The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-02-1981 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARAT M AGENDA BILL NO DATE: July If 2, 1981 DEPART EN`r: P l ann i n g Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr._ SUBJECT: Denial of SD -1489, Butler $ Wilson, Inc., Saratoga - Sunnyvale & Tricia Way. Tentative Subdivision Approval - 10 lots Issue Sunnary The applicant's proposal to divide a 4 acre site, zoned R- 1- 12,500, into 10 lots was denied by the Planning Commission on June 10, 1981, as not designed in conformance with the General Plan. 'f! Recom-nendation 1 - Conduct the public hearing 2 - Take public input 3 - Staff recommended approval to Planning Commission Fiscal Impacts None anticipated Exhibits /Attachments 1. Appeal letter 2. Minutes of May 13, 1981 & June 10, 1981 3. Staff report dated May 8, 1981 4. Exhibits "B" $ "C" Council Action 7/15• Clevenger /Jensen moved to deny appeal without prejudice. Passed 4 -1 (Mallory dissenting). ii 'WILSON Development, Ific. 14370 Saratoga Avenue,'Saratoga, California 95070, (408) 867 -5110 July 2, 1981 City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear City Clerk: On June 15, 1981, Wilson Development, Inc., filed an appeal from the Planning Commission action on June 10, 1981, denying our application for tentative:map approval of a 10 lot subdivision (SDR 1489). We requested a Hearing de Novo. Please accept this letter as our waiver of a Hearing de Novo and as our request that the matter be heard by the Council on July 15, 1981, as an ordinary appeal. We do not intend to offer any evidence except that which was presented to the Planning Commission nor to discuss any issues which were not before the Commission and which are not reflected in the attached excerpt of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. Very truly yours, WILSON DEVELOPMENT, INC. Z464�ml- David S. Wilson President Planning Commission Page 8 Meeting Minutes - 5/13/81 V 54ti (coat.) Mr. North stated that the proposed construction enhances the house as it now stands. lie commented that the side yard clearance is very close to what has been granted their neighbor, and he would like that same consideration. Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner hlonia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Bolger gave a report on the on -site visit, describing the site. lie indicated that he did not feel the suggested options are viable. Commissioner Zambetti added that the options do not fit into the classic design of this home. He added that the applicant has some difficulty because he is a corner lot and is set back on the lot. There- fore, there is no other location for him to expand his garage as other people in similar neighborhoods have done. Commissioner Crowther commented that the neighbor's house to the east does have a.similar setback to that being proposed on the side yard. Commissioner Bolger moved to grant V -546, making the findings. Commis- sioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. 8a'egative Declaration SD -1489 - Wilson Development SD -1489 - 1VOson Development, Tricia Way - 10 lots, Tentative Subdivision ,Approval - Commr-ssioner Laden abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter. Staff described the proposal, stating that several concerns have been raised: (1) the noise that is generated on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. A noise study was done with the environmental documentation and it recommends a 6 ft. high barrier along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to be con- tinued to the north on lot 6; and (2) access. The access was discussed. Staff explained that this would create 19 units on a cul -de -sac with an emergency access road, and City policy has allowed only 15 lots on a cul -de -sac unless there is a secondary or emergency access way. Staff noted that six neighbors have submitted letters requesting that no addi- tional access be allowed ont6 Tricia Way. They indicated that an option does exist to have public access from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road instead of extending Tricia Way, and also limiting the numbers of units on a cul -de- sac to 15. The setbacks from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and the noise were discussed. The public hearing was opened at 10:00 p.m. .. Dick Kier, civil engineer, discussed the proposed subdivision, including the access. He indicated that they have submitted additional documents •_ >;.r.:T;_,x.;.�� r� on lot x6 to show the building pad area and the setbacks. The sound wall and emergency access were discussed. Commissioner Schncfcr explained that on the on -site visit the intent - seemed to be that i.t was not particularly safe to have another road come down - .- onto Saratoga- Sunnyvale itoad or very advisable,hecaUSe of the - turnaround to go in the opposite direction there and because of the station traffic. gas Hal Ifamar.i, 20432 'Tricia lvay, staged that he was very concerned about tho new development hecause of safety as it relates to increasing density and the use of Tricia Way during any construction. lie also indicated that he would like the Commission th to comply with the City policy regarding e number of homes on a cul -de -sac without an emergency access. William Gloege, 13109 Regan Lane, requested that the Commission continue this matter, in order to give them an opportunity to prepare their comments. Staff suggested that it he continued to a study session r:hcrc the neigh hors and the engineer can discuss the project, and it could then be y .. A. C i Planning Commission Page 9 Meeting Minutes - 5/13/81 SD-1489 (cont.) returned to the Planning Commission,,-; regular meeting, where a decision could be made. It was determined that it should be scheduled for a study session on Tuesday, June 2, 1981 at 7:0 . 0 p.m. The Commission requested the neighbors to exoress their concerns not,; to allow the developer some-time to prepare answers to the questions. Mr. Gloege commented that he would not feel comfortable about going beyond what they have submitted in writing at this point. It was suggested that there be another on-site visit arranged by the developer and neighbors. Mrs. Townsend, Regan Lane, stated that she has lived there for 21 years and has watched deterioration take place. She stated that she was concerned about tWO-story houses being built behind them, since it would block their view. She also expressed concern about the traffic impact oil Blauer and the noise level. Staff was requested to do a traffic study on what the volume of traffic on Blauer is now and what it might be with additional homes. The intersection of Blauer was discussed. Staff indicated that there most likely will be a signal either at Blauer or Brandywine, but currently it is being held in abeyance to gather further data. It was directed that this item be continued to a study.session-on June 2, 1981 and the regular meeting of June 10, 1981. 9a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1490 - Park Saratoga Associates 9b. SDR-1490 - Park Saratoga Associates, Prospect Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnvvale Road - 3.Commercial Lots (Re-division), Tentative Building Site Approval Staff described the current proposal, explaininc, that the three buildings on the site would be separated evidently for tax purposes. They added that all of the buildings are either under construction or they'llave bc-�n completed. Staff noted that the main concern has been by'the Central Fire District, and they have conditioned the Staff Report. Staff com- mented that there are three additional parking spaces on the second parcel; therefore, they could add an additional 450 sq. ft. They explained that the use Permit Would have to be modified to allow that. The public hearing was opened at 9:3S p.m. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would be strongly opposed to any new construction on that site, and asked if the split could be conditional on there being, no new construction on any of the lots. The Deputy citN. Attorney stated that the condition is already there to the extent that it is Under a use permit and further construction would require a modifica- tion of the use permit. Bob Podrick representing the applicant, stated that tile), w for were asking the red IVIS1011 to separate the three lot.,; for tax purposes. He stated that he realized if that one of the three lot, permit % s is sold, a new use pel -Jou'd have to 1.)c granted to 111`1W the existing uses to con- tinue. ft was noted that a letter from Dr. Smith had been received, and it had been explained to hi,,, that there Would he no new buildings. Commissioner 7j--.jj)Ctti moved to close the Public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the Negative Declaration for Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried 9 I Planning Ccrrudssion Page 2 Meeting Minutes 6/10/81 SDR 1495 (cunt.) Commissioner Bolger asked how the spring and ground water would impact the pro- ject. Assistant Director of Public Works Trinidad stated that the problem would have to be dealt with in the future, since it had not been identified earlier. He believed it might not impact the project. Dennis Eccles, soils engineer for Terratech, explained that his main concern was lowering the water level for excavation of the foundations. The soil was suitable for construction, he felt, but Terratech did not have sufficient data on the water level. He believed the problem might be solved by extending the subdrain system, if monitoring proved it necessary to do so. In: response to Crnmissioner Schaefer,he stated that all drainage problems would be resolved. Commissioner King noted that the newer members of the Commision were not familiar with the case. Commissioner Zambetti then reviewed the history of the project. He pointed out that if the C nmussion did not ask for widening of the street, no non - conforming problem would exist. Other houses in similar situations have not been required to make street improvements, underground utilities, or meet setback requirements,he said, and the structure is a good one which would meet a need in the Village. He expressed concern that the project would not be built because of the cost of improvements. Commissioner Monia expressed his opinion that the existing non - conforming building was being used to take advantage of the circumstances by permitting a non - conforming use to continue. Planning Director noted that the non - conforming section of the ordinance should be revised. In any case, however, the General Plan indicated the necessity for increased density in the area in question. Further, the fact that the Village Merchants want increased foot traffic inthe area should be considered, he believed. ZAMBEITI /KING MOVED TO GRANT BUILDING SITE APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBITS ON FILE AND STAFF REPORT DATED 6/2, INCLUDING THE MITIGATION MEASURES OUTLINED IN ' THE CCYITON REPORT DATED 5/7/81, AND THE TERRATECH REPORT AND MAKING THE FINDINGS REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIM11,1MENTAL QUALITY ACT AND TIIE FINDING THAT THE PRQ7ECr IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. Passed 4 -1 (,Mona opposed) . PUBLIC—HEARFNGS 2. SD 1489 - i'lson Development, Tricia Way, 10 Lots, Tentative Subdivision Approval.; Continued m May 13, 1981 (and Negative Declaration) Theo is hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. Planning Director reviewed history of project. The main issues, he said, were access and location of two- stories. Deputy City Attorney Toppel added that the Commission must decide whether the developer may exceed the 15 -lot advisory limit placed by the Gen =ral Plan on cul -de -sacs, since secondary access can be provided. In response to Commissioner Bolger's question, Assistant Public Works Director explained that an emergency access is closed to regular traffic; secondary access can be open to the public. He stated that the Public Works Department felt that Tricia should be used as primary access; that direct access onto highway 85 would ,_-be undesirable because of the traffic volume there; and that the traffic would not adv,rsely impact existing homes. Albert J. Ruffo, 101 Park Center Plaza, San Jose, spoke as the attorney repre- senting the homeowners on Tricia and the adjacent street. He stated that the developer was considering using Highway 9 as access. lie asked to see any studies on the issue. Dick Kier, representing the developer, stated that he concurred with the staff report's recommendation that houses which back up to the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road be restricted to one story. He favored access onto Tricia. Goinq farther south to construct a road would require more grading, he said, and he emphasized that termination of Tricia was temporary. