HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-1982 CITY COUNCILAGENDACITY OF SARATOGA
® Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO.. ,� 1 Dept. Hd.
DATE: May 26, 19 8 2
DEPARIT, : Planning & Policy Analysis
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT. SB -1785 (Foran) - Limits on Park Dedications and Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
Issue Summary
1. Proposed Senate Bill SB -1785 would limit park dedication to 2.5 acres/
1000 people or, equivalent fees. (Saratoga requires 5 acres /1000 people.
2. Fees would be paid later and City would lose some interest money.
3. Bill would reduce flexibility of City in developing parks and would
not significantly reduce the cost of'a home.
4. League of California Cities recommends all cities write their Senate
representative and oppose the bill.
Recommendation
Direct staff to prepare a letter, for Mayor's signature, to Senator
O'Keefe stating the City's objections to SB -1785.
Fiscal Impacts
If the bill passes there would be significantly less money available for
park acquisition and development (fees might be reduced by half). Thus,
neighborhood parks would be smaller (or proposed parks deleted) and less
developed. Capital Improvement Budget could be reduced accordingly.
Exhibits /Attachments
Exhibit A - Staff report dated 5/25/82
Exhibit B - Copy of SB -1785
Council Action
6/2: Mallory /Clevenger moved to direct staff to .prepare a letter to Senator O'Keefe for
Mayor's signature stating the City's.objections to SB 1785 with respect to home
rule as opposed to Sacramento rule. Passed.5 =0.'
0
REPORT
exi, obi
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 5/25/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 6/ 2/82
SUBJECT: Review of SB -1785 (Foran)
SUMMARY
1. Bill would limit the amount of dedicated park land or in lieu
fees to 2.5 acres /1000 people through the subdivision process.
(Currently 5 acres /1000 is our standard.)
2. Fees would be payable only upon issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy rather than prior to final subdivision approval.
(City would lose interest on fee; if the fee is established
prior to collection., inflation could reduce value of fee.)
3. The City is required to "create" parks rather than "provide"
them for residents of a conditioned subdivision. (City might
have to create new-parks rather than save fees to provide a
park.)
4. City would have to allow a park credit for P.U.D.'s and
condominium projects where active open space is provided.
(City already allows.).
5. Provisions of bill seriously reduce flexibility of City when
conditioning subdivisions for park land.
6. League of California Cities recommends opposition to the bill;
staff concurs.
RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to prepare a letter, for Mayor's signature to
Senator O'Keefe outlining the City's objections to the proposed
bill.
BODY OF REPORT
The purpose of SB -1785 apparently is to address the concern of
home builders that cities and counties are requiring excessive
park dedications and fees which unjustifiably increases housing
Review of SB -1785 (Foran)
May 25, 1982
Pane 2
costs. The April 30th League of California Cities Legislative
Bulletin indicates that a 2.5 acre /1000 people limitation on
park dedication would save only $320 /single family dwelling which
is not very much when spread over a 30 year mortgage period.
However, such a limitation would significantly reduce the quality
of neighborhood parks. The League suggests we contact our State
Senator immediately to indicate our opposition to this bill as
well as the reasons for that opposition.
The City also stands to lose some interest on park fees since
we would not be able to collect park fees at th.e final map stage
as usual but only when Certificates of Occupancy are issued.
Typically the gap between Final Map approval and Construction
Completion is about one year perhaps.longer. During this time
the City loses the interest on the fee which could be used for
further park development. The loss of this interest is-significant.
The bilk_ also reduces the City's flexibility in the use of the
fee in that parks have to be "created" rather. than "provided". This
would indicate that new parks would have to be created rather than
existing parks being added to what could serve the subdivision.
Other less important provisions of the bill require cities to:.
adopt schedules indicating where as well as how and when fees will
be used, redistribute unused fees to property owners based on
building permit value rather than lot size, exempts commercial
subdivisions from fees (Saratoga exempts already) and allows a
credit for private active open space (also already in our
Subdivision Ordinance) .
