on February 10, 1982.
The public hekring was opened at 9:15 p.m.
Mr. Blayney gabe a presentation on the draft ordinance and discussion
followed on fo r highlights of the ordinance: (1) transfer of develop-
ment credits, ) concept of clustered housing, (3) large scale recon-
touring and (4) concept of visible bulk of buildings.
George Tobin, re resenting Cocciardi and Chadwick, discussed the
density standards as related to development credits.
Joyce Hlava, a mem`er of the Specific Plan Committee, expressed concern
regarding the tran § \ferable development credits. She also addressed the
issue of mass gradi g, stating that it had not been their intent to have
mass grading of an Utire hillside.
Heber Teerlink, Mt. V4en Road, spoke to the issue of liability result-
ing from the retroac ive provision of the Measure A Initiative, and
urged the Commission To consider this. t
Wilhelm Kohler, Pre sid6nt of the Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association
discussed the ordinanc as it relates to the Initiative. The City
Attorney explained the the purpose of the Specific Plan is to.give
more detailed guidance s to the implementation of Measure A. He added
there has to be continu ty and consistency between the Draft Ordinance,
the Measure A and the Sp cific Plan. He discussed the area that the
HCRD Ordinance will cont ol,those areas not.covered by the Specific Plan.
Mr. Kohler stated that th slope formula should be addressed and that the
transfer credit be delete , since it is too confusing.
Further discussion followe on the consistency, and the City Attorney
commented that if there is 'nconsistency between the three documents,
it could be corrected at th time of the General Plan Review. He noted
that the Draft Ordinance sho ld reflect the Specific Plan, which should
be consistent with the Initi tive.
Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak 1Vay \stated that their area plan does reflect
ways in which they feel the Sp cific Plan is inconsistent with Measure
A. She also noted that the Cou ty of Santa Cruz is going to be in debt
for millions of dollars for nub is roads that have recently been
damaged, and any public roads t at are damaged in landslides are the
City's responsibility.
It was noted that the City Geologiist, Mr. Burkland from the County, and
Ar. Brabb from USGS will be invit d to the next study session on this
issue. Staff was also asked to in ite a representative from the Water
District.
Commissioner Zambetti stated that hd�fcels there are basic things in
this ordinance that do not agree wit, Measure A, and lie feels these
should be reviewed and corrected. C mm.issioner Crowther agreed, but
stated that he feels the City needs t get facts from the geologists
to determine where the inconsistencie, are.
It was directed that this item be continued to the study session on
February 2, 1982 and the regular meetin on February 10, 1982. It was
note at the public is invited to the study session.
7. GF-333 - Consideration of a Revision to the Slone Density Formula in
the HC -RD District to a 2 -10 Acre Straight Line,Formula;
continued from January 13, 1982
Staff explained that there are three parts to this matter; the first
two having to do with the density formula, and the third part having
to do with the slope under existing structures. They noted that the
current HC -RD Ordinance has a statement relative to that which does
- 3 -
., A Planning Commission
' )feeting Minutes - 1/27/82
Page 4
GF -333 (cont.)
not allow for any variation to the requirement that there be no
slope under the structure exceeding 40%. They added that the matter
before the Commission tonight is to ddtermine whether there should
be put in place a process to allow a variance from that provision.
The public hearing was opened at 10:25 p.m.
Bob Saxe, the attorney representing Mr. Mauldin, discussed the pro -
cedure. He noted that there is language in both the Subdivision Ordi-
nance and in the Specific Plan that provides for a variance from this
prohibition,,and they were asking that the ordinances be clarified by
allowing this variance procedure. He urged the Commission to send a
favorab.le recommendation to the Council; hopefully the City Council
will allow the variance process, and Mr. Mauldin can then come in with
specialized information from the geologist, engineer and architect and
submit his application: Mr. Saxe gave the history of the Mauldin site.
Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hearing on Section 3.24(c)
of GF -333. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously.
The City Attorney gave the proper wording for the modification of
Section 3.24(c). Discussion followed on this wording, and it was
determined that it should be: "No home or other structure shall be
built upon a slope which exceeds 40% natural slope at any location
between two 5 ft. contour lines, except that (1) a Variance per Article
17 of the Zoning Ordinance may be granted where the findings under
Section 17.6 can be made, and (2) an exception under Section 15.2 of
the Subdivision Ordinance may be granted." Commissioner -Lad 1n moved
to recommend approval to.the City Council of Section 3.24(c). of GF -333,
as modified above. Commissioner King seconded the motion.
Commissioner Bolger stated that he would not vote in favor of this
recommendation, since he feels that all parts of this ordinance should
be considered at the same time; he objects to a piecemeal basis.
Commissioner Crowther agreed, stating that he had intended to vote for
the recommendation, but did not feel that the ordinance should be
considered on a piecemeal basis.
Mr. Saxe stated that they had addressed the Council, and the Council
had suggested that they go back to the Commission on this particular
point. He added that he did not feel this section has any bearing
on the other issue that will be considered under this ordinance.
There was a call for the question on the :notion. The vote was taken,
and the motion was carried, with Commissioners Crowther, Bolger and
Monia dissenting. Commissioner Monia stated that he was voting no
because the call for the question arose before there had been a motion
to close the debate among the Commission, and he had not had an oppor-
tunity to speak on the issue.
8a. A -803 - A. Moutafian, Request for Design Review Approval to allow the
8b. V -569 - construction of a two -story single family residence over 26'
in height and a Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from
60' to 50' on Blue Gum Court; continued from January 13, 1982
Staff reported that this matter had been before the Land Use Committee
and they had requested additional information, which has now been
received. Commissioner King gave a Land Use Committee Report, stating
that they had clarified their concerns about the site.
The public hearing was reopened at 10:55 p.m.
Mark Brogee, civil engineer, discussed the height and design of the
home. Commissioner Crowther expressed concern rogarding the drainage
system under the nool. It was noted that a condition in the Staff
Report would cover this concern. Mr. Brogee discussed the drainage
system being used and the elevation of the pool.
Tom Coe, 15217 Sobev expressed concern regarding the slope and the
inconsistency of the data received regarding the slope. He recommended
that the footprint of the house be laid out and actual measurements of
- 4 -
r
V
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
( MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, March 24, 1982 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Bolger,.�.Crowther, Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti
Absent: Commissioners King and Monia
Minutes
The following changes were made to the minutes of March fa, 1982: On page 1,
the sixth paragraph, the second sentence should read: "H° explained that the
General Plan should come from the citizens, and that the first draft should
include this information in the elements of the General Plan and action pro-
grams." On page 5, the sixth paragraph, Commissioner Crowther seconded the
motion. On page 8, fourth paragraph, in the first sentence, "would" should
be "could ". The second sentence should read: "However, the Commission could
modify it to state that, in the event of a change, the applicant is relieved
from that obligation, should the City Council review the matter and decide to
treat Aloha Avenue differently." Commissioner Laden moved to waive the reading
of the minutes and approve as modified. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the
motion, which was carried unanimously.
To clarify the minutes regarding the General Plan, Commissioner Crowther moved
that the Draft General Plan include the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee
inputs in the specific elements and action programs of the General Plan. Com-
missioner Bolger seconded the motion. Discussion followed, and the vote was
taken on the motion. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Laden and
Schaefer dissenting, stating that they feel this should be addressed during the
General Plan Review.
CONSENT CALENDAR
SDR -1480 and A -815 were removed for discussion. Commissioner Zambetti moved,
seconded by Commissioner Laden, to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar,
listed below. The motion was carried unanimously.
3. SDR -1518 - C. Mayo, Montewood, Over SO% Expansion, Tentative Building Site
ADDroval
Discussion followed on SDR -1480, regarding the location and the further sub-
division of the 25,000 sq. ft. lot. Commissioner Laden moved, seconded by
Commissioner Zambetti, to approve SDR -1480. The motion was carried unanimously.