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION C• MINUTES J DATE: Wednesday, June 10, 1981 -.7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, King, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti Absent: Commissioners Crowther and Laden Minutes ZANIBETTI /KING MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES WITH THE ADDITION OF COMMISSIONER CROWTHER'S NAME AS MAKER OF MOTION ON ITEM 6, p. 6. Passed 5 -0. BUILDING SITES 1. SDR 1495 - Garner & Sorenson, Oak Street, 1 lot (8 units), Tentative Building Site Approval Commissioner Monia expressedhis concern about the encroachment, which would be about half the required 25' front yard setback. Planning Director noted that approval would not increase the discrepancy of the lot, which was already non - conforming, and that it was consistent with Section 15.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. The only reason the matter was before the Commission at all, he said, was that the tentative building site approval had expired. Commissioner Bolger brought up the subject of the report by City Geologist Cotton. Tim Lundell, attorney for the developer, stated that the conditions established for the first tentative map approval included satisfactory resolution of any geological problems. He stated that the existing house was non - conforming; moving the project back to increase the setback would mean destroying the house. Commissioner Schaefer asked whether the developer could builg the new structures to meet the Zoning Oadinance setback requirements. Mr. Lun- dell replied that there was not enough room to do so. Commissioner Schaefer then asked aboutthe size of the units and parking requirements. Planning Director gave details of the project and stated that the code requirement for two parking spaces per unit had been met. Commissioner Monia inquired as to whether seven units could be put in instead of 8. Edwin Garner, of Garner and Sorenson, replied that if the concern were meeting the setback requirements, that was possible if the front porch were removed. Assistant Planner Flores noted that if the porch were removed the struc- ture would still be non - conforming, and the addition would still not comply with the current interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance section on non - conforming structures, although it complied with the 1979 interpretation. In response to Commissioner Monia, Mr. Garner stated that removing'the porch would ruin the appearance of the structure; moreover, the porch supports the roof. Commissioner Schaefer agreed that the porch was a visual asset to the structure. She also noted that the area was zoned for multiple • dwellings, so that any precedent set by approval might result in many more such applications. Planning Commission Page 3 Fleeting Minutes 6/10/81 CSD 1489 (cont.) Mr. Ruffo stated that if Tricia were extended, the distance of the cul -de -sac would be at least doubled, to 800' or 850'. He asserted that the General Plan's intent was to provide traffic safety, as well as emergency access. He also stated that if the sole exit were on highway 9 some problems might be created, but that there were no significant problems in a similar situation at the Flrgonaut Shopping Center. He noted that the neighbors object to two- stories on the east side of the extension of Tricia; single- stories on Highway 9 could be placed behind a wall to buffer the noise. The neighbors would accept the project if it were limited to 15 lots, he felt, and submitted a petition signed by 72 persons to that effect. He stated that cul -de -sacs in the area have nine lots at the most. Commissioner Schaefer questioned Mr. Ruffo's statement that there were no traffic problems at Blauer and Brandywine, and Asst. Public Works Director countered that there were significant accident problems in that area,.primarily from left turns being made onto the street. Dave Wilson, president of Wilson Developers, stated his belief that the project complied with the General Plan and all ordinances if served from Tricia Way. Caltrans would need to approve if Highway 9 were selected; then an exception from the subdivision ordinance would have to be granted because at least one lot with streets on three sides would thereby be created. Pat Carroll, 20418 Tricia Way, said that District Engineer Ken Berner from Caltrans had claimed no jurisdiction when asked about the situation and had said that Caltrans would probably grant access through Highway 9 if a reasonable plan were submitted. Bob Branham, Tricia Way, asserted that the Gtaff report says no option for access through Highway 9 on a right- turn-only basis e,,ists.' He said that similar examples do exist in the City. He asked whether there had been a finding that no alternative means of developing the property existed. Commissioner Schaefer explained 'that the Commission has explored all options in spite of the statement in the staff report and had made every effort to obtain public input. Planning Director pointed out that the Planning Commission was to make a decision on that matter tonight; if they cannot make the finding, they must adhere to the 400' length requirement. Mr. Branham stated he would like to see the subdivision ordinance upheld. Ronald J. Piziali, 13123 Regan Lane, stated that there was already a development having homes with streets on three sides; the proposed development would result in a cul -de -sac of odd shapes and excessive number of lots. Bill Gloege,13109 Regan, asserted that the main issue was the impact on the City and residents of the development. Commissioner Schaefer noted that one may hear different issues covered in different public hearings. Mi.rabeau Towns, 13035 Regan, spoke against multi -story homes because of the resulting loss of view. Gil Troutman, 13070 Regan, spoke in favor of access onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, saying that any problems would be mitigated by installing a traffic light. 4bodv Watlee, a realtor, stated that Saratoga needed more houses and that owners should be able to develop their property. Mrs. Mirabeau Towns, 13035 Regan, stated that she objected to the traffic problems on the corner and did not want second -story homes. KING /BOL]E,R MOVED qO CLOSE TIME PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:00. Passed 5 -0. Cormissioner F -Sonia asked the correct way of measuring the length of the cul-de -sac. ___-,Asst. Public .Irks Director replied that it would be measured from the intersection with Regan, center to center. Commissioner bbnia stated that it would then be 460' to 475'. Commissioners then discussed their individual opinions. Bolger stated that the • emergency access on lots 6 and 7 was not sufficient to protect the access. He felt that access on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road would not be prudent. Zambetti spoke for extending Tricia to allow more traffic dispersal. King believed proper access was through Tricia; he felt conditioning single story homes should be considered. " Monia felt the 15._1Q _ imit should be adhered to, with access from Saratoga -Sunn }vale Road. Schaefer believed Tricia. should be the access, with no two- stories allocal and with reduction in the number of lots. Mona wished to allow a total of no more than 0 Planning Commission Page 4 i Meeting Minutes 6/10/81 l SD 1489 (cunt.) `1 fifteen homes, which would not require emergency access. Kinq did not object to ( 19 lots; he felt it important to prevent emergency access from becoming secondary access. Zambetti felt 19 lots were acceptable but objected to two -story homes and wanted emergency access from Saratoga-Sunnyvale load. Bolger felt 15 lots were acceptable but also objected to two -story homes. Schaefer favored 17 lots to avoid having odd- shaped lots and excessive lots on the cul-de -sac. Planning Director explained that the developer would not need to pay more fees if the application were denied without prejudice and he wished to bring the same plan back with a reduced number of lots. The developer may also appeal a denial. iOLGER/MONIA MOVED DENIAL OF SD 1489 FOR TEN UNITS WInlOUT PREJUDICE. Passed 3 -2 ( Zambetti, King opposed). Commissioner Schaefer summarized Commission's consensus as calling for single -story hones only, with access from Tricia. King felt there might be a compromise in re- moving Emergency access if the proposed number of lots were reduced. Zambetti suggested a compromise of 17 lots with emergency access required to prevent further development. 3. UP 497 - Roger Lee, 20899 Maureen Way, Request for a Use Permit to allow a cabana over 6' high (11'6" msximm) to be located in the required rear yard Planning Director reviewed staff report. The public hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner Bolger asked if the cabana were not feasible on the north end because of the sewer hookup. Asst. Planner Lester stated that the sewer hookup had not been a consideration; she had left the cabana where proposed because of the lack of impact on surrounding area; there is an adjacent structure on the north end. Mr. Lee, the applicant, explained that there was only one place for a sewer hookup. The public hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m. ZAMBETTI /KING MOVED TO APPROVE UP 497 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF REPORT DATED 5/29/81 AND EXHIBITS B AND C WITH CONDITIONS 1 (a) and (b). Passed 5 -0. 