CONCLUSION
The proposed bill would certainly have an adverse impact on the
City's neighborhood park system. The Legislative Bulletin of
May 7, 1982 goes so far as to indicate that the bill could
eliminate neighborhood parks within walking distance of many
homes.. The impact on housing cost (especially in Saratoga)
would be minimal. However, this bill would impact Saratoga's
financial health in that park fees would be reduced, interest on
these fees would be reduced and the City could incur additional
costs to amend the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance to
accommodate this bill. Additionally any new parks would require
new maintenance workers, a Jong term cost. There are sufficient
reasons for the City to oppose this bill and these should be
outlined to our Senate representative.
' D
Michael F o es
Assistant Planner
MF /mgr
x ;
n
S+"
r�
fu1r„
ti-
i
F
a
t f:,
t Cl
�1. r
p ,• :r
a
r .iv a
_ xMa{:i- !Y.•Y+n`JCS:1,+1v'F� '• "'I' °c.0 t'^
i'
RECEIVED
hi AY b 1982
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 20, 1982
ji PLANNING POLICY, ANALYSIS
SENATE BILL Na. '"1785>
EA) 6' P�
Introduced by Senator Foran
(Principal coauthor: Senator Montoya)
(Geauth e ' Seer- Reber-ti) (Coauthors: Senators Roberti
and Marks)
. - I.".
March 11, 1982
An act to amend Section 66477 of the Government Code,
relating to subdivisions.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
�® SB 1785, as amended, Foran. Subdivisions: in -lieu fees for
park or recreational facilities.
(1) Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or
county, by ordinance, to require dedication of land, or
payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for
park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval
of a final subdivision or parcel map provided certain general
conditions exist.
This bill would prohibit any dedication of land, or the
payment of fees, or both, from exceeding the proportionate
amount necessary to provide 2.5 acres of park area per 1,000
persons residing within a subdivision subject to such
conditions. It would also require that the fees be payable at
the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or the
® final building inspection, if the city or county does not issue
certificates of occupancy.
(2) Existing law requires that the lands or fees, or
combination thereof, be used only for the purpose of
providing park or recreational facilities to serve the
subdivision.
AW This bill would, instead, require that the lands or fees, 'or
combination thereof, be used only for the purpose of creating
98 40
98 60
—3— SB 1785
® ® Sections 2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
require the state to reimburse local agencies and school
districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other
provisions require the Department of Finance to review
statutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cases,
for making claims to the State Board of Control for
® reimbursement.
® This bill would provide that no appropriation is made by
this act for the purpose of making reimbursement pursuant to
the constitutional mandate or Section 2231 or 2234, but would
j recognize that local agencies and school districts may pursue
their other available remedies to seek reimbursement for
these costs.
(8) This bill would provide that notwithstanding Section
i 2231.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, this act does not
contain a repealer, as required by that section; therefore, the
provisions of the act would remain in effect unless and until
they are amended or repealed by a later enacted act.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
® ® State - mandated Iocal program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
® 1 SECTION 1. Section 66477 of the Government Code
® 2 is amended to read:
3 66477. The legislative body of a city or county may, by
4 ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a
5 requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a
6 combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as
7 a condition to the approval of a final map or parcel map,
8 provided that:
9 (a) The ordinance has been in effect for a period of 30
10 days prior to the filing of the tentative map of the
® 11 subdivision or parcel map.
12 (b) The ordinance includes definite standards for
13 determining the proportion of a subdivision; to be
14 dedicated and the amount of any fee to be paid in lieu
15 thereof. However, the dedication of land, or the payment
16 of fees, or both, shall not exceed the proportionate
® 17 amount necessary to provide 2.5 acres of park area per
98 70
SB 1785 —2—
such park or recreational facilities.
(3) Existing law requires that the city or county develop a
schedule specifying how and when it will use the land or fees,
or both, to develop park or recreational facilities.
This bill would, instead, require that the city, county, or
other local public agency to which the land or fees are
;t
conveyed or paid develop a schedule specifying how, when,
and where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop park
or recreational facilities to serve the residents of the
Y. 1"
subdivision.