Regarding A -81S, it was determined that a condition should be added to read that
any illumination will be shut off after 9:00 p.m., except when meetings are in
session. Commissioner Laden moved to approve A -81S per the Staff Report, as
amended. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4a. A -809 - V. Bellomo, Request for Design Review Approval and a Variance to
4b. V -570 - erect a sign which exceeds the maximum allowable area at 18570
Prospect Road; continued from February 10, 1982
The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. No one appeared to address the
Commission. It was directed that this item be continued to April 28, 1982,
at the applicant's request.
- 1 -
Planning Commission Page 2
....
Meeting Minutes 3/24/82
GF -337 - Consideration of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, the
Subdivision Ordinance and the Grading Ordinance for the Specific
Plan Area
GF -333 - Consideration of a Revision to the Slope Density Formula in the
HC -RD District to a 2 -10 Acre Straight Line Formula
Staff commented that in the packet is the ordinance for the NHR Zoning
-�.
District, which has been reviewed by the Commission on several occasions,
. c,;••"."; " ".' °` " " "` "'' ". " °''` "''1•: °'`w• .;.,;r.,k
and the modifications that have been agreed upon by the Commission have
been included. They added that there are several sections where the Com
mission had indicated that there was a need for a vote, and those have been
so indicated.
s
The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the ordinance is to be recommended
by the Commission to the City Council; that does not necessarily mean an
affirmative recommendation, or for that matter a negative recommendation.
Fie explained that the Commission tonight is required to give a report to
the City Council; they are not required to agree. He indicated that if
anyone feels, for example, that they wish to vote no on the ordinance as
a whole, but by reason of particular provisions that are contained in it,
then certainly that point of view should be communicated to the Council in
a memorandum. He added that he feels that every Commissioner has the right
to issue their own recommendation to the Council if there is not agreement
..,.._ -... ...::..._.:,._:.:...;....:.: ..;.........:.;,.,:.._..;..;:,,
by the Commission as a whole.
The Deputy City Attorney noted the specific changes in the ordinance. He
„'_. YyS�1',�r Cc�.r`ztiig ,05 vc
indicated that they have discovered a recent state law which would require
a change in Section 3B.4(f). He explained that this law has specified
that a municipality may not require a use permit in the case of a state
licensed or certified family care home having 6 or fewer persons, and this
section will have to be deleted or changed.
He commented that the resolution would have to refer to the map that would
be adopted as part of the ordinance, and the map which has been put before
the Commission is basically the Measure A map. He explained that in addi-
tion to the ordinance, the Comission would also necessarily be amending the
present zoning map. The resolution would refer both to the text of the
ordinance, as well as an amendment to the present zoning map, which would
follow the boundary lines of the Measure A area. He noted that the map
before the Commission now includes lands that are located in the County;
therefore, lines will be drawn to conform exactly with the Cite boundary
lines. He added that if there are further changes to the ordinance and
there is agreement by the Commission, they will be incorporated in a revised
draft that would go to the City Council.
The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. Since no one appeared to speak,
Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, to close the
public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously.
There was discussion and voting by the Commission on the ordinance as
follows:
Section 3B.3(g) - Commissioner Crowther stated that lie believed that it was
pointe out in a study session that neighborhood recreational facilities
require special conditions associated with them, and that it is more appropii
ate that this be made a conditional use so those conditions can be clarified
y:
and established. He stated that he agreed with that comment and would like
to see Item (g) moved to Conditional Uses. There was a consensus for that
change.
Section 3B.4(f) - Discussion followed on this section, and Commissioner
Zam>etti movecT to delete it. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion,
nothing that this would be covered in Section (a). The motion carried,
with Commissioner Laden dissenting.
Section 313.5(a) - Discussion followed, and Commissioner Laden moved to
leave this section as presently written. Commissioner Zambetti seconded
'*
the motion, with Commissioners Schaefer and Crowther dissenting
" J'i
2 — -.
{
Planning Commission Page 3
Meeting Minutes 3/24/82
GF -333 and GF -337 (cont.)
Sec. 3B.6 (a)(i) - Commissioner Crowther stated that he thinks it has been
claritied by the City Geologist that the shallow slide areas are the areas
-
that caused loss of life in other counties during the severe rain storm,
and he believes that Ms should be added to the categories in this section,
based on that input. Discussion followed on this subject, and Commissioner
r
Crowther moved to add Ms to Md and Mrf in that section. Commissioner
fto-T�,n tray 'r •.
Bolger seconded the motion, which failed, with Commissioners Zambetti,
Schaefer and Laden dissenting.
Sec.'3B.6 a)(ii) - After discussion there was a consensus that this sentence
should read All quarries .......
Sec.'3B.6(a)(iii) - Commissioner Laden moved to remove this section from the
ordinance. Co issioner Zambetti seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther
asked Commissioner Laden to explain.the basis of her motion, since it has
been pointed out that these are areas which have caused great property
:.
damage and loss of life. Commissioner Laden explained that (1) Her inter -
:... °_...,.,
pretation of what the City Geologist said was that this is correctable. It
is determinable by on -site specific studies as to whether this particular
geological definition is buildable, and that the maps upon which the Com-
mission works are generalized and not as specific as an on -site study would
be, and (2) If these areas carry the danger load that Commissioner Crowther
is interpreting it to be, then the 7S% would not be adequate and would not
relieve the problem. Commissioner Crowther commented that this just sets
r� M
the density of the property; it doesn't say that it can be built upon.
�.
inappropriate way to
Commissioner Laden commented that she feels this is an ina p
set the density on this particular issue. *(Addition below)
Commissioner Schaefer commented that the City Geologist had indicated that
he feels the maps used are only accurate within 200 feet, and she feels
that 200 feet is a great deal when talking about building sites and property
lines. She added that a site by site geological map is and will be required
for every home or structure that goes into the hillsides, and if in this
}
site by site geological map it is determined that there is a fault or pro-
blem or potential problem with that area, then there should be performance
standards reviewed by the City Geologist, who is a professional in this area,
so that the site foundation can meet these standards or not be approved.
She indicated that she cannot agree with the 7S percent as stated, even
though she feels very strongly that the Commission has an obligation not
to encourage people to build on any site that is considered to be in the
least bit unsafe. She added that a procedure should be considered to attach
these maps to the deed of record to alert any future buyer of the kind of
detail that had to be considered when building on the property.
Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels the process Commissioner
Schaefer stated is no different than the process thatwas followed in Santa
Cruz County before the disasters occurred, or in some of the other counties
where it was also a similar situation. He added that he feels unfortunately
the situation now is that the City has put itself in the spot where it
essentially has to prove that it is unsafe to build on this type of land
~'
in order to prevent building, because there is a lot of uncertainty in the
geology because it is not a mathematical science where there is an easy
answer. He commented that the City is building houses on Ps areas, and
the City Geologist had been asked if he could predict how much loss of life
there would be if there were rainstorms similar to the ones in 1955, and
he replied that he could make no such predictions. Commissioner Crowther
indicated that he feels in this kind of circumstance where there is a lot
of uncertainty,the person who wants to develop such a property should be
required to prove that it is safe, and to do this he would have to remap
the area and propose changes in the City Geologist's maps.
Commissioner Laden stated that she felt the Commission is mixing site
specific development plan with how density is computed, and this particular
paragraph is a discussion of density.
Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she agreed with Commission Crowther's
comment that it is the applicant's responsibility to prove if a site is
safe; however, she feels it can be done presently with a site by site map.
.� ..,
The vote was taken on the motion to delete Section (iii). The motion was
- '_- �=%�' ° %��':;�,i':::•;: ;= .;;,:.: . -•• -; :•;..:
carried, with Commissioners Crowther and Bolger dissenting.
.�= .�.
,,��
arsria x u
*Commissioner Laden was asked if the developer which she rep es nts
110 Cat
has interest in the Measure A area, and she indicated that not.
Planning Commission ` "- "' Page 4
Meeting Minutes 3/24/82
::.a..: ;;.,..;.,:. >:. ...:;;,.. :.,..,.:::,.;.,.........;,,,.,.
GF -333 and GF -337 (cont.)