4. UP 498 - Donald Lightbody, 13522 Debbie Lane, Request for a Use Permit to Allow the construction of an 8' high soundwall in the required rear yard Assistant Planner Flores reviewed the staff report and submitted brochures picturing the fence type. Commissioner Schaefer noted that the advertising brochure had nothing to do with the Saratoga City Code, contrary to a statement in the brochure. The public hearing was opened at 9:57. Donald Lightbody, the applicant, explained that the density of the concrete proposed for the wall qualified it for sound reduction. Mrs. Lightbody stated her desire to live in the area and asserted that trees would cover the wall. The public hearing was closed. KING /ZAMBE TI MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION, MAKING TIME FINDINGS OF T E STAFF REPORT DATED 6/3/81, SMITH EXHIBITS B AND C. Passed 5 70. 5. A 770 - B. Kelly, Live Oak Lane, Request for Design Review Approval for a One -Story single- family dwelling that would be over 22' in height (27' max.) on a lot with an average slope of less than 10% in the R-1-40,000 zoning district Planning Director reviewed staff report, including letters from the Lonchars, Careys , and Shapiros opposing the application. The public hearing was opened at 9:55. John Berg, 14855 Baranga, spoke in opposition to the application, statinq that he had not received proper notice of the public hearing. lie felt the proposed struc- ture would not be consistent with the area of large lots and low homes and that the proposed grading would raise the structure too high. George Lonchar, 14775 Fruitvale, spoke against the application, saying that the grade level was 3' to 4' above the existing grade, both for the structure and for the tennis court. C C . REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 5/8/81 Commission Meeting: 5/13/81 SUBJECT: SD -1489 Butler and Wilson, Inc. Saratoga- Sunnyvale and Tricia Way, Tentative Subdivision Approval - ------------------ - - -1.0 1Q t� ---------------------------------------- - - - - -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 4 acre site on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road in the R -1- 12,500 zoning district into 10 lots. The lots are shown to take access from an extension of Tricia Way with a gated emergency access road connection to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The site has a slope of 3.05 %. Numerous large trees (oaks, peppers, firs and redwoods) exist on the site, some of which are to be removed with the extension of Tricia Way. The two residences and accessory structures are also to be removed with the subdivision. Several concerns have been raised with the proposed subdivision. Since the site.is located on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, a noise study was required with the environmental information. The recommended mitigation measures include a 6' high barrier wall along Saratoga - Sunnyvale and a wall, to be continued at the same height along the northern border of Lot 6. (The second study specifies 8,' but the intent was a continuous fence height per a conversation with Mr. Pack on May 7, 1981.) Additionally, Mr. Pack's report specifies 6' high walls along the emergency access road, however the alternative of an air - impervious gate for the emergency access road would also satisfy the condition (5/7/81). The fencing is conditioned for Design Review Approval prior to Final Map Approval. Any fencing over 6' in height on Lot 6 requires a Use Permit. A second concern is access. The proposal would create 19 units on a cul -de -sac with an emergency access to Saratoga- Sunnyvale. The Subdivi- sion Ordinance states: "Not as a mandate, but as a statement of future policy on all matters concerning the design and improvement of site and subdivisions the following shall generally not be approved: C. Cul -de -sac, dead -end, or other streets not having a means of secondary access, where such street services more than fifteen lots or building sites." Report to Planning Con�,_..ssion SD -1489 The General Plan states: "For safety, every new or developing residential area in the City with more than 15 housing units should have a primary and secondary (or emergency) access." 5/8/80 Page 2 Since the cul -de -sac exceeds 400' in length, the Subdivision Ordinance also requires a finding that is "the only feasible method of developing the property ". An option does exist with this proposal to create public access and.limiting the number of units on a cul -de -sac, however- - good traffic engineering would minimize the number of intersections on a high volume roadway. Finally, at the Committee -of- the -Whole and on site inspection, the Commission expressed concern about the landscaping along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and the transition of the pathway at the northeast corner of the project. The applicant's engineer has submitted a blow -up of their proposed transition and a letter in response to these concerns. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: April 10, 1981. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SD -1489 (Exhibit "B" filed March 10, 1981) subject to the following conditions:: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established 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 approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, 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. Repor.t to Planning Co \._. ssion 5/8/81 SD -1489 Page 3 B. Street improvements on 50 ft. right -of -way to be 33 feet. C. No direct access allowed onto Saratoga Sunnyvale Road from Lots 6 - 10. D. Construct Emergency Access Road to conform to minimum access road standards. E. Provide pedestrian walkway along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Subject to additional requirements of Planning Commission and /or Design Review. F. Provide decorative wall or fencing, including tree planting within lots along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Subject to additional require- ments of Planning Commission and /or Design Review. G. Landscape area between fence and highway. Subject to additional requirements of Planning Commission and /or Design Review. H. Construct storm line as per Master Drainage Plan and as directed by the Director of Public Works. I. Remove the existing temporary turn around on Tricia Way and construct standard street section. i III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional for: 1. Foundations, prior to issuance of building permits. B. Detailed on -site impeovement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, 1. fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities). 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope outfall, location, etc.) 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher. 4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. 5. Erosion control measures. 6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrown, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. C. Bonds required for removal of existing structures including wells and septic tanks. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with Report to Planning Cocj.._ssion �. 5/8/81 SD -1489 Page 4 requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District as outlined in letter dated March 19, 1981. B. Annex to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Approval. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. B. Developer to install 1 hydrant that meets Saratoga Fire District's specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of building permits. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewerw of the Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted wit said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. C. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled to County Standards. A.$400.00 bond to be posted to insure completion of work. D. Seal well in accordance with County Standards. A $300.00 bond to be posted to insure completion of work. III. 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 Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and certification. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. The residences shall be built in accordance with the recommendations of the Noise Assessment Study dated April 8, 1981 on the project. B. No two -story residences shall be constructed on Lots 6 - 10. C. Individual structures shall be reviewed during Design Review to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. Report to Planning Coi_ssion 5/8/81 SD -1479 Page 5 D. Applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way and the landscape easement that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping (including fencing) and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for design review and approval prior to Final Map Approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be in- stalled and established within 90 days of completion of the right -of- way improvements. Fencing shall be in accordance with the recommenda- tions of the Noise Assessment Study dated April 8, 1981, and the stated alternatives. E. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for those landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and easements. The applicant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a minimum of one year after which the homeowners association shall be responsible for maintaingin the landscaped areas. F. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a homeowners association for the express purpose of maintaining all landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and easements. The C, C, & R's of the homeowners association shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department, prior to final map approval. Approved: K by ft dtfs, Assistant Planner KK /clh P. C. Agenda: 5/13/81 co 3 905 P/4 PAD 76.0± �. VII I i f / #OLV 5F PAD 74.5f ytY� Z F 83, -1' f, G� /' 'i ��', 1■ `` i �:FX %5T /NG SA�1//T4f2Y 25 1 1� AD7 N O t /Q , DES �T �N%ER IO EANSIA BE �NAMANNE 6'.. �EySUPPpRT . ``+ ^^� _� r Z00 5F1' .,� -I� ;PAD.760' It ik o . `I! [ L-iX �� r�;- �`,; - C�; b1.� � alts �: ^ � �� r� °• �:! // �` J ~ I`�R PA a. SAM+ y`k�.��.`1L \1 > * )/\ •` .''. � •�t �.