,=
(4) Existing law requires that, if the fees collected are not
� t ?
committed within a prescribed length of time, they be
distributed and paid to the recorded owners of the subdivision
in the same proportion that the size of their lots bears to the
`.
total area of all lots within the subdivision.
a }'
This bill would, instead, require, if they are not so
;W
committed, that they be distributed and paid to the recorded
owners of the subdivision in the same proportion that the
�x
value of their building permits bears to the., total value of all
r
building permits within the subdivision.
tx�
(5) Existing law makes the provisions relating to the
required dedication of land or payment of fees in lieu thereof,
q P Y
*
or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes
inapplicable to, among other things, parcel maps for a
subdivision containing less than 5 parcels for a shopping
r� 3k
center containing more than 300,000 square feet of gross
leasable area and no residential development or uses.
This bill would delete this exception and would, instead,
make those provisions inapplicable to commercial
subdivisions.
(6) Existing law does not provide for any credit for
planned developments or real estate developments for
private open space within the development.
This bill would make such development, as defined, eligible
to receive a credit, as determined by the legislative body,
against the amount of land required to be dedicated, or the
x -� ;4-
amount of the fee imposed, for the value of private open space
`�' '
within the development which is usable for active
P
t�
recreational uses.
(7) Article XIII B of the California Constitution and
98 60
—3— SB 1785
® ® Sections 2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
require the state to reimburse local agencies and school
districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other
provisions require the Department of Finance to review
statutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cases,
for making claims to the State Board of Control for
® reimbursement.
® This bill would provide that no appropriation is made by
this act for the purpose of making reimbursement pursuant to
the constitutional mandate or Section 2231 or 2234, but would
j recognize that local agencies and school districts may pursue
their other available remedies to seek reimbursement for
these costs.
(8) This bill would provide that notwithstanding Section
i 2231.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, this act does not
contain a repealer, as required by that section; therefore, the
provisions of the act would remain in effect unless and until
they are amended or repealed by a later enacted act.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
® ® State - mandated Iocal program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
® 1 SECTION 1. Section 66477 of the Government Code
® 2 is amended to read:
3 66477. The legislative body of a city or county may, by
4 ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a
5 requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a
6 combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as
7 a condition to the approval of a final map or parcel map,
8 provided that:
9 (a) The ordinance has been in effect for a period of 30
10 days prior to the filing of the tentative map of the
® 11 subdivision or parcel map.
12 (b) The ordinance includes definite standards for
13 determining the proportion of a subdivision; to be
14 dedicated and the amount of any fee to be paid in lieu
15 thereof. However, the dedication of land, or the payment
16 of fees, or both, shall not exceed the proportionate
® 17 amount necessary to provide 2.5 acres of park area per
98 70
Z
SB
1785 —4—
—5— SB 1785
1
1,000 persons residing within a subdivision subject to this
®
1
as a condition to the issuance of such permit.
rt<
2
section. Fees shall be payable at the time of the issuance
2
Land or fees required under this section shall be
3
of the certificate of occupancy, or the final building
3
conveyed or paid directly to the local public agency
"2
4
inspection, if the city or county does not issue certificates
4
which provides park and recreational services on a
= '
5
of occupancy.
5
communitywide level and to the area within which the
6
(c) The land, fees, or combination thereof are to be
6
proposed development will be located, if such agency
7
used only for the purpose of creating park or recreational
7
elects to accept the land or fee. The local agency
8
facilities to serve the subdivision.
®
8
accepting such land or funds shall develop the land or use
9
(d) The legislative body has adopted a general plan
9
the funds in the manner provided herein.
10
containing a recreational element, and the park and
10
In the event park and recreational services and
11
recreational facilities are in accordance with definite
11
facilities are provided by a public agency other than a city
12
principles and standards contained therein.
12
or a county, the amount and location of land to be
13
(e) The amount and location of land to be dedicated
13
dedicated or fees to be paid shall, subject to subdivision
14
or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship
14
(b), be jointly determined by the city or county having
15
to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the
15
jurisdiction and such public agency.
-Y
16
future inhabitants of the subdivision.
16
The provisions of this section do not apply to
17
(f) The city, county , or other local public agency to
17
commercial or industrial subdivisions; nor do they apply
18
which the land or fees are conveyed or paid shall develop
18
to condominium projects or stock cooperatives which
f�
19
a schedule specifying how, when, and where it will use
19
consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing
9
'
20
the land or fees, or both, to develop park or recreational
Q Q
20
apartment building which is more than five years old
21
facilities to serve the residents of the subdivision. Any
21
when no new dwelling units are added.