Commissioner Crowther then moved that Section 3B.6(iii) be replaced by
the Area A General Plan recommendation on density establishment, which
designates percentages related to the City Geologist's maps. Commissioner
Bolger stated that, before seconding the motion, he would like to see the
General Plan Area A densities that were recommended. It was determined
that this subject would be discussed later in the meeting when the densities
were available.
�,, ,trL.,,'. _3.r S'...•�..ywly.tl 5- }�;•..r.`l;k�+%".�; ^.
.. ,./
Section 3B.6(c) - Discussion followed on this section regarding Exempted
Lots. Commissioner Laden commented that, although Measure A calls for the
two -year retroactivity, the only lawsuit decisions that she has seen rendered
have declared that portion null and void and illegal, and have directed
the City to act upon that. She stated that she has a concern that the Com-
mission is promoting and perhaps continuing something the courts have found
to be illegal up to this point. The Deputy City Attorney commented that the
only rulings issued thus far have been by a trial court and one judge in
particular, and those rulings are on appeal; therefore, they do not con -
stitute final rulings. He added that in that respect the normal rule of
law is that a developer would have to comply with a zoning ordinance in
_
force at the time he applies for his building permit; that is an issue
which the courts in the Measure A litigation never addressed.
Section 3B.7(b)(2) - Commissioner Bolger commented that he felt the
:;:.•...: ,::•"., ,..,. .. ..
sentence s oul rea d "Th e City shall require.... rather tha n "ma y require
". Discussion followed, and Staff commented that it was the City
"
Geologist's recommendation to remain permissive based on the City's review
of the preliminary report that is required to be submitted with the Site
-,
Development Plan and his own knowledge of the area and other physical data
that is available for the area. There was a consensus to leave the wording
as it is, with "unless the City Geologist or City Engineer determines
existing information is adequate." added.
Section 3B.7(c) (2)- Commissioner Crowther commented that the Specific Plan
clearly states t at no home or other structure shall be built on an area
with an average slope that exceeds 30 %, and it looks like Alternate #2 is
the only one of those that is consistent with the wording of the Specific
Plan. He added that he feels that Alternate #1 is vague.. He made the
motion to adopt Alternate 42. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion,
which failed, with Commissioners Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to adopt Alternate #1. Commissioner Laden
seconded the motion, which failed, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther
and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels very
strongly that the Commissioners need to come up with their individual
opinions in writing to the City Council on this subject. She indicated
that a third alternate she would prefer is a 160 ft. diameter circle to e
be considered the building envelope for determining slope and that would
be considered the area. The Deputy City Attorney indicated that the
f, ".- - - -.'" •"
ordinance going to the Council will then set forth the two alternatives
as presently worded.
Section 3B.7(c)(3) - Commissioner Schaefer commented that it appears
that the ri gelines that seem the most obstructive are the ones that have
sky behind them when you look at them from the valley floor. She added
that if they have a lot of trees behind them and a home is built on a ridge-
line, she has found that they tend to be less high or less bulky in
appearance. The wording of this section was discussed. Commissioner
Crowther stated that the wording should read "from nearest adjacent top ".
Commissioner Laden moved to include Commissioner Crowther'; words and delete
the alternate: as viewed from the valley floor line. Commissioner Crowther
seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissent -
ing.
Section 3B.9(a) - It was determined that this should read "No structure
shall extend to an elevation within eight feet from the top of the nearest
adjacent major ridge that does not have dense tree cover." There w,
also consensus to use that wording in the previous section discussed,
3B.7(c)(3).
Section 3B. 8(c) - Consensus to delete "on the area ".
Planning Commission �.. ` Page 5-
"
Meeting Minutes 3/24/82
GF -333 and GF -337 (cont.)
Section 3B.8(d) - Staff noted that the City Geologist felt that the
intensity of evelopment should be the result of the various studies
required, as opposed to being restrictive on Ps and Pd. Discussion
followed, and Commissioner Laden moved to eliminate the sentence "Cuts
-- - -
and fills in excess of 3 feet shall not be permitted in areas classified
~•'�'= °''' -'
in the City's geologic maps as Ps or Pd.." Commissioner Zambetti seconded
the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissent -
�#�ta3w,`s;a•��t
ing.
Commissioner Crowther restated his previous motion to adopt the recommenda-
tions stated in the General Plan Committee submission for the General Plan.
He commented that he was. specifically referring to the first policy under
the Area A Action Program, which states percentage credits toward the 0 -10
acre slope density proportional to the percentage of the land that is in
each geologic category. He indicated that he would adopt Item 1 in its
entirety in place of Section 3B.6(a)(iii). Commissioner Bolger seconded
the motion. Commissioner Laden stated that she would like to clarify that
this is an action program submitted by the representatives of Area A, and
it was never submitted for a vote to the group as a whole. She added that
she would not want it represented as something the group as a whole decided
upon. Kathy McGoldrick, from the.GPCAC, agreed with Commissioner Laden.
Commissioner Zambetti noted his concern about the word "credits" and stated
that he was concerned that this could be looked upon in the future as allow -
ing the density calculation to be higher than what the Commission envisioned
because the geology would be calculated at a
g gy percentage rate and credit rate.
�.•_� `L
Commissioner Bolger stated that the Area A description in.the General Plan*
t
as far as giving credits for geologic hazards, and he feels that basically
•ni %���y Vii%
this is still falling within the framework of the 0 -10 slope density. He
added that it does not speak about transfer of credits; it is just speaking
about the specific site. Commissioner Crowther added that essentially this
lands have
would say that that very little geologic hazards will be given
higher credits than those that have high geologic hazards, and that would
be consistent with Measure A.
Discussion followed, and the vote was then taken on the motion. It resulted
in a split vote, with Commissioners Schaefer and Laden dissenting and Com-
missioner Zambetti abstaining. Commissioner Zambetti commented that he did
not understand exactly what it would do to the density formula.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that he will put a reference in the ordi-
nance to this proposal, since there was a split vote. He added that the
Commissioners can write whatever individual reports on this issue that
„
they wish to the City Council.
Staff described the ridgelines on the map, and discussion followed. It
.- .•• -.... _.-
was determined that it should be clarified as to lines that are intended
as minor ridges. The Deputy City Attorney indicated that the boundary line
on the western side should be drawn at the City boundaries. He explained
that even though Measure A includes part of County land, what is being dealt
with here is the zoning map of land within the City boundaries. Staff
stated that they could bring the map to a study session after the major
ridges have been indicated and the City boundaries shown. There was a con -
sensus on the map.
The Deputy City Attorney commented that any Commissioner can write his own
report, giving his own views in support of the ordinance or in opposition
to any sections. He indicated that the resolution simply recommends adoption.
He indicated that the proposed amendment to the zoning map will be attached
as Exhibit A and the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will be
_
Exhibit B. He noted that the ridgeline map is referenced in the ordinance
as an exhibit.
Discussion followed on sections of the ordinance where a motion should be
made to indicate disagreement with the currently stated section, as opposed
to sending a memo to the Council. Commissioner Laden moved to amend Sec -
tion 3B.6(c), Exempted Lots, to read: "Any lot shown as a unit on a recorded
subdivision or land ivci sion, or any lot otherwise legally created, or any
r
lots on approved tentative maps, are exempt from the density requirements
set forth in Paragraph (a) of this Section 3B.6 provided such lot was created
` rc "'• °�`k`�Y�t
prior to April 25, 1980. Any lot so exempted will not lose its exempt status
_�, ;'
if either of the following events takes place subsequent to April 25 1980.
i
- 5 -
Planning Commission C. , Page 6
,Meeting Minutes 3/24/82
7.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Laden seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner
Crowther moved to approve A -814, per the Staff Report, modified to include
a condition stating that the applicant shall participate with the adjoin-
ing neighbor to remove the bridge located on the westerly property line.
Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Mr. Kraft, the neighbor, indicated that he would work with the applicant
GF- 333 and GF- 337 (cont . )
Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he thought that the motion was incon-
sistent with the measure adopted by the voters and was opposed to it.