�� ), •�, . �,x x ii �:a• G r 1 � r�:^ r rj 1 r Ft�1�il(311 � •v.,`i � ,, �i Q- :�X. J � r r ran ry•f j BE :CLOS FILENO ED s , •ti ' J a'� s "' CITY'.'OF'8 ARATOG _ v _ RA IlSlG.LOT —PLAT f CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. -10 DAVE: July 2, 1981 DEPARTMENT:- City C 1 er k SUBJECT: Denial of Claim for Damages: Rose Marie Horvath Issue Summary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty C. Mgr. Subject claim has been submitted by David R. Finch on behalf of claimant. Case involves pedestrian accident on sidewalk adjacent to property of Congregation Beth David - Conservative near corner of Prospect and Scully. Claim asks general damages of $50,000 plus medical and special damages but does not specify how liability of City is warranted, noting only that claimant tripped on defect in sidewalk. Recommendation Deny claim. Fiscal impacts No financial impacts, at this time, for denial of claim. Exhibits /Attachments Notice of Claim to Public Entity and Supplemental Notice. Council Action Clevenger /Mallory moved to deny claim. Passed 5 -0. O • r� i F is NOTICE OF CLAIM TO PUBLIC ENTITY TO: CITY OF SARATOGA Government Code Sections 905, 910, 911.2 and 915 require that all claims must be presented to the clerk, secretary or auditor of the public entity within 100 days from date of accident. CLAIMANT'S NAME: Rose -larie Horvath AMOUNT OF CLAIM: General damages of $50,000.00 plus medical and special damages. CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: 259 Bellvue Drive, Los Catos, CA 95030 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: David R. Finch, Esq . Finch, Tennant and Bowen 1999 South Bascom Avenue, 4800 Campbell, California 95008 DATE OF ACCIDENT: April 9, 1981 LOCATION OF ACCIDENT: Public sidewalk adjacent to property at 26700 Prospect Road, Saratoga, California HOW DID ACCIDENT OCCUR: Claimant tripped on defect in sidewalk. DESCRIBE INJURY OR DAMAGE: Aggravation of low back pain and disability. Left ankle sprain and multiple abrasions and contusions. NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES CAUSING INJURY OR DAMAGE: Presently unknown ITEMIZATION OF CLAIM: Estimated medical expense: $2,000.00 DATED: June 16, 1981 Signed by or on behalf of Claimant: 15AVID R. FINCH Attorney for Rose Marie Horvath 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 VERIFICATION (Standard) CCP 446, 2015.5 I declare that: I am the ........................................................................... ............................... in the above entitled action; I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon my information or belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on ..................................................................... ............................... at ......................................................................... .............................., California. (DATE) (PLACE) ................................................................................... ............................... (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) SIGNATURE PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL CCP 1013a, 2015.5 I declare that: I am (a resident of /employed in) the county of .......S.a.nta... Clara ................................................... ........•....•................. California. (COUNTY WHERE MAILING OCCURRED) I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; my (businesskx6tk" address is: ....................... .... 1999.. S._... B. as. com ... Avenue ...... 48Q0.,...C.ampb.ell.,....CA ... 9.5. 0. 08 ........................................................ ............................... .: On ..... J.une..2.4 ...... 1981 ........... ............................... I served the within .Xo.tic.e ... of... Claim ... to.2 ub. lic................................ (DATE) E ntity.............................................................. ............................... on the ......... ity.. af... S. aratag. a_ ... City ... Clerk ................. defendant, in said cause, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail ct .CaMpbell ...... alifOr.nia .......................................................... ............................... addressed as follows: City of Saratoga Cite Clerk 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on ............. .un.e..24,.... 1981 ..... .............. ............................... at ................. :.Camp. bell............................................................ California. (DA I E) (PLACE) ......... Cara1..A..... Alt. r�. n1tm,, er ....................... ............................... (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) SIGNATURE AT`"T PNJCVC POII.ITIAIr CI IPPI V FrnOm Nin 1R_C • SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF CLAIM TO PUBLIC ENTITY TO: CITY OF SARATOGA CLAIMANT'S NAME: Rose Marie Horvath ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: David R. Finch, Esc. FINCH, TENNANT & BOWEN 1999 South Bascom Avenue Suite 800 Campbell, California 95008 DATE OF ACCIDENT: April 9,. 1981 LOCATION OF ACCIDENT: The location referred to in our Notice of June 16, 1981 should be as follows: Public sidewalk adjacent to property of Congre- station Beth David - Conservative near the corner of Prospect and Scully Roads, Saratoga, California. DATED: June 30, 1981 r Signed by or on behalf of Claimant: VID R.. FINCH Attorneyfor Rose Marie Horvath • 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 VERIFICATION (Standard) CCP 446, 2015.5 I declare that: I- ,, . I am the ............................................................................ ............................... in the above entitled action; I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof; the some is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon my information or belief, and as to those platters I believe it to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on at......................................................................... ............................... California. (DATE, (PLACE) ...............................................................:.................. ...................7........... (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) I declare that: SIGNATURE PROOF :OF SERVICE BY MAIL — CCP 1013a, 2015.5 Santa Clara I am (a resident of /employed in) the county of ......................................................................................... ............................... California. (COUNTY WHERE MAILING OCCURRED) 1 am over the age of eighteen years and nat a party to the within cause; my (business /r ryce) address is: ....................... 1999 S.Bascom Ave., Suite 800, Campbell, CA 95008 ............................................................................................................................................................:........................................... ............................... Jurri30, 1981 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF CLAIM On...................................................... ............................... I served the within ...................................................................... ............................... /DATE TO PUBLIC ENTITY City of Saratoga, City Clerk, ................................................................................ ............................... on the .. e, .................... in said cause, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the Campbell UnitedStates mail at ................... ............................................................................................. ............................... addressed as follows: City of Saratoga City Clerk 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on June 30, 1981 Campbell ....................................... ...................................... I at ..................::..................................................... ..............................I California. (DATE' (PLACE) PATRICIA G. LINDSAY ................................................................................... ............................... (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) SIGNATURE ATTORNEYS PRINTING SUPPLY FORM NO. 18 -S CITY OF SARATOGA og -AGE176A ~BILL NO. DATE: 7 -1 -81 DEPARrl'VEM: Public Works SUBJECT: SDR #1492 - HOLBROOK, CANYON VIEW DRIVE Issue Summa The applicant has requested that the City for appeal relative to his tentative site if the Council so determines to waive the the._requirement for site approval process There is no provision in the "Subdivision City Council to waive the 15 day appeal p Recommendation Initial Dept. F C. Atty C. Mgr. Council waive the time limitation approval. He has indicated that appeal period, that he will appeal relative to his parcel. Ordinance" which provides for the ariod. Direct the City Manager to notify the applicant that there are no provisions in the "Subdivision Ordinance" which allow the City Council to waive the 15 day appeal period. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Letter dated 6/14/81 from Wilson Holbrook 2. 6/26/81 Report to Mayor and City Council from Director of Public Works. Council Action 7l/ Al-Continued to July 15. 7/15/81 - Moved to adopt Staff Interpretation No. 1. Jensen /Mallory. Passed 3 -2 (Watson and Callon dissenting) June 11L, 1981 Saratoga City Council Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Council Members: ��.�t', ► � �� fir[ .l. � �� As stated in previous correspondence we have recently applied for a building permit to add an additional room to our home at 20980 Canyon View Drive. The Land Development Committee approved the plans on April 16, 1981. Later in April we received a letter inform- ing us of the approval but it did not include the checklist normally included with.such a letter. Therefore, we were unaware that an updated "parcel map" was required and that we had a limited time to appeal this requirement. This parcel map requirement is based upon the city statute which states, "an updated parcel map will be required if a greeter than 50 % expansion occurs within a 5 year period." Throuri correspondence and conversation with various personnel in the City Planning Department our architect, Mr. F. Dennis Burrow, informed us of the need for this survey. Unfortunately, by this time, our appeal period had elapsed. In view of the cost and time factor of this parcel map requirement I am submitting the following for the consideration of the Saratoga City Councils The original expansion which was approved by the Building Department and Planning Commission on February 22, 1978 reflected the following statistics: Existing house square footage - 1317.5 Existing DETACHED garage - 528.0 Total square footage 1845.5 New 2nd floor addition 883.6 Total expansion 48% If the detached garage is not included the expansion figure jumps to 67%. However, these figures are based upon r _.-P o� SAR�9 195E �y REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT : DATE: 6/26/81 COUNCIL MEETING: 7/1/81 SDR #1492 - HOLBROOK, CANYON VIEW DRIVE I have reviewed the June 14th letter from Mr. Wilson E. Holbrook rela- tive to the 1978 addition to his home by a prior owner. Information given by Mr. Holbrook relative to the February 22, 1978 approval in- dicating a total expansion of 48 %, is the data presented to the City on which that building permit was issued. Review of the plans, which were submitted for that 1978 addition, reveals the 48% to be in error. However, my analysis is somewhat different than Mr. Holbrook's computations on the second page of his letter, although the bottom line'is that the expansion was over 50 %. The following is the breakdown of the square foo.tages: Existing house square footage - 1177.0 Existing DETACHED garage - 528.0 Total square footage - 1705.0 New 2nd floor addition - 884.0 Total expansion - 51.8% If the detached garage is not included in the expansion, figure jumps to 75.1 %. S. Shook RSS /dsc At the Council meeting of July 1, 1981, the applicant, Holbrook, requested that the City Council waive the time limita- tion for appeal of his tentative site approval. At that meeting, the Council was advised that there is no provision in the Subdivision Ordinance which provides for the City Council to waive the fifteen (15) day appeal period. Because of the peculiar facts of this case, I advised the Council at that time that it was possible that the applicant is exempt from the required site approval and the Council requested that I report back to it at their meeting on July 15 with my conclusion. The facts do not appear to be in dispute. In 1978, the previous owner of this residence obtained a building