§
22
fees collected under the ordinance shall be committed
22
Planned developments and real estate developments,
23
within five years after the payment of such fees or the
23
as defined in Sections 11003 and 11003.1, respectively, of
24
issuance of building permits on one -half of the lots
24
the Business and Professions Code, shall be eligible to
25
created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. If
qw� W
25
receive a credit, as determined by the legislative body,
26
such fees are not committed, they shall be distributed and
26
against the amount of land required to be dedicated, or
27
paid to the then record owners of the subdivision in the
27
the amount of the fee imposed, pursuant to this section,
x ;P tr
28
same proportion that the value of their building permits
28
for the value of private open space within the
29
bears to the total value of all building permits within the
29
development which is usable for active recreational uses.
30
subdivision.
30
Park and recreation purposes shall include land and
31
(g) Only the payment of fees may be required in
31
facilities for the activity of "recreational community
sr
32
subdivisions containing 50 parcels or less.
32
gardening," which activity consists of the cultivation by
�,w r
33
(h) Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and
33
persons other than, or in addition to, the owner of such
t F;
34
not used for residential purposes shall be exempted from
.
34
land, of plant material not for sale.
35
the requirements of this section; provided however, that
J
35
SEC. 2. Notwithstanding Section 6 of Article XIII B of
,f {
36
a condition may be placed on the approval of such parcel
36
the California Constitution and Section 2231 or 2234 of
37
map that if a building permit is requested for
37
the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is
�A;?
38
construction of a residential structure or structures on
38
made by this act for the purpose of making
39
one or more of the parcels within four years the fee may
39
reimbursement pursuant to these sections. It is
c_
40
be required to be paid by the owner of each such parcel
40
recognized, however, that a local agency or school
}
Q
98 90
98 110
Y_, d
{
_ C �
•? ? `� S34
❑C
98 110
no LIV
e •
0 •
SB
1785 —6-
1
district may pursue any remedies to obtain
2
reimbursement available to it under Chapter 3
3
(commencing with Section 2201) of Part 4 of Division 1
4
of that code.
5
SEC. 3. Notwithstanding Section 2231.5 of the
6
Revenue and Taxation Code, this act does not contain a
7
repealer, as required by that section; therefore, the
O
8
provisions of this act shall remain in effect unless and
;
9
until they are amended or repealed by a later enacted
10
act.
❑C
98 110
no LIV
e •
0 •
r
• CITY OF SARATOGA
r'
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. o Dept. Hd-
DATE: S/25/82 C. Atty. - -
DEPAR'T'MENT: Planning & Policy Analysis C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Interim 90 -Day Review Period for Potential Historic Structures
Issue Summary
1. Heritage Preservation Commission has expressed concern that some
historic structures could be significantly altered before they could
be designated as heritage resources.
2. Commission requests that Council adopt a resolution allowing the
Commission to informally review all permits that would alter the exteriors
of potential historic structures.
3. Intent of Commission is not to stop applicants from doing necessary
work but to allow tirr•.e for adequate research to be done.
Recommendation
1. Council may wish to take public testimony although public hearing is
not required.
2. Adopt Resolution allowing for 90 -day interim review period.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated
Exhibits /Attachments
Exhibit A - Staff Report dated 5/17/82
Exhibit B - Historic and Cultural Resources linventory
Exhibit C - Resolution for interim 90 -day review period
Council Action
6/2: Jensen /Clevenger moved to adopt Resolution 1092. Passed 5 -0.
REPORT
FxkI �� R
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 5/17/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 6/ 2/82
SUBJECT: Interim 90 -day Review Period for Potential Historic
Structures
At its meeting of May 13, 1982 the Heritage Preservation Commission
expressed a concern that some potentially historic structures
could be significantly altered prior to formal action by the
Commission to recommend to the City Council that they be designated
heritage resources. -The Commission then unanimously adopted a
motion to request that the City Council adopt a resolution to have
all building permits for exterior alterations to those structures
listed in the Historical and Cultural Resources Inventory (dated
4/23/81) and those structures over 50 years in age reviewed by the
Commission informally prior to issuance of building permits.