He added that he thinks the Deputy City Attorney worded this to be con-
sistent with Measure A. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the
ordinance contains the same language as the Specific Plan.
The vote was taken, which resulted in a split vote, with Commissioners
r'. �• �?..
Bolger and Crowther dissenting and Commissioner Schaefer abstaining.
Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels that this issue is being
resolved in the courts. Commissioner Laden commented that she certainly
believes that the voters have the right to change the zoning at any time
that they wish through the proper process; however, she has a problem with
the retroactivity. The Deputy City Attorney indicated that this item will
also go to the City Council as a split vote.
Commissioner Laden moved to approve Resolution GF -337 -1 as modified. It
was determined that the Commission would like to see the final maps before
they adopt them. It was directed that the maps will be adopted at an Ad-
`
journed Regular Meeting on March 30th. Commissioner Bolger seconded the
motion to adopt Resolution GF -337 -1 as modified. The motion was carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve Resolution GF- 333 -1, amending
-
Section 3A -24 of Ordinance NS -3, pertaining to density and site area of
the HC -RD Zoning District. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion.
��- ftisr%3
Discussion followed on the wordage that excludes the 40% slope from the
density formula. Commissioner Zambetti commented that, for consistency,
he feels that these hillsides should be considered with the same density
vr„
formula as in the Measure A hillsides. He amended his motion as to delete
_
the wordage to exclude the 40% slope from the density formula. The Deputy
City Attorney clarified that this would basically be an adoption of Section
3B.6, the density provision in the ordinance just discussed, and that would
then include the alternate proposal or substitute for Section 3B.6(a)(iii).
The vote was taken on the motion to approve Resolution GF- 333 -1. The motior
=
was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting.
7.
A -810 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to construct
a two-story single family residence on Vintage Lane
It was directed that this item be continued, at the request of the applicant
.
to April 14, 1982.
8.
A -814 - Paul DeVos, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two -
story structure 18' max., at 14681 Farwell
Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 10:00 p.m.
Kirsten Kraft, 20021 Bella Vista, discussed the following points: (1) ease-
ment leading to his property, which is for the purpose of ingress and
egress and also for utilities; (2) removal of an existing structure and
bridge that is attached to it; (3) undergrounding of utilities, and (4) set
backs.
Discussion followed on these points. Richard Stowers, the architect, dis-
cussed the easement location and a retaining wall shown on the tentative
map, stating that they do not propose to build that wall. He distributed
drawings of the house and discussed the site and the design.
Staff noted that in the issuance of any building permits Staff will be
aware of the easement, and permanent facilities will not be allowed within
it. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she would like a note on the
map referring to the easement, for future Staff's information.
7.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Laden seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner
Crowther moved to approve A -814, per the Staff Report, modified to include
a condition stating that the applicant shall participate with the adjoin-
ing neighbor to remove the bridge located on the westerly property line.
Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Mr. Kraft, the neighbor, indicated that he would work with the applicant
(
Planning Commission - F .. Page 7
''"•
•Meeting Minutes 3/24/82
A -814 (cont.)
on the removal of the bridge.
-� -- -
9a. C -199 - E. Zambetti, Request for Rezoning (from R -M -3,000 to C -C),
9b. A -812 - Design Review Approval and Site Approval to construct an
9c. SDR -1517 - office building adjacent to Parking Assessment District No. 4
Commissioner Zambetti abstained from the voting on these items. A letter
,:..
from Mr. Jeff Hass in favor of this plan was noted into the record.
The Deputy City Attorney discussed the position of the City Attorney
regarding split zoning, stating that, while there is nothing in the ordi-
nance that prohibits split zoning as a matter of policy, it is not some-
thing that he favors. He added that, as far as the General Plan is con -
"
cerned, he finds that he has some difficulty drawing the General Plan
boundary line in a manner that shows it dividing the property. He stated
that there are also some concerns over the practice of split zoning and
the difficulties it creates in terms of defining where the property lines
are as opposed to the zoning lines, and how site area and setbacks are
?
determined.
Staff described the application and the options available to the Commis -
sion. The public hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m.
The applicant gave a presentation on the application. He submitted a
petition from the neighbors in favor of the proposal. He discussed the
historical home which he plans to preserve and move to the site. Mr.
'
Zambetti noted that he had previously received approval for a rezoning
from an earlier Planning Commission; it went to the City Council, and they
informed him that a use permit would be more appropriate. He explained
that it was then determined that there was no available procedure for
what the City Council had directed.
_
Diana Parham, Secretary- Treasurer of Twin Oaks Homeowners Association,
indicated that they had held a meeting and spoke to the point of the
problem as it involved them, which is rezoning the entire lot. She
explained that they felt that if one particular parcel on the street is
rezoned, then future subsequent owners can do what they wish with the
property, and a precedent would also be set. Ms. Parham also commented
that they were against the rezoning because they felt it would be very
easy to rezone all of Oak Street if one portion is rezoned. She suggested
dedicating part of the property into Big.Basin and not having it be on
Oak Street.
Robert Aviles, the architect, discussed the project and gave the back -
ground. He indicated that he feels it will be a benefit to the City in
terms of a commercial base and historical significance. He added that
he does not see any other use which would have the minimal impact that
this use would have.
Commissioner Laden commented that she had been a part of the Commission
that had previously approved the rezoning, and also had been involved
with the Village Task Force. She explained that she believes that the
intent from the Task Force or Commission at that time was to allow this
-
type of use. She indicated that she feels the question is the appropri-
ate mechanism to get this use allowed so that a precedent is not set.
She added, however, that she feels that the applicant has been led to
believe over the years that this application will be approved, by accepting
his money and property into the parking district.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he had a question regarding the depth
of the site, and also concern regarding the neighboring properties if
a precedent were set by this application.
There was a consensus that this application should be continued to an
adjourned regular meeting on April 6th at 7:30 p.m.
10. UP -S1S Spa Petite, Request for Use Permit Approval to locate a health
spa in the C -N (Neighborhood- Commercial Zoning District at
18851 Cox Avenue
The proposal was described by Staff. The parking requirements were dis-
n;s�
cussed.
- 7 -
Planning Commission C_.,..
-Meeting Minutes 3/24/82
�'..,. Page 3
UP -515 (cont.)
The public hearing was opened at 11:05 p.m.
Kathy McGoldrick, 12860 Paseo Presada, expressed concerns regarding the
number of people using the facility and the traffic. She also questioned
whether it could be rented for private parties; will there be alcohol
allowed, and whether it will be able to go co -ed.
.i..'TS�` -,'� cN' � ��2y("'q��s'v- 'i:C�' �S>sRCR•� . 3 ? .i^�`''
.
George Klukas, representing Spa •Petite, discussed the operation of tite
n
spa. Commissioner Bolger expressed concern regarding the impact of the
u
parking and traffic on the surrounding neighborhood. He suggested stud\ -
ing the entire shopping center, including the future planned uses. The
parking ratio was discussed, and Mr. Klukas stated that he did not believe
the parking would be a problem, noting the traffic ratios used in other
cities. The parking ratios for other shopping centers were discussed, and
it was determined that the requirements, the types of uses, and the types
of neighborhood for each individual shopping center should be studied at
a future Committee -of- the -Whole meeting.
'
The possibility of limiting the number of people in attendance at the
spa at any given hour was discussed. It was noted that it would be
difficult to enforce such a condition. Commissioner Bolger commented
that he still has a problem with the parking aspect and feels that allocat-
ing 15 or 17 spaces will not be sufficient.
Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Laden commented that she feels that the Commission, by agree -
�� 4l
ing this use to be allowed as a conditional use, did give their consent
to this project. She indicated that she feels this project is important-
to the viability of the shopping center, but pointed out that the use
permit will be under the continuous jurisdiction of the Commission regard-
ing reevaluation of the hours of operation and other problems that may
come forward in the future.
Commissioner Laden moved to approve UP -515, per the Staff Report, with
the following added conditions: (2) No alcoholic beverages shall be served
on the premises; (3) The establishment shall not be rented out for pri-
vate parties; and (4) The establishment shall be maintained as a "Wo;nen's
Only" Health Spa Facility. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion,
which was carried, with Commissioner Bolger dissenting.