permit for the expansion of an existing residence on the property, which expansion was more than fifty percent (50 %) of the floor space under roof of the existing residence. Because of some conflict in data shown on the plans submitted to the Building Department, the Building Department determined that the expansion was forty - eight percent (48 %) of the floor space under roof and therefore exempted the project under Section 21(c)(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance. This applicant now proposes an additional expansion of some two hundred fifty (250) square feet and the Building Department has determined that site approval is now required and the exemption under Section 21(c)(1) is lost because the previous expansion together with the proposed expansion exceeds fifty per- cent (50 %) of the floor space under roof and that said expansions will occur within a five (5) year time period. The applicant's position is that the City should have required building site approval in 1978 and did not, and that had such approval been required at that time, no additional approval would be required at this time from this applicant. In reviewing Section 21(c)(1), I find the following wording which must be construed and applied to this applicant: "For the purposes of this exception, any expansion or addition shall be considered as equalling or exceeding the above fifty percent limit where ATKINSON • FARASYN PAUL B. SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW J. M. ATKINSON, (REFIRED) ERIC L. FARASYN 660 WEST DANA STREET L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979) DUNHAM B. SHERER LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD 5.TOPPEL P. 0. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 ¢ FRANK E. MAYO (415) 967- 6941��i l MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council FROM: Paul B. Smith, City Attorney DATE: July 10, 1981 SUBJECT: SDR #1492 -- Holbrook, Canyon View Drive At the Council meeting of July 1, 1981, the applicant, Holbrook, requested that the City Council waive the time limita- tion for appeal of his tentative site approval. At that meeting, the Council was advised that there is no provision in the Subdivision Ordinance which provides for the City Council to waive the fifteen (15) day appeal period. Because of the peculiar facts of this case, I advised the Council at that time that it was possible that the applicant is exempt from the required site approval and the Council requested that I report back to it at their meeting on July 15 with my conclusion. The facts do not appear to be in dispute. In 1978, the previous owner of this residence obtained a building permit for the expansion of an existing residence on the property, which expansion was more than fifty percent (50 %) of the floor space under roof of the existing residence. Because of some conflict in data shown on the plans submitted to the Building Department, the Building Department determined that the expansion was forty - eight percent (48 %) of the floor space under roof and therefore exempted the project under Section 21(c)(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance. This applicant now proposes an additional expansion of some two hundred fifty (250) square feet and the Building Department has determined that site approval is now required and the exemption under Section 21(c)(1) is lost because the previous expansion together with the proposed expansion exceeds fifty per- cent (50 %) of the floor space under roof and that said expansions will occur within a five (5) year time period. The applicant's position is that the City should have required building site approval in 1978 and did not, and that had such approval been required at that time, no additional approval would be required at this time from this applicant. In reviewing Section 21(c)(1), I find the following wording which must be construed and applied to this applicant: "For the purposes of this exception, any expansion or addition shall be considered as equalling or exceeding the above fifty percent limit where �y Saratoga City Council July 10, 1981 Page Two the work of construction or improvement is done at different time intervals requiring two or more building permits, within a period of five years after completion of the first improvement, where although each is for a project encompassing an addition of.less than fifty percent of increased floor space, but which when combined with other expansions during said five -year period of time increase the amount of floor space under roof by fifty percent or more of that amount which existed immediately prior to the commencement of the first of the several additions or expansions;" (emphasis added) In this instance, each project was not less than fifty percent (50%) of increased floor space. The first project was clearly in excess of fifty percent (50 %) and the second :.proposed project is clearly less than fifty percent (500). In my opinion, the Council, in construing this provision of the Subdivision Ordinance, can make one of two determinations: 1. Determine that Section 21(c)(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance does not exempt expansions of more than fifty percent (50 %) of the floor space under roof which occur within a five (5) year period from the requirement of building site approval. The fact that building site approval was not required of the previous owner is irrelevant and building site approval is required at this time. 2. Building site approval should have been required for the expansion requested in 1978 and, through no fault of this applicant, was not required at that time. By not requiring compliance with the Ordinance in 1978, the City has waived its right to .demand compliance from this applicant at this time. Before making its decision, the Council should also be aware that the City's staff does not appear to be at fault for determining that no building site approval was required in 1978. That decision was based upon erroneous and conflicting information contained in the plans submitted to the Building Department by the previous owner. Saratoga City Attorney r AGEr?DA 1!iLL NO. (DS, DATE: 7/1/81 DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY OF SARATOGA LOS P-� - Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. -------------------------------- ! ------------ SUBJECT: SDR #1493 - FUQUA - SOBEY ROAD Issue Sumary The applicant has requested that the City Council saive the time limitation for appeal realtive to his tentative site approval. He has indicated that if the Council so determines to waive the appeal period, he will appeal the requirement to make street improvements on Sobey Road at this time. There is no provision in the "Subdivision Ordinance" which provides for the City Council to waive the 15 day appeal period. Recommendation Direct the City Manager to notify the applicant that there are no provisions in the "Subdivision Ordinance" which allow the City Council to waive the 15 day appeal period. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Letter dated 6/15/81 from Mr. Fuqua. Council Action Mallory/Watson moved to direct City Manager to inform applicant that there are no provisions in the subdivision allowing Council to waive 15 -day appeal period. Passed 5 -0. June 15, 1981 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 JUN 15 1981 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT CITY OF SARATOGA Gentlemen: Ref: Letter of Protest & Appeal I am a citizen of Saratoga and owner of a residence at 14750 Sobey Road, Saratoga and hereby file this protest and appeal regarding the City of Saratoga's requirement that I widen and improve the roadway in front of my residence. Because time is of the essence, and the City has required me to complete plans, provide bonds, pay fees, provide liability insurance and dedicate my property to the City as a requirement to obtain permits for remodeling my home, I am doing all of the above under protest and request a proper appeal. I will provide the reasons I believe these requirements are not needed and unfair at the time of an impartial hearing. I request that this letter be properly recorded with all docu- ments relating to the street improvements, bonds, easements, dedication, and agreements that I have signed under protest and without choice. ncerely, 1es Fuqua 14750 Sobey Road Saratoga, California 95070 L. D. C._. A tip !-O L ° j l)A? S, 19F,I (Individual) S'I'A'11'. OF (:AI,IFO1(NIA, County of Santa Clara On this 15th day of June �11 in thr year .nu' thousand nine hundred and eighty —one before inc. Anita Caldwell , a Notary Public, titan• of (:alifornia, duly conunissioned and sworn, personally appeared a f James Fuqua .......... .............................. . ............. I.................. OFFICIAL SEAL ... ...........I ................. . t ANITA V. CALDWELL to NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA known to me to he the person whose name 1S subscribed to the within instrument, w� SANTA CIARA COUNTY and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. My comm. expires FEB 15, 1983 -,•.r.�V-• -` '""' IN %VI'I'NFSS WIIFRFnI' I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the County of Santa Clara the day and year in this certificate first above written. •y ... ....... .. ..................... ............................... Notary Public, Stan• of California. .owdery•s r'oon N,,..t.t. 4A,kn,—h- ,I,;,,,,,n t;vlw. ;,It tt t .,,. IIN -)i My Connnissiou Fxl)ires February 15, 1983 AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: July 1, 1981 DEPARTMENT: Code Enforcement CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. v� SUBJECT: County Animal Control /Service Report C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue Summary Recent revisions to the County Animal Control Ordinance require certain changes to our City Code in order to maintain County Animal Control Service. Some of the County changes affecting fees and the handling of dangerous /vicious animals are adequately covered by our current City Code. The following changes pertain to quarantines, veterinarian responsibilities, impound- ment appeal hearings, and animal establishments must be amended to satisfy the County Ordinance. 1. Adopt County Ordinance: Section B4 -5 Animal Bites - Quaranti'ne.as Saratoga City' Code, Section 8 -17. 2. Adopt County Ordinance, Section B4 -47 Veterinarian Responsibilities as Saratoga City Code, Section 8 -21.2. 3. Adopt County Ordinance B4 -28 and B4 -29 as Saratoga City Code, Section 8 -8.1. 4. Adopt County Ordinance B4 -30 Condition #4 & 5 Appeal Heari.ng as Saratoga City Code, Section-,8 -16.2 (4 &5). 