The Commission indicated it did not want to stop applicants from
doing necessary work especially if the alterations are necessary
to protect public health and safety. The review.period for this
informal review of applications would be for 90 days so that the
Commission would have sufficient time to do the research required
to insure the inventory is complete and to allow the Commission to
prepare for its formal recommendations to the City Council.
The Commission would like the Council to take action on this request
as soon as possible. Applicant's are invited to talk to Commissioners
about any proposals to alter potential historic structures.
N1F /mgr
Michael Fl res
Acting Secretary
Heritage Preservation Commission
4'ni}�c,?ui+.'�,?a•�rc .''�' f . ,�s �'t�s �^r''�.s+• >`X>�- �vYr.�v .
L
- kfiYM..iI•- f � ��
HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
April 23, 1981
The attached list of properties have been determined to be (or have
the potential to be) of historical or cultural significance. No
action which.would modify or affect these properties should be
approved without first consulting the City of Saratoga Planning
Department.
Each.of these sites have been assigned an inventory number which is
keyed to an inventory notebook and map, which can be seen in the
Planning Department. The inventory notebook gives a brief historical
account, description and whereabouts of the property. .Photographs of
the structures are also included.
The column headed "designation" indicates the hierarchy of signifi-
cance attached to the site. "NR of HP" means the site has been
included in the National Register of Historic Places. "Ca. Hist.
Ldmk." means selection as a California Historic Landmark. "SCCHR"
means inclusion in the Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inven-
tory. "Local Interest" indicates the property may be eligible to
qualify for inclusion in the County, State, or Federal Inventories
but the significance has not been documented to date.
Inventory entries marked with an asterisk ( *) are within Saratoga's
sphere of influence, but not within the City limits.
Inventory #
Historic Name
Address
Parcel #
Designation
.1 *
Sarah Brown Ranch
16191 Bohlman Road
517 -16 -004, 011
Interest
2'
1 Hincks Estate
Bohlman Road
517 -13 -014
Eo a
Interest
3 *
Welch -Hurst
15808 Sanborn Road
517 -4 -058
NR of HP
.4
Paul Masson Mountain
Winery
Pierce Road
503 -46 -001
503 -47 -003
Ca. Hist.
Ldmk. #733
5
Paul Masson Mountain
Hunting Lodge
Pierce Road
503 -72 -005
Local
Interest
6
Garrod Ranch
22600 Mt. Eden Road
503 -10 -001, 002,
021, 022, 028
SCCHR
503-
1 -002, 003, 007, 008
503 -12 -001
7
Old Grandview Ranch
19684 Pike Road
503 -30 -047, 049,
050, 051, 056
Local
Interest
8
Hakone Gardens
21000 Big Basin Way
503 -48 -030, 031,
032 517 -7 -026
SCCHR
9
Fabretti House
14669 Big Basin Way
503 -25 -016
SCCHR
10
John Henry House
14630 Big Basin Way
517 -8 -005
SCCHR
11
St. John's
Episcopal Church
14700 Sixth Street
5.17 -8 -024
Local
Interest
12
Madronia Cemetery
14766 Oak Street
517 -12 -001
Local
Interest
13
Hannah McCarthy's
Vineyard House
20600 Lomita Avenue
517 -12 -032
SCCHR
14
William King House
14672 Oak Street
517 -8 -046
SCCHR
15
Congregational Church
Parsonage
14666 Oak Street
517 -8 -047
SCCHR
16
Missionary Settlement
House
14683 Oak Street
517 -8 -017
SCCHR
17
Erwin T. King House
14605 Big Basin Way
503 -67 -001
SCCHR
18
Petti's Livery Stable
14605 Biq Basin Way
503-67-001
SCCHR
19
14599 Big Basin Way