11. UP -516 - Kermani, Navai, Shirazi, Request for Use Permit Approval to con-
struct 8 condominiums and 1 retail structure on 42,000 sq. ft.
site in the C -V (Visitor Commercial) District at 14599 Big Basin
Way
It was directed that this item be continued to April 14, 1982, at the
applicant's request.
wanw,airoaw,ckr
MISCELLANEOUS
:
12. Staff Request for Zoning Ordinance Interpretation Regarding Saso Herb
Gardens, corner of Farwell and Fruitvale Avenue
Staff noted that there had been a complaint received relative to the
Saso Gardens, prompted by parking and traffic problems during a special
event. They indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Saso have presented letter
from their neighbors which would provide for off -site parking and they
have committed for providing direction o[ traffic to those adjoining
sites during their special events. Staff noted that there have also
been letters received in support of the continuation of this use.
Discussion followed, and Commissioner Laden moved that the Planning
Commission interprets the Saso Herb Gardens as being a permitted use
under Section 3.2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Zambetti
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
`
COMMUNICATIONS
Written - None
1,1111 ac the Otber sbonnine centers and the Village.
Planning Commission
;Meeting Minutes 3/24/82
Oral Communications
Page 9
1. Chairman Schaefer thanked the representative of the newspaper for attend-
ing the meeting, and the Good Government Group for attending and serving
coffee.
ADJOURNMENT
It was directed that the meeting be adjourned to an Adjourned Regular Meeting
on Tuesday, March 30, 1982, at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert S. Sh ok
Secretary
RSS:cd
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. :L "�
DATE: April 7, 1982
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
5UBj=. UP -514, Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Jordan /Hendricks
Issue Summary
During your March 17, 1982 meeting you determined that the conditions
attached to this permit did not reflect exactly your final determination
on the matter, i.e., no sewer connection allowed.' Allowing a sink on
the first floor is inconsistent with prohibition of sewer connection.
Recommendation.
Clarify conditions and adopt resolution approving use permit for garage
and storage use only.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution
Council Action
4/7: Jensen/Watson moved to change condition to read "No plumbing or plumbing fixtures
shall be allowed." Passed 3 -1 (Mallory opposed, Callon not participating).
Mallory/Watson moved to approve resolution 1074 as amended. Passed 4 -0 (Callon
not participating) .
I
+� hfh".L�±l ,y ''Y`.r ''T,_ � 1 � ✓+4a.t- J4,..1 Y 4
J
3/16/82
RESOLUTION NO. 1074
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA MODIFYING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, :MAKING REQUISITE FINDINGS, GRANTING
USE PERMIT UP-514.
WHEREAS, applicants Jerry Jordan and John Henricks
requested Use Permit approval to remodel a non - conforming
two -story accessory structure; and
WHEREAS, said proposed accessory structure is not
in conformity with Ordinance NS -3, Section 3.7 -1, regarding
accessory structures in rear yards; and
WHEREAS, Section 3.7 -1 of Ordinance NS -3 provides
that an exception to said ordinance may be granted by.the
Planning Commission through the use permit procedure as set
forth in Section 16 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 1982, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on applicant's request for
Use Permit approval and after said public hearing approved
request for garage and storage use only; and
WHEREAS, applicants have appealed the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council pursuant to
Section 16.7 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 1982, the City Council held
a de novo public hearing and after the closing of said
public hearing reviewed and considered the applicant's
request, staff reports, minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting of January 13, 1982, and other evidence, both
written and oral, presented to the Council during said
public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of
Saratoga HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
- 1 -
The move and foregoing resolution was passed
and adopted at-a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Saratoga held on the 7th day of April, 1982
by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmenbers Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson
NOES: None
NOT PARTICIPATING: Mayor Callon
MAYOR
ATTEST:
— A,. `.
CITY CLERK
".e,'
1.
The applicant's appeal from the Planning
F
Commission
is denied and the decision of the Planning
Commission
is -modified as follows:
Conditions deleted:
(2) "The 220 wiring shall be removed from
the structure."
(3) "Outdoor illumination will be no higher
than 6 feet."
r:
Condition added:
(2) "No plumbing or plumbing fixtures shall be
allowed." -
2.'
The Council makes all of the findings as
set out in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
3.
'Having made the appropriate findings, Use
Permit 514
is hereby approved as conditioned.
The move and foregoing resolution was passed
and adopted at-a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Saratoga held on the 7th day of April, 1982
by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmenbers Clevenger, Jensen, Mallory, Watson
NOES: None
NOT PARTICIPATING: Mayor Callon
MAYOR
ATTEST:
— A,. `.
CITY CLERK
i
Exhibit A
REPORT OF FINDINGS
UP -514
1. That the proposed .location of the conditional use is in accord with
the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located in that the restricted use and the con-
ditions imposed on this use will mitigate any noncompliance with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions
under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that the use will be
restricted to garage and.storage and its impact on adjacent properties
will be limited by conditioning removal of window and restricting
interior plumbing.
3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance when the imposed conditions have been
met.
\ 1. The applicant's appeal from the Planning
'-Commission is denied and the decision of the Planning
Co ission is -modified as follows:
Conditions deleted:
(2) "The 220 wiring shall be remove from
the structure."
(3) "Outdoor illumination will be no higher
than 6 feet."
Condition added: �^ y
2) "Plumbingnfixtures sh1� be restricted
to a wash basin on /t'he first floor.
2. The Council makes all of the findings as
set out in Exhibit "A" attached he�eto and incorporated
herein by reference. /
3. Having mad the appropriate findings, Use
Permit 514 is hereby appr ued as conditioned.
The above and/forego ng resolution was passed
i \\
and adopted at a regular meetin of the City Council of
the City of Sarato Z held on the day of
by the following /vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
J
ti& \ .
April 12, 1982
11111111 111111111q�
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
Messrs. J. Jordan and J. Hendricks
21463 Saratoga Hills Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Messrs. Jordan and Hendricks:
The City Council, at their meeting on April 7, 1982, adopted
Resolution No. 1074, which modifies a decision of the Planning
Commission and grants Use Permit UP -514, per the conditions
listed therein. The Council made the requisite findings, and
these are attached as Exhibit "A ". A copy of the resolution is
enclosed for your files.
If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please
do not hesitate to contact our office.
Ve truly yours,
Rober S. S oo -
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
Enclosure
cc: Charles Robbins, 19348 Monte Vista Dr., Saratoga, CA w /attach.
Ms. Lynn Belanger, 1625 The Alameda, Suite 40.0, San Jose, CA
95126 w /attach.
Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF SARA` XM
Initial:
AGENDA BILL N0. Dept-
DATE:—April Hd.
7, 1982 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development - Engineering C. Mgr.
SECT: RESOLUTION NO. 1-4V -153 - RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION
OF PASEO PRESADA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Sunmary The area determined to be congested and a need for prohibition
of Parking is along the westerly side of Paseo Presada between
Cox Ave. and 120'+ northerly to the driveway at the new professional building
located at the northwesterly corner of Cox Ave. and Paseo Presada. Presently
when vehicles park in this area, it forces southbound traffic on Paseo Presada
to drive over the chatter bars located in the middle of said Paseo Presada.
This -is a Staff originated action. On April 12, 1982 the Homeowners Associa-
tion and the fronting property owner were notified of this potential action.
Recommendation
Fiscal Impacts
Adopt Resolution No. 14V -153 - Resolution Prohibiting Parking
On A Portion Of Paseo Presada.
Labor and Materials for two (2) "NO PARKING ANYTIME" signs
and painting the curb red would come to $91.00.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No. MV -153
2. Map
Council Action
4/7: Consensus to continue to 4/21.
4/21: Jensen/Watson moved to adopt Resolution NV -153. Passed 5 -0.