5. Adopt County Ordinance B4 -71 as Saratoga City Code, Section 8 -30.1. The County Board of Supervisors has deferred decision on charging cities for animal control services to see if these revenue raising mechanisms work. The Board requires that each city approve the County's existing animal ordinance which establishes license fees as well as new fees for quarantine of biting dogs and requiring monthly reports from operators of pet shops, providing names and addresses of persons to whom animals are sold. Recommendation Adopt the attached ordinance aunending Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code. Fiscal Impacts The County has established new animal control fees and required monthly reports from animal establishments identifying owners of dogs. The purpose is -to increase /improve revenue collect- ing for the Animal Control Department. If this is successful the County will not require 'pay- ment from the individual city for animal control service. However, if it is not, then each city will be required to finance its portion /ratio of the animal control budgeted services provided by the County, which in Saratoga's case would be in the twenty- thousand dollars per year range. Exhibits /Attachments County Animal Control sections and ordi:nanee adopting these sections in their entirety. Council Action 7/15 Jensen /Mallory moved to waive reading and introduce ordinance - Passed 5 -0. 8/19 Jensen /Mallory moved reading by title only and waiving of further reading. Passed 5 -0. Jensen /Mallory moved to adopt Ordinance 38.101. Passed 5 -0. County Animal Ordinances I. Sec. B4 -5. Animal bites; quarantine, violation and examinations. (a). Any person having knowledge that any animal is known to have or is suspected of having bitten any person shall immediately report that fact to the animal control division or health officer with full information in regard to the incident. (b). Upon receipt of such a report, an animal control officer shall seize and quarantine such animal for a period of fourteen (14) days or such other period as may be prescribed by the state department of public health. The health officer may order the owner to quarantine the animal on his premises. (c). Any person who fails, refuses, or neglects to quarantine any animal as ordered by the health officer, or who refuses to allow the health officer to inspect any private premises where the animal is dept, is guilty of the misdeameanor. No animal shall be removed or released during the quarantine period without written permission of the health officer. Any animals quarantined by order of the health officer in a kennel, shelter, or veterinary hospital shall be at the owner's expense. (d). The head of any animal which dies or is destroyed while under quarantine shall be submitted to the laboratory of the county health department for rabies examination. (Ord. No. NS- 600.8, 2, 4- 25 -72; Ord. No. NS- 600.12, 5, 4- 3 -78). 2. Sec. B4 -47. Veterinarian responsibilities. Every veterinarian who vaccinates or causes or directs to be vaccinated in the county any dog with anti - rabies vaccine shall use a form provided by the licensing authority to certify that such animal has been vaccinated. (Ord. No. NS- 600.12, 31, 4- 3 -78). 3. Sec. B4 -28 & 29 (a). Except as provided in Section B44, an animal control officer may seize and impound an animal for violation of any provision of this division or state law prior to a hearing in any of the following situations where the owner is not present and where the officer reasonably believes it is necessary: (1) To protect public health, safety and property; (2) To protect an animal which is injured, sick, or starving and must be cared for; and (3) To protect an animal from injury which h as strayed onto public property or public right -of -way. Sec. B4 -28. Cont. . (b) If the owner.or person who has the right to control the animal wishes to challenge the impoundment, he shall personnally deliver or mail a written request for a hearing, such that it is received by the administrator within seventy -two (72) hours of the seizure and impound- ment. (c) The administrator shall promptly set the time and.,place for -the hearing before him and shall cause notice of such hearing to be deposited in the mail to the party requesting a hearing at least five (5) days before the date of the.hearing. (d) The hearing shall be conducted as set forth in section B4 -30. (Ord. No. NS- 600.12, 18, 4- 3 -78). Sec. B4 -29. Hearing prior to animal deprivation. (a) Except as provided in sections B4 -4 and B4 -28, the administrator or animal control officer may not seize or impound any animal, without the consent of the owner or person entitled to custody of the animal, unless an appeal hearing is held as set forth in section B4 -30. (b) If the owner or person who has a right to control an animal, refuses to consent to an impoundment of his animal, the animal control officer may issue a notice commanding the person to appear before the administrator at a set time. Failure of a person to appear at the hearing is a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed six (6) months, or by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00), or by both fine and imprisonment, and in addition, the animal control officer may immediately seize and impound the animal. (Ord. No. NS- 600.12, 19, 4- 3 -78). 4. Sec. B4 -30, #4 & #5 (4) To prove financial responsibility by posting a bond or certificate of insurance for the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or more; and (5) To inform, along with animal control, any city, county, post- master, utility company meter readers, and anyone else that comes on the property with implied consent or peaceably and lawfully of the animal's viciousness if the animal is moved into an area. Sec. B4 -30, #4 & #5 cont. Any violations of this agreement of this chapter is a misdemeanor, which may result in the prosecution of the person by the district attorney or city attorney. (ord. No. NS- 600 -12, 20, 4 -3 -78; Ord. No. NS- 600.14, 2, 10- 2 -79). 5. Sec. B4 -71 (a). An application for a permit to operate and keep a pet shop, commercial kennel, private kennel, pet grooming parlor, animal menagerie, animal shelter, horse establishment, or dangerous animal shall be in writing on a form approved by the administrator. The applicant shall furnish a list of the types of animals to be maintained or used for any purpose, together with the approximate number of animals of each type. (b). The administrator may establish regulations and standards relating to: (1) The maximum number and species of animals to be kept or maintained on the premises; (2) The construction, sanitation and maintenance of facilities; and (3) Any other regulations and standards in conformity with and for the purpose of carrying out the intent of this chapter. Compliance with such rules and regulations shall be prerequisite to the issuance and continued validity of any permit provided pursuant to this chapter. (c). Permittee shall maintain a record of the names and addresses of persons from whom animals are received and to whom the animals are sold, traded or given. This shall be available to the administrator upon request. (Ord. No. NS- 600.8, 2, 4- 25 -72; Ord. No. NS- 600.12, 37, 4- 3 -78). • ORDINANCE NO. 38.101 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ARTICLE 1 OF CHAPTER 8 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DEALING WITH ANIMALS AND FOWL The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I Section 8 -17 of Article 4 of Chapter 8 of the Code of the City of Saratoga, California, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 8 -17. Animal bites; quarantine, violation and examinations. (a) Any person having knowledge that any animal is known to have or is suspected of having bitten any person shall immediately report that fact to the animal control • division or health officer with full information in regard to the incident. (b) Upon receipt of such a report, an animal control officer shall seize and quarantine such animal for a period of fourteen (14) days or such other period as may be prescribed by the State Department of Public Health. The health officer may order the owner to quarantine the animal on his premises. (c) Any person who fails, refuses or neglects to quarantine any animal as ordered by the health officer, or who refuses to allow the health officer to inspect any private premises where the animal is kept, is guilty of the misdemeanor. No animal shall be removed or released during the quarantine period without written permission of the health officer. Any animals quarantined by order of the health officer in a kennel, shelter, or veterinary hospital shall be at the owner's expense. (d) The head of any animal which dies or is destroyed • while under quarantine shall be submitted to the laboratory of the County Health Department for rabies examination. -1- SECTION II Article 1 of Chapter 8 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended by adding Section 8 -21.2 to read as follows: Section 8 -21.2. Veterinarian responsibilities. Every veterinarian who vaccinates or causes or directs to be vaccinated in the County any dog with anti - rabies vaccine shall use a form provided by the licensing authority to certify that such animal has been vaccinated. SECTION III Article 1 of Chapter 8 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended by adding Sections 8 -8.1 and 8 -8.2 to read as follows: Section 8 -8.1. Summary seizure and post- seizure hearing. (a) An animal control officer may seize and impound an • animal for violation of any provision of this division or state law prior to a hearing in any of the following situations where the owner is not present and where the officer reasonably believes it is necessary: (1) To protect public health, safety and property: (2) To protect an animal which is injured, sick, or starving and must be cared for; and (3) To protect an animal from injury which has strayed onto public property or public right -of -way. (b) If the owner or person who has the right to control the animal wishes to challenge the impoundment, he shall personally deliver or mail a written request for a hearing, such that it is received by the administrator within seventy -two (72) hours of the seizure and impoundment. (c) The administrator shall promptly set the time and place for the hearing before him and shall cause notice of such hearing to be deposited in the mail to the party requesti� a hearing at least five (5) days before the date of the hearing. -2- • (d) The hearing shall be conducted as set forth in Section 8 -12. Section 8 -8.2. Hearing prior to animal deprivation. (a) Except as provided in Section 8 -8.1, the administrator or animal control officer may not seize or impound any animal, without the consent of the owner or person entitled to custody of the animal, unless an appeal hearing is held as set forth in Section 8 -16.2. (b) If the owner or person who has a right to control an animal refuses to consent to an impoundment of his animal, the animal control officer may issue a notice commanding the person to appear before the administrator at a set time. Failure of a person to appear at the hearing is a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed six (6) months, or by a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500), or by both fine and imprisonment, and in addition, the animal control officer may immediately seize and impound the animal. SECTION IV Section 8 -16.2 of Article 1 of Section 8 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended to add the following two subsections (4) and (5) to the existing section, and to add further text to the main body of the section: (4) To prove financial responsibility by posting a bond or certificate or insurance for the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), or more; and (5) To inform, along with animal control, any city, county, postmaster, utility, company