503-25-025
Local
Interest
20
Springer House
20770 Wildwood Way
503 -26 -043
SCCHR
J) �
L
�.. , �'•�t. -.f.. ; �. of .'�
Inventory #
Historic Name
Address
Parcel #
Designation
21
22
Grover House
14521 Big Basin Way
503 -24 -020
SCCHR
23
Kocher Building
14519 Big Basin Way
503 -24 -030
SCCHR
24
Cloud-Smith Building
14503 Big Basin Way
503 -24 -041
SCCHR
25
Sam Cloud House
14501 Big Basin Way
503 -24- 041.•
SCCHR
26
Barn
20640 Third Street
503 -24 -041
_
Local
Interest
27
Hutchinson Building
14495 Big Basin Way
503 -24 -015
SCCHR
28
Saratoga State Bank
14421 Big Basin Way
503 -24 -005
SCCHR
29
Kerr-Hogg Building
14415 Big Basin way
503 -24 -004
SCCHR
30
Saratoga Drug Store
(part of Kerr-Hogg Bld
.) 14413 Big Basin Way
503 -24 -004
SCCHR
31
Henry Jarboe House
20611 Brookwood Lane
503 -23 -023
SCCHR
32
20601 Brookwood Lane
503 -23 -022
Local - --
Interest
33
Taylor House
14421 Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road
503 -23 -016
SCCHR
34
J.E. Foster House
20680 Marion Avenue
503 -23 -032
SCCHR
35
Pollard House
20731 Marion Avenue
503 -22 -074
SCCHR
36
Neil Carmichael House
14051 Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road
503 -22 -075
SCCHR
37
Memorial Arch
Saratoga -Los Gatos
Road /Saratoga Avenue
397 -22 -017
Ca. Hist.
LrLk.#435
38
Methodist- Episcopal
Church
20490 Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road
517 -9 -020
SCCHR
39
Saratoga Village
Library
14410 Oak Street
517 -10 -012
SCCHR
40
McWilliams House
20460 Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road
517 -10 -013
SCCHR
41
Historical Museum
(Swanee Dress Shop)
20450 Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road
517 -10 -013
SCCHR
42
Saratoga Volunteer
Fire Dept. Bell
Next to 14488 Oak St.
517 -10 -013
Local
Interest
43
Lundblad's Lodge
14534 Oak Street
517 -10 -003
SCCHR
44
D.C. Bell House
20360 Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road
397 -21 -013
SCCHR
45
"Woodleigh" G.A.
Wood House
20375 Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road
397 -22 -049
SCCHR
46
Saratoga
Federated Church
20390 Park Place
397 -22 -044
Local
Interest
47
Saratoga Foothill
Clubhouse
20399 Park Place
397 -22 -031
SCCHR
48
Francis Dresser [louse
14300 Saratoga Avenue
397 -23 -026
SCCHR
49
14280 Saratoga Avenue
397 -23 -027
Local
Interest
50
14199 Saratoga Avenue
397 -26 -045
Local
Interest
51
Th s::House
14189 Saratoga Avenue
397 -26 -057
SCCHR
52
J.C. Cunningham House
14120 Saratoga Avenue
397 -26 -052
SCCHR
53
E.M. Cunningham House
14075 Saratoga Avenue
397 -25 -088
SCCHR
54
Mason House
13991 Saratoga Avenue
397 -25 -040
SCCHR
! az
ri
(Inventory #
Historic Name
Address
Parcel #
Designation
55
McGrew Atkinson (louse
([,Irs. John Brown's Hous
) 13915 Sara a Ave.
391 -09 -255
SCCHR
56
Crowell House
19855 Douglass Lane
397 -16 -006
SCCHR
57
14315 Douglass Lane
397 -24 -037
Local
Interest
58
Hayfield House
20235 La Palona Avenue
397 -24 -039
SCCHR
59
Canada Vista
14445 Donna lane
397 -17 -067
Local
Interest
60
Rancho Bella Vista
(Blaney Villa, Kirkwood
20021 Bella
Manor) Vista Court
397 -20 -091
ISCOIR
61
Sterne /Andres House
20105 Rancho Bella Visti
517 -21 -026
SCCHR
62
Hill Avenue
517 -22 -085
Local
Interest
63
20150 Bonnie Brae
517 -22 -048
Local
Interest
64
Villa Montalvo
Montalvo Road
517 -15 -012, 013
NR of HP
65
19221 Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road
397 -09 -035
_
Local
Interest
66 *
Kontani -en Garden
15891 Ravine Road
510 -29 -057 Ca. list.