CITY CLERK
:F k
RESOLUTION NO. MV -153
RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING
ON A PORTION OF PASEO PRESADA
. ' 'r= "•:^ r "''
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows
Section 1: The following portion of street in the City of
Saratoga is hereby declared to be a congested area
and the following limit for parking of motor vehicles is hereby
established for said portion of said street:
NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION PARKING LIMIT
Paseo Presada Westerly side of NO PARKING
•
Paseo Presada from ANYTIME
,✓� ', Jfr �f t!"tLa.'.Iwiv"t''.7j
the extension of
.+.'L�
the northerly curb
line of Cox Avenue
to a point 120 feet
..._.......: -... , -' '.:., .
northerly.
This section shall become effective at such time as the
proper markings are installed as delineated above.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by
the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held
on the day of 1982, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CITY CLERK
:F k
gogso4urloN NO.MV-153
SCALE:
(-TO VR.4rO,^4.4p-),--
o 0
Cox
Sf-0--;3
1{ �Q�
RIR
(72)-
Rliz A V -
: CITY OF SARA=11
Initial:
AG- 1DA BILL NO. c2 Dept. Hd.
DATE: Parch 29, 1982
DEP ..ffM: City Manager
C. Atty.
C. Mgr. /
SUBJECT: Appropriation Adjustments for Unbudgeted Legal Expenses
Issue Summary
The City has recently resolved three long- standing lawsuits. Mr. Faber
Johnston, Esq., has been retained as special legal counsel to continue the
defense of the City on these three suits. Since the suits are now settled, the
City has received invoices for attorney's fees. These expenses, were not anti-
cipated in the current budget, therefore, it is necessary for City Council to
authorize..appropriations and approve payment. Two of the suits involve general
litigation against the City (Crowther and Lyngso) and are chargeable to the
City's General Fund. The third suit (Gaines) involves settlement of condemna-
tion of land for Parking District #4, and is chargeable to the monies in the
Parking District fund.
Reccmrendation
By minute action, approve the appropriation from fund reserves and payment of
the invoices attached.
General Fund $ 6,107.74
Parking Dist. #4 6,264.16
$12,371.90
Fiscal Imoacts
Total cost to the City for the settlement of the three suits involved is shown
in the recommendation above affecting each of the funds.
E:.hibits /Attachments
1. Report to Council from Manager dated March 23
2. Invoice Lyngso v. City of Saratoga
3. Invoice Crowther v. City of Saratoga
4. Invoice Gaines v. City of Saratoga
Co=cil Action
4/7: Clevenger /Callon moved to approve. Passed 5 -0.
�IEti'IOR,�NDl11I
TO
FROM
SUBJECT:
City Council
City Manager
uguw @0 §&M&U00'&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
Appropriation for Unbudgeted Legal.Fees
DATE: March 23, 1982
The City Council has been advised of the recent settlement of
three lawsuits. While the settlement had been favorable in
all three cases, appropriations had not been included in the
current budget for the legal services provided by special
counsel. We have now received invoices for the legal services
in each of these suits, and they are as follows:
General Fund
Lyngso v. City of Saratoga: $5,406.74
Crowther v. City of Saratoga: $ 701.00
Subtotal: $6,107.74
Parkin; District #4 Fund
Gaines v. Saratoga: $6,264.16
Combined Total: $12,371.90
Monies are available in the General Fund and in the Parking
District #4 Fund to cover these expenditures. It is recom-
mended therefore, that the City Council approve the payment
of these invoices, and authorize monies be appropriated to
the proper accounts from the General Fund Operating Reserve
for Contingencies in the amount of $6,107.74, and from the
Parking District #4 Fund Reserve in the amount of $6,264.16.
The attached agenda bill can be approved by minute action.
J. Wayne Dernetz
JWD:ac
Attachment
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. IF
DATE: April 7, 1982
IN)MV.11600121
SUBJECT: OLD WOOD ROAD STORM DRAIN
Issue Summary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
On March 3, 1982 the City Council authorized the'advertisement for bids
on the above project. On April 1, 1982 there were four bids received,
with Pacific Underground Construction, Inc. of Saratoga being the apparent
low bidder with a bid amount of $16,222.50, excluding the alternate bid
for the asphalt concrete overlay - which came in at $5,000.00. This
project will eliminate a surface drainage problem as well as intercepting .
an active spring, which has caused deterioration of the surface of the road.
The asphalt concrete overlay portion of the project will be included in the
upcoming reconstruction .and overlay project scheduled within the next two
to three months, as a better unit cost would come with the larger project.
The Engineer's Estimate for the portion of the project recommended for
award is $15,356.00. $12,000.00 was included in the 1981 -82 Capital
Improvement Budget.
Recommendation
Award the contract for Old Wood Road Storm Drain to Pacific Underground
Construction, Inc. for the bid amount of $16,222.50.
Reject the bid amount of $5,000.00 for asphalt concrete overlay (Alternate).
Allocate the .additional, = 44, *2 -22 ..50 from ='the Storm Drain Fund to 'the Capital
Improvement Program.
Fiscal Impacts
This project was approved in the-Capital Improvement Budget as Cordwood
Court Storm Drain.
Exhibits /Attachments
Bid Summary.
Council Action
4/7: Callon /Mallory moved to award bid to Pacific Underground in the amount of $16,222.50.
Callon /Jensen moved to allocate $4,222.50 from the Storm Drain Fund to the Capital
Improvement Program.
,OA VE
T/ME. 3: 00 P M
C /TY OF SARA TO $A
SID SUMMAR,f
Pwovecr:
0/_,q WOOD RDA 0
sroRM ORAIN
En
V. bhl;7o1e
fbc fic Urx/c
5al"CO A; Ines
e Ur,�cr �/
6. E M. Cursfruchan
rrEM
DESCRIPT /o/V
Qu.4n/T/rY
UNIT
UMIT
pq,C�
TOT,4z
UN /T
pjq/�S
TOTAL
UNIT
RIci
T0r.4G
_GYo
UNIT
pRICF
TOTAL
UN /T
PR,C
TOTAL
R. C. ,0
386
L.F.
ZS.DO
9,650.00
28,75
//097.50
39,00
/505400
no
12,931.00
3750
/4475.00
Z.
Inlerce/01,04air!iv6PM
28
Z.f.
20.00
560.00
31.ZS
875.00
16.00
448.00
,30.
840,6033.
9.3$00
3,
510.1frl Nlanho /es
2
EQ.
tS-0
2,5,00.0011,0Z5
2 OSO.00
1800.06
1,600.00
goo
1400.00
/560
3120,00
4,
Lole,i &SIi 7 ear
Z5.0
lIZ50-601zzoo
Z ZOO.00
/,Zoo
/ 200.00
Z4Z
Z,4S0,
650
650.00
S[U r.4 4
/3 960.00
/6 ZZZ. SO
18, 302.00
/8,62/. 00
/9,183,GyC
1,396.00
ALTElZ IVA TE
/5356.001
/,
qs hri // Conc. Dver /Q
50
Ton
oox
zsoo.oO
/A0.
opmeo
SUB- TOT.4Z;
z,Soo.00
51000.00
s,SGb.00
6250,
Soo. or,
TO r!G ,4/ofO NT aic
8/D :
016,460.061
2 , 2z2, SO
Z3 802.00
"24,971. 00
24 983 a
CiTY t C Stll:i {1(h;[1
AGENDA BILL M. 2 SO
DATE: April 7, 1982
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
AL —
C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJEcr• Final Building Site Approval SDR 1452 (4 lots) Wilson Development,
Cunningham Place
Issue Sunmary
1. The SDR 1452 is ready for conditional final.
2. All requirements for City Departments and other agencies have been met except the
bonds have not been submitted to the City.
3. A Negative Declaration was approved with the project dated 3/17/80.
Recomnendation
Adopt Resolution No. 1452 -1 attached, approving the Conditional Final Map of
SDR 1452 and authorize execution of the Contract of Improvement Agreement.
(Conditional approval will become final approval when bonds are received.)
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Copy of Tentative Map Approval
2. Resolution 1452 -1
3. Location Map
4. Status Report for Building Site Approval
Council Action
4/7: Watson /Jensen moved approval. Passed 5 -0.