meter readers, and anyone else that comes on the property with implied consent or peaceably and lawfully of the animal's viciousness if the animal is moved into an area. Any violations of this agreement of this chapter is a misdemeanor, which may result in the prosecution of the person by the district attorney or city attorney. -3- SECTION V Section 8 -29 of Article 1 of Chapter 8 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 8 -29. Application. (a) An application for a permit to operate and keep a pet shop, commercial kennel, private kennel, pet grooming parlor, animal menagerie, animal shelter, horse establish- ment, or dangerous animal shall be in writing on a form approved by the administrator. The applicant shall furnish a list of the types of animals to be maintained or used for any person, together with the approximate number of animals of each type. Not later than ten (10) days after receipt of the application by the health officer, the place of housing for which such license is requested will be examined by the health officer. No license shall be issued or renewed unless and until all general regulations relating to animals is set forth in this article are complied with. (b) The administrator may establish regulations and standards relating to: (1) The maximum number and species of animals to be kept or maintained on the premises; (2) The construction, sanitation and maintenance of facilities; and (3) Any other regulations and standards in conformity with and for the purpose of carrying out the intent of this chapter. Compliance with such rules and regulations shall be prerequisite to the issuance and continued validity of any permit provided pursuant to this chapter. (c) Permittee shall maintain a record of the names and addresses of persons from whom animals are received and to • whom the animals are sold, traded or given. This shall be available to the administrator upon request. -4- `r• SECTION VI This ordinance takes effect thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. 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 1981, by the following vote: AYES, and in favor thereof, Councilmembers: NOES, Councilmembers: ABSENT, Councilmembers: MAYOR •::..; ATTEST: CITY CLERK IL-1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 0 • LIFO4 City Council City Manager SB 215 ��Txw @0 0&M&X00& 1:3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 DATE: July 10, 1981 At the July 1, 1981, Council meeting, you directed me to prepare an appropriately - warded resolution for your consideration supporting provisions of SB 215 (Foran) that would increase the rate of tax on gasoline from U to 94� per gallon. The bill would also provide for additional revenues to cities and counties in state gasoline taxes for maintenance of local streets and roads. The attached resolution has been warded so as to allow you to endorse those provisions of SB 215 that would provide for an increase in shared revenue from the State for maintenance of our own streets and mads. The resolution does not ccnutit you to endorse other provisions of SB 215, whether the actual increase of taxation or reallocation of tax monies from public transit to State highway programs. It is hoped that a majority of councilmembers will be able to support the resolution in this form. On the other hand, if you wish to endorse SB 215 in its entirety, we can change this resolution to do so by minute action. Wayne Dernetz City Manager O • • "..... c.: :w,.v, • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA SUPPORTING AN INCREASE IN STATE GASOLINE TAX FOR PURPOSES OF MAINTENANCE OF LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga and other cities in California face severe financial restrictions caused in recent years by rapid inflation and imposition of constitutional limitations on city revenue sources, and; WHEREAS, by law, city street and road maintenance and improvement expenses have been funded by State shared gasoline taxes, and; WHEREAS, the amount of tax for street and road maintenance purposes has increased by less than 60% in the past eighteen years, while costs of materials, supplies, and other expenses for road maintenance purposes have increased by more than 350 %; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga can no longer meet all of its annual and deferred expenses for maintenance and improvemmment of local streets and roads with the reserves and annual revenues available for this purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga favors the allocation of additional gas tax revenues to cities and counties for street and road maintenance purposes and supports those provisions of SB 215 (Foran) that would provide for such additional shared revenues. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of , 1981, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor i AGENDA BILL NO. ((OX DATE: 7/1/81 DEPAR`IME N'r: Public Works --------------------------- - - - - -- CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT: FRUITVALE AVE. BICYCLE FACILITY Issue Sunnary Initial: W\ Dept. Hd. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has approved Saratoga's application for $32,800.00 to construct a bicycle.facility on the westerly side of Fruitvale Avenue. This project will be included in the 1981 -82. Capital Improvement Budget, with the MTC funds available for that fiscal year.: Public Works requests authorization to encumber approximately $2,000.00 to' obtain aerial photographs of Fruitvale Ave. prior to the approval of the Capital Improvement Budget. Recommendation Approve expenditure of approximately $2,000.00 to be'. gin the design of the Fruitvale Avenue bicycle facility. Fiscal Impacts Approximately $2,000 will be spent prior to the approved 1981 -82 Budget. The $2,000 will be reimbursed by MTC during fiscal year 1981 -82. Exhibits /Attachments Council Action Jensen/Mallory moved to authorize $2,000. for design of bicycle facility. Passed 5 -0. CITY OF SARATOGA AG= RILL NO. DATE: July 1, 1981 DEPAR'IME TI': Public Works --------------------------------------------------------- S= -CI': WEED ABATEMENT --------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Issue Summary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. In 1977, the City entered into an agreement with the Santa Clara County Fire Marshall's Office turning the duties of inspection, notification, and abate-- merit of weeds over to them (Resolution No. 38.63 -2). At this time, a 25% administrative fee was charged against properties that had to be abated by the-County's contractor. In 1978, this fee was increased to 350. Due to inflation, etc., the Fire Marshall's Office is requesting an increase to 45% to cover their costs. Information received justifies the increase. Recommendation Revise the Agreement, increasing the fee to 45% to cover the Fire Marshall Office administrative costs, as requested. Fiscal Impacts No fiscal impact to the City of Saratoga Exhibits /Attachments 1. Letter from Santa Clara County Fire Marshall requesting increase. 2. Proposed revised agreement. 3. Resolution No. 38.63 -2. 4. Sept. 9, 1975 Memo from Director of Public Works to City Manager. Council Action Jensen /Clevenger moved to adopt revised agreement. Passed 4 -1 (Watson opposed). 6 County of Santa Clara California EMA/GSA Environmental Management/ General Services Agency Mr. Wayne Dernetz City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Weed Abatement Program Dear Mr. Dernetz: Office of the Fire Marshal 70 W. Hedding St., East Wing San Jose, California 95110 299 -2041 Area Code 408 April 22, 1981 1981 On April 6, 1977, the AGREEMENT FOR THE ABATEMENT OF WEEDS BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA was implemented and we commenced the administration of the City's weed abatement program. We are currently providing the service in the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and the Town of Los Gatos, in addition to Saratoga and the unincorporated area. When the Board of Supervisors authorized implementation of the program in 1975, it was with the condition that all costs shall be recovered via an administrative fee added to the charges to land owners for work performed by our contractor. Each year we mail notices to owners of approximately 5,000 parcels in the eleven juris- dictions and our contractor abates the weeds on about 2,000 properties that are not maintained by the owners. Section 6 of our Agreement with the City of Saratoga references a County admin- istrative cost of 35%. To continue the program, this fee must be increased to 45% commencing with the 1982 season. The additional 10% is necessary to cover salary increases, expanded data processing, postage and other program overhead. Enclosed is a copy of the revised Agreement, with the new administrative fee of 45%. I hope the City Council will approve this needed increase so we may continue to provide the service. Please advise this office as to the action taken by the Council. If you desire further information, please feel free to contact me and a meeting will be scheduled to discuss the matter. CMJ /k cc: Chief Ernie Kraule Saratoga Fire District Chief Doug Sporleder Central Fire District enc. Revised Agreement Yours very truly, 7' Clifford M. ohnson Fire Marshal ® An Equal Opportunity Employer AGREEMENT FOR THE ABATEMENT OF WEEDS BY COUNTY OF'SANTA CLARA FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA THE FOLLOWING is an Agreement between COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, State of California, hereinafter called "County," and CITY OF SARATOGA, Santa Clara County, California, hereinafter called "City," both of whom understand and agree as follows: WHEREAS, City has the power to conduct weed abatement under Government Code of the State of California Sec. 39500, et seq.; and WHEREAS, City has home rule authority to adopt ordinances for public health, safety and welfare, including weed abatement pro- cedures; and WHEREAS, City has exercised this power by adoption of chapter 6. of the Saratoga City Code for the Abatement of Weeds; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County, by resolution has exercised the power granted to County pursuant to the Health and Safety Code of the State of California, commencing at Section 14875; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto have the power to enforce weed abatement within their corporate limits; and WHEREAS, County is desirous of contracting with City for the County Fire Marshal to perform the actual services of abate- ment of weeds; and WHEREAS, County is agreeable to rendering such services and City is agreeable-to have such services rendered under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth for the reason of efficiency and mutual benefit of both parties. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. Purpose of Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to promote the efficiency and economy of operations in the abatement of weeds by City and County. This Agreement shall pro- vide for the performance by County of functions relating to weed abatement in territory within the City at the same time that -2- County is working in the Urban Service Area of City. The functions to be performed by County for City shall be herein= after set forth. 