NR of HP &
'Ldmk. #90.,
67 *
Austin School
19010 Austin Way
510 -7 -031
SCCHR
68 *
Nippon Mura Inn
18840 Saratoga
Los Gatos Road
510 -8 -018, 019
SCCHR
69
Casa Tierra
15231 Quito Road
397 -07 -020
SCCHR
70
Odd Fellows Hone
14500 Fruitvale Avenue
397 -12 -012, 016,
017, 018
SCCHR
71
Ellis House
14711 Fruitvale Avenue
397 -18 -024
SCCHR
72
San Tomas Gram— Schoo
14004 Quito Road
403 -22 -005
Local
Interest
73
Brandenburg House
18490 Ravenwood Drive
397 -02 -117
SCCHR
(Pendi )
=74
12239 Titus Avenue
386 -28 -002
Local
Interest
L-x1, i l ;� C
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION
COMMISSION TO INFORMALLY REVIEW FOR A PERIOD OF
90 -DAYS ALL PERMITS THAT INVOLVE THE EXTERIOR
ALTERATION OF A POTENTIAL HISTORIC STRUCTURE
WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission has expressed
a concern that some potentially historic structures could be signifi-
cantly altered before such structures could be designated heritage
resources through the use of Ordinance No. 66; and
WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission unanimously
adopted a motion requesting that the City Council adopt a resolution
to have all permits that would alter the exterior of these potential
historic structures subject to an informal review by the Commission
prior to issuance; and
WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission has requested
that this informal review period should be for ninety (90) days to
allow adequate time for the research to be done and formal recommend-
ations to be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga desires to preserve its heritage
resources and the historic character of the City;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that all permits involving the alteration of the exterior
of any structure listed in Saratoga's Historical and Cultural
Resources Inventory and any structure over fifty (50) years '
in age be subject to an informal review by the Heritage
Preservation Commission; and be it further
RESOLVED, that this informal review period be for a period of ninety
(90) days from the date this resolution is adopted to allow
time for sufficient research and formal recommendations; and
be it further
RESOLVED, that the City of Saratoga does not want to prevent permit
applicants from completing necessary work especially if public
health and safety are involved but desires to protect the historic
character of the City through the careful evaluation of proposed
exterior alterations to historic and potentially historic
structures.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
City of Saratoga City Council, State of California this day of
, 1982.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL
ATTEST:
SECRETARY
�J
J�
lklvii
L-x1, i l ;� C
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION
COMMISSION TO INFORMALLY REVIEW FOR A PERIOD OF
90 -DAYS ALL PERMITS THAT INVOLVE THE EXTERIOR
ALTERATION OF A POTENTIAL HISTORIC STRUCTURE
WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission has expressed
a concern that some potentially historic structures could be signifi-
cantly altered before such structures could be designated heritage
resources through the use of Ordinance No. 66; and
WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission unanimously
adopted a motion requesting that the City Council adopt a resolution
to have all permits that would alter the exterior of these potential
historic structures subject to an informal review by the Commission
prior to issuance; and
WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission has requested
that this informal review period should be for ninety (90) days to
allow adequate time for the research to be done and formal recommend-
ations to be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga desires to preserve its heritage
resources and the historic character of the City;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that all permits involving the alteration of the exterior
of any structure listed in Saratoga's Historical and Cultural
Resources Inventory and any structure over fifty (50) years '
in age be subject to an informal review by the Heritage
Preservation Commission; and be it further
RESOLVED, that this informal review period be for a period of ninety
(90) days from the date this resolution is adopted to allow
time for sufficient research and formal recommendations; and
be it further
RESOLVED, that the City of Saratoga does not want to prevent permit
applicants from completing necessary work especially if public
health and safety are involved but desires to protect the historic
character of the City through the careful evaluation of proposed
exterior alterations to historic and potentially historic
structures.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
City of Saratoga City Council, State of California this day of
, 1982.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL
ATTEST:
SECRETARY