5. Report to Planning Commission
6. Report from Director of Community
Development enclosing memo from
Mr. Ron Becker
RESOLUTION NO. 1452 -1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Wilson Development
(Robert ire
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1:
The 13,115 S.F., 14,448 S.F., 14,412 S.F. and 13,148 S.F. parcels shown
as Parcel A, B, C and D on the final parcel map prepared by Kier and Wright
Engineers and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved
as four (4) individual building sites.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
meeting held on the 7th day of April , 19 82 ,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
ITY CLERK
MAYOR
C:iTY Ur'
Initial: YM
AGEt�IDA BILL NO. . �0 Dept. Hd. �y
DATE: April 7, 1982 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECF: Final Building Site Approval SDR 1452 (4 lots) Wilson Development,
___---- _--- Cunningham Place
---- - - - --4� - ---------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Sumnary
1. The SDR 1452 is ready for onditional final.
2. All requirements for City D artments and other agencies have been met except the
bonds have not been submitted to the City.
3. 'A Negative Declaration was appr ved with the 3/17/80.
Recomnendation \ /
Adopt Resolution No. 1452 -1 attached, appro�vi -ng the Conditional Final Map of
SDR 1452 and authorize execution of the Con Tact of Improvement Agreement.
(Conditional approval will become final appr al when bonds are received.)
Fiscal Impacts
None'
Exhibits /Attachm -nts
1. Copy of Te ative Map Approval
2. Resolutio 1452 -1
3. Locatio Map
4. Status Report for Building Site Approval
Council Action
5. Report to Planning Commission
6. Report from Director of Community
Development enclosing memo from
Mr. Ron Becker
� O
I
L � 1
f �
l'
U
I '
Jh
�; 'b0 ONV�M70 Y��1J
Z Y 2
Z0 t J
Y r
NO
cr
W I
2
3
a
u
"0•Yti Nllp
0 `/`��
y DOOM Tai
r e
d3' Jo-
W
�= ne
31 GJ� P BNO1
V J
�O O,
4 3hc
1J /
J •
t
w
30
V
0
O
0 1�
Y
a
\ 131
ye
W � \
I
Y
1. O .D
Ids
A
J
n { 1U
H1 111MAOV
r
G
1 ,
I�U
�. y�
1yb yi•
4
f
U
1EMORANDUM
=Y OF S ARATOGA
r0: CITY COUNCIL_.__ _
?ROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR -1452 ,.WILSON DEVELOPMENT
( (have not) been met as listed on the
P1:dnningt - Commission :,'.Report dated 3 -6 -80 and 6 -11 -80 Listed below are
he amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required items:
)ffer of Dedication YES
Date Submitted
3 -30 -82
lecord of Survey or Parcel Map
YES
Date Submitted
3 -30 -82
Storm Drainage Fee $2,600.00
Date
Submitted 3 -30 -82 Receipt
#521
:�11 Required Improvement Bonds $4,000.00
Date
Submitted3 -30 -82
Receipt
#521
-X11. Required Inspection Fees $4,300.00
Date
Submitted3 -30 -82
Receipt
#521
3uilding Site Approval Agreement
YES
Date
Signed 3 -30 -82
?ark and Recreation Fee. $5,200.00
.Date
Submitted 3 -30 -82
Receipt
#521
It is, therefore, the Public Works Department recommendation that (Condi-
Aonal) (Final) Building Site Approval for Wilson Development SDR -1452
De granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
= onditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
:ondition (s)
1. Provide bonds for improvements.
N
Reason for Non- Comoliance
D/lT]FAT C CLI(�(1V �
I �S;_t44
NOW 9
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
_P�
City of Saratoga ** (amended 6/11/80)
APPROVED BY: *(amended)
DATE: 3 /06/80
DATE: 2 -
INITIALS: Commission Meeting: 3/12/80
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT' SDR -1452, Robert Cirell, Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd, Tentative
Building Site Approval - 4 lots
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting tentative sub-
division approval for 4 lots on a 1.45 acre
site at the end of Cunningham Place in the R -1- 12,500 zoning dis-
trict.
The site has an average slope,
fruit trees. Surrounding the
units (R -1- 12,500) except for
designated as a park on the G(
to Saratoga - Sunnyvale nor are
it.
of 4.12% and is covered with old
sites are medium density residential
the parcel to the south which is
;neral Plan. No access is allowed on
two stories to be built adjacent to
The Staff Report recommends conditions similar to those required on
Tract 6199, north of the subject site. Staff has reviewed the pro-
posal pad elevations (finish) and finds them suitable.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of
the 1974 General Plan, and all requirement of
the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County
of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environment impact of
this project, if approved under this application. Said determination
date: February 26, 1980.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR-
1452 (Exhibit "B -1" filed March 6, 1980) subject to the following
conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of
Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the sub-
mission of a Record of Survey or Parcel Map; payment of
storm drainage fee and parks and recreation fee as established
Staff Report .
SDR -1452
3/06/80
Page 2
by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; sub-
mission of engineered improvement plans for any street
work; and compliance with applicable Health Department
regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and
requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby
made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site ap-
proval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning
and Building Ordinance, nor with any other Ordinance of the
City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the
following Specific Conditions which are hereby required
and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No.60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - Public Works Department
a. Standard engineering conditions dated April 11, 1977.
b. Dedicate & improve Cunningham Place to City Standards, 3OFT.
improvement on 40ft. Right of Way.
C. Provide pedestrian walkway along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. as
required by Design Review (Existing walkway must be regraded
at existing driveway.)
d.
e. Provide decorative wall or fencing, including landscaping
between fence and street, as required by Design Review.
f. Construct :standard Driveway Approaches.
g. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drain-
age Plan" and as directed by the Director of Public Works, as
needed to convey storm runoff to street, Storm Sewer, or
Watercourse.
h. Provide for on -site surface water control per Department of
Inspection Services.
i No direct access allowed onto Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. from lots.
j. Obtain encroachment permit from Cal -Trans for work to be done
within the State Right -of Way.
k. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (pay
required Checking & Recordation Fees). (If parcel is shown on
existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints)
1. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
a. Street Improvements
b. Storm Drainage Construction
M. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improve-
ment Plans.
Staff Report 3/06/80
SDR -1452 _ Page 3
N. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining
Final Approval (Currently $650 lot).
0. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements
to be compeleted within one (1) year of receiving Final
Approval.
P. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improve-
ments.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS- BUILDING DEPARTMENT
A. Finish grading & drainage plans shall be provided for
each lqt at time of building permits.
B. Drainage facilities at southeast corner shall be con-
structed so as.to collect concentrated water from
property adjacent to the south . ..Private storm drain
easement shall be dedicatedto adjacant property as
required.
C. Proposed pad elevations shown on tentative map are to
be finished pad. Finish flow to be within 12" of finish
pad.
D. Pad elevation & compaction to be certified by -civil
engineer.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accord-
ance with requirements of Sanitation District No. 4 as
outlined in letter dated February 27, 1980.
V SPECIFIC CONDITIONS -SANTA CLARA HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewer installedr
and connected by the developer to one of the existing
trunk sewers of Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to
final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with
said district to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works
VI SPECIFIC CONDITIONS -SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit
plans showing the location and intended use of any
existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification.
VII SPECIFIC CONDITIONS- PLANNING DEPARTMENT
* A. Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is
re reddfor the following in accordance with the schedules
1. Each residential lot, to be a approved prior to
issuance of respective building permits.
Staff Report 3/06/80
SDR -1452
2. The decorative fence or wall along the Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road subdivision frontage and landscaping
between fence and roadway to be approved prior to
Final Subdivision Approval.
3. The pedestrian walkway along the Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road subdivision frontage, to be approved prior to
Final Subdivision Approval.
* B. No two -story homes permitted on Parcels B and C. The
feasibility of two - stories on Parcels A and D will be
determined at the Design Review stage.
1. The structures on Parcels B and C shall be no
closer than 10 ft. from the proposed fence.
at h y Ke ' us
Assistant Planner
APPROVED:
Planning Commission Agenda 3/12/80
*as amended at the Planning Commission Meeting on
3/12/80.
* * Condition II -d was deleted by the Planning Commission
on 6/11/80.
� Al
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY , COUNCIL
DATE: 3- 31 -82-
COUNCIL MEETING: 4 -07 -82
SUBJECT: SDR -1452, Wilson Development, Cunningham Place
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached is communication from Mr. Ron Becker, dated 3/16/82.
Mr. Becker indicates he has some concerns about the project but
does not indicate what they are. I have not discussed these with
him so I can not shed light on them for your information.
With regard to his comments.about noticing, the Planning Commission
meeting was 3/17/80, to which Mr. Becker directed a letter dated
3/12/80. He therefore knew of the meeting and was able to provide
his input. He made additional input to the Commission later and
it changed the conditions of the tentative map on 6/11/80 as a
result of that input.
RSS:cd
Enclosure
Ro rt S. Shook
Director of Community Development
FROM
TO. - C / T6 C� �'. McNARY -WOOD ASSOCIATES, INC.
111 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1 • P.O. BOX Q
rt v & F Q54m ?D LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 94022
A7-6 / A _A j , � ,97e)Y PHONE: (41 S) Since 915
�C (' �, �-/ Insurance Sirtce 1915
Subject. 14 �.._. ...._.,_,_._ ............... ..._- / 8'-Q.- DATE
_..,.
REPLY
RECEIVED,
MAR 2 2 1982
CorAlAUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE Signed
SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBON INTACT. PINK COPY IS RETURNED WITH REPLY.
19 00&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
April 12, 1982
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Cirell
20407 Cunningham Place
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: SDR -1452
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Cirell:
At its regular meeting of April 7, 1982, the Saratoga City
Council approved the final map for SDR -1452, by passing
Resolution No. 1452 -1. A certified copy of that resolution
is enclosed.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact our office.
Vey y truly yo s,
Robert S. Sho k
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
Enclosure
cc: Kier $ Wright, 3350 Scott Blvd., Bldg. 22, Santa Clara, CA 95051
Wilson Development, Inc., 14370 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070
Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF SiV211TOC %
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd. XALL
DATE: April 7, 1982 C. Atty. �+
DEPARTMENT: Community Development - Engineering C. Mgr. '/
SUBJ=- : BICYCLE FACILITY ON QUITO ROAD & ALLENDALE AVENUE - PHASE I
Issue Summazv On June 17, 1981 the City Council awarded the Contract, to
build a bike path on Quito Road and Allendale Avenue, to
Calhoun Bros. Grading and Paving. This project is funded by a combination
of TDA and HCD monies. (HCD funding only the handicap ramps.) The
project is complete and ready for acceptance.
Recc=,,endation Approve final acceptance and file Notice of Completion on
the above project.
Fiscal Impacts The final cost of the project came to
Contract amount plus $750.00 for tree
Tree Nursery.) TDA has allocated $10,300.00 and HCD
for the handicap ramps (which ended up' costing $2,00
+ $2,000.00 HCD = $12,200.00.
$12,200.00 ($11,450.00
relocation by A to Z
has allocated $4,000.00
D.00) - $10,200.00 TDA
The only cost to the City for this project is the in -hnuse staff tine and
construction engineering during construction.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Notice of Completion
2. Cost Summary (final Progress Pay Estimate)
Council Action
4/7: Mallory /Jensen moved approval on Consent Calendar. Passed 5 -0.
f Z- i
7�
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
City of Saratoga
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
I F_ 7
N.- City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
L
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Natirr of Tompletim
J. Wayne Dernetz
Nhtfirr is hereby given that ................... I.., the undersigned, ............................................
................................................................................................................................................................
.............................. I the agent of]* the owner....... of th ............. certain lot............ piece..............., or,
�arcel.....,, .... ofland situated in tile .... 9i.ty ... of ... S.a.ra.to.9.a .......................................... County of
.. . .. . .... .... ..
Ap:�4 ....... AKA ...........................•.........•............. State of California, and described as follows, to-wit:
BICYCLE FACILITY ON QUITO ROAD AND ALLENDALE AVENUE —
Phase I — Ravenwood Drive to Station 3+88 on Allendale Avenue
That . ......the
..... q.i.ty ... of ... S.a.ra.to5.a .....................................................................................
... .... .. . .... .... ..
.......................................................................... , as owner...... of said land, did, on the .... ?.5th .....
�y
day of ...... �Ti4p.� ........................................ 119 ................. . enter into a contract with ... Calh&ini
....................
...... Grading and Pavi (j ................................................................................................ for
- Bros.. ... .........
Bicycle Road and Allendale Avenue Phase ..I —
)Rayenwood Drive to Station 3 +88 on Allendale A v en ue
........................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................
upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the
........................................ county of ................................................................. ,.State of California, on
.... ............
tile ................. ............................... da of ............................. Fe)�ru a r y 19 ............ 1982
That on tile... fifth...( 5th...... .............. day of .............................
completed by the said .Calhoun,
Ilic said contract or work of as a whole, was actually
Bros Grading an Paving
......................... ............................... . .....................
That the name ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said property are as follows:
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
and tile nature of ....................................... title to said property is .......................................................
................................................................................
................................................................................
City of...Saratoa Owner............
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss. By ..............................................
I
County of.. S.................. J. Wayne Dernetz Agent
................................................................................................................................................................
beingduly sworn, ................................................................................. says:
I frin449jit/the agent of]* the owner...... of the property described in the foregoing notice. I have
read the foregoing notice and know file contents thereof, and the same is true of rity own knowledge.
Subscribed and sworn to before tile this
.......................... day of ...................... 19 ....... ... ............................................................................
I
:
.......................................................................... City Clerk (per Gov't. Code 40814)
...............................................................................
Delete words in brackets if owner signs.
BICYCLE FACiLiry ON QU 1 r0 RD. ,'/7LL ENDALE AV. PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE
PROJECT: F.FoM fWA'flW OOD DR. rO V450Nf! CQEEK
DATE: 41718Z EST. VO 3 final CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVE.
FROM: 9//7182 TO: 3/26/82 SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070
W
ti
BID ITEM
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
IWRK'.DONE
PREVIOUS
EST.
WRK. DONE
THIS EST.
-v1t"L
WRK.DONE
O �o
/40
1.
Cieor�i g and G'rubb;/;y
Z. S.
2, 614.00
2, 6/4.00
/00;
2
Cary S><ruc f �fQ/JUila,O 17mp
4
500.00
2,000.00
75%
3
C'nslrucl- CBike loQl!�17
3, Z60
/. 6D
S Z / 6.OD
81
/ 9;/,o
/,00 70
O
q-_
Rerr70ve an reo ace
l/ 24 '/- aad ga��er
,S4
30.00
1"620-60
/DO
RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS
TOTAL 1 105 .705.00
Sheet / of!s
CONTRACTOR: CAL .UOUN 8405. 6'R,4L7/N4 ! 1�AYivU
ADDRESS: 400 .4EEo 57-.
, ,41V T.4 CL A k?,4, CA. 950-50
Phone No. ; &LIR 727 -4895
UNIT TOTAL /.WORK
PRICE I DUE DONE
2,614.06 1- 2,614.00 /00/
500.00 � 2,000-00 /00Z
le
/. 60 5, Z 16.00 /DO%
,30.00 ,, 6 zo. 00 /00 0
TOTAL DUE 11, ¢ 50.00
DUE ON 5112180 &157N4rlan�- -LESS 10% RETENTION 1 145.00
TOTAL PAYMENT 10,305.00
Made By: D LESS PR-- VIOUS PAYMENTS ' /0, 3 05. 00
Checked By: PAYMENT DUE THIS EST. �• «?
Approve
D-_-eeto= of immunity Deve_opment-
REMARKS
o a ;:T-- /2665
ruNO 55
ACCT. #¢Z2Z
FROG. 86 3
D/V # 80