2. Joint Cooperation. County shall prepare Assessor's parcel maps and the list of parcels requiring abatement of weeds in the City and transmit it to City for review and approval for processing. The County Fire Marshall shall transmit the final list of parcels to the City for appropriate action in accordance with law. 3. Notice. County shall prepare the notice of weed abatement and cause such notice to be mailed to the owners of the parcels requiring weed abatement. 4. Hearing by Council. The Council of City shall conduct public hearings on the proposed removal of weeds pursuant to the provisions of the City ordinance when the Fire Marshal presents such appropriate resolutions or orders for adoption. The Council may by resolution declare the weeds on the respective parcels of land as nuisances, make the determination to proceed with the abatement of weeds, and authorize the performance of the service of removal of weeds in accordance with this Agreement. 5. County Responsibilities. After action is taken at each stage by the Council, County, through the Fire Marshal shall cause the abatement of weeds in the following manner, to -wit: Upon proper authorization by City to County, the Fire Marshal shall remove the weeds on the designated properties, where the need for weed abatement still exists because owners have failed to so remove said weeds. 6. Statement of Costs. The Fire Marshal shall render to the City an itemized statement or report of the cost of the weed abatement services performed for the respective parcels of land in the City on or before the tenth day of August of each year, which shall include the County's administrative cost of 45% of the cost for City parcels of weed abatement services of the weed Oz u 1 t z. nip i4f > .... r'.: i °�j. f. ✓. 5':Y s; f .::-IM �q;uhq. 1b�'il,_r�ura s"'.�w+•'^d.? ?4.'fhi1+ ,T,9,�.} 0': 3 0 iglP y w �,d 4rak�?A''a� -3- abatement contractor for the respective parcels. The statement shall include the description of the lots and parcels of land for which weed abatement services were performed, and verifica- tion by signature of the County Fire Marshal. 7. Inclusion of Assessment on County Tax Bill. The Council of City, after hearing, shall require the County Tax Collector to include the costs of the weed abatement service performed for City for the current year, as a special assessment on bills for taxes levied against the respective lots and parcels of land. Such special assessments shall be liens on the respective properties. 8. Time and Manner of Collection. The amounts of the assess- ments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as county taxes are collected, and are subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary county taxes. 9. Remittance of Costs. The cost of week abatement shall be advanced by County and reimbursed to County as and when collected by County Tax Collector. 10. Liability. City shall assume no liability for the payment of salary, wages or other compensation to officers, agents, employees or contractors of County performing services hereunder. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity to County officers or employees, or to third persons, for injury or sickness arising out of the weed abatement operations under this Agreement, excluding any damages or injury arising out of any dangerous or defective condition of public property of the City. 11. Records. Each officer or department of County performing any service pursuant to this Agreement shall keep itemized detailed work or job records covering the cost of all services performed. 12. Independent Contractors. It is agreed that this Agreement is by and between independent contractors, and it is not intended nor shall it be construed to create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association r f 1R -4- between County and City. 13. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall become effective on date of execution and shall run until the governing body of City or County shall exercise the right to terminate this Agreement as of the first day of September of any year, by giving notice to the other party not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of ATTEST: DONALD M. RAINS, Clerk COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Board of Supervisors unalrman, board of Supervisors ATTEST: CLERK City of Saratoga of Sar /�- ayor ity ot 6aratoga APPROVED AS TO FORM: DEPUTY County Counsel ORDINANCE NO. 38.63 -2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ARTICLE II OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 6 -7, 6- 9,.6 -10 AND 6 -11 THEREOF, AND RENUMBERING CERTAIN SUBSECTIONS. The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1: Section 1 of Ordinance No. 38.63 is hereby amended to change the reference therein set forth as Article III,to Article II, and to change the numerical sequence of the subsections from 6.50, et seq. to 6.4, et seq. The purpose of this amendment is to conform the same to the article and section numbering as transposed into, and as presently exists in, the Saratoga City Code. Section 2: Section 6 -7 of the Saratoga City Code, contained in Article II thereof under "Weed and Rubbish Abatement" is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 6 -7: Notice to Abate: Whenever any weeds, rubbish, refuse, dirt, obstructions or other dangerous materials are found to exist on public or private property in violation of the above section, the Director of Public Works of the City, hereafter called the Director, may cause a notice to be sent to the owner thereof, at his address as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to such other address, if any, as may be known to such Director, by mail, postage prepaid, which notice shall require the removal or destruction thereof within ten (10) days from date of posting of such letter, or within such other reasonable time as specified by the Fire Marshal in such notice, and in default thereof that the same will be removed or destroyed by the City and that the cost thereof shall be paid by such property owner within fifteen (15) days after billing therefor or become a lien against the property. Such notice shall contain the address of the property in question, and may contain the Director's estimate of the cost of abatement, and shall contain language substantially in the following form: "Pursuant to Article II of Chapter 6 of the Saratoga City Code, all weeds, rubbish, refuse, obstructions or other dangerous materials, as hereafter described, existing upon your property or upon the adjacent street, etc., have hereto- fore been declared to be a public nuisance, and you are hereby notified that you shall within such time as specified by the Fire Marshal from date of mailing of this notice, remove and destroy all such weeds or rubbish or other materials from your property, and the abutting one -half of the street or streets adjacent to your property, between the lot lines extended thereon, or the same will be destroyed or removed -1- 1 C C and the nuisance abated by the City, and you will be billed for all costs thereof, including an additional administrative fee of 25% thereof. Upon your failure to pay any such bill within fifteen (15) days from date of its mailing, the cost to the City of such abatement, plus twenty - five percent (25 %) thereof for costs of collec- tion, together with all actual administration costs, will be assessed upon your lands, and will constitute a lien thereon until paid, and will be collected upon the next tax roll upon which general municipal taxes are collected. If you have any objections to the pro- posed nuisance abatement, you may appeal from this notice directly to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal in writing with the Clerk of the City within five (5) days from the date of the mailing of this notice, which appeal will automatically be heard at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting held after receipt by the City of your notice of appeal, without further notice to you. If you should appeal, it will automati- cally extend your time within which to abate the nuisance to the expiration of five days after the hearing on appeal." Section 3: Section 6 -9 of the Saratoga City Code, contained in Article II is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 6 -9: Appeal: Upon the failure of any property owner to remove or abate within ten (10) days after the mailing or posting of such notice, or within such other time as may be specified by the Fire Marshal in said notice, or if an appeal has been filed and the determination of the Director is upheld, then upon the property owner's failure to so remove or abate within five (5) days after the date of said hearing, the Director shall without further order abate or cause to be abated such nuisance, by removal, destruction or other adequate means, and he and his assistants, employees and contracting agents are hereby authorized to enter upon private property for that purpose. Nothing herein shall prevent the property owner from himself abating such nuisance, so long as all of such weeds, rubbish, refuse, dirt or other obstructions and dangerous materials have been completely removed or destroyed prior to the arrival of the Director or his representatives to remove the same. Section 4: Section 6 -10 and 6 -11 of the Saratoga City Code, contained in Article II thereof are hereby amended to read as follows: -2- Sec. 6 -10: Same -- Account of Costs and Billing. The Director shall keep an account of the costs of abating such nuisance upon each separate lot or parcel of land, and shall send a bill for the same, including an administrative fee of 25% to the property owner by mail, to the address or addresses to which the original notice of abatement had pre- viously been sent, which bill shall specify on the face thereof that in the event of the failure of the full payment of the same within fifteen (15) days from date of mailing, then and in that event the amounts set forth in such bill, together with administration costs, will become a lien against the land and shall constitute a special assessment and be collected at the same time and in the same manner as general municipal'-taxes of the City, and that a hearing on such assessment and any objections thereto will be held at the last regular City Council meet- ing to be held the following July, and that no other or further notice will be given of such assessment and hearing other than as set forth on the face of such billing. Sec. 6 -11: Same -- Assessment Report and Hearing. Prior to the last available date to submit information to the County Tax Collector, the Director shall submit a report to the Council, con- sisting of all unpaid bills for weed abatement expenses, a proposed assessment list; and the parcels against which such expenses, plus 25% thereof for administra- tion costs, are to be assessed, at which meeting any property owner may appear and object to any matter contained in such report. No other notice need be given of such hearing other than the notice contained in the billing previously sent to the property owner. At the meeting, the Council shall hear the report and any objections thereto, and make such modifica- tions in the proposed assessments as it may deem necessary or proper, after which the Council shall confirm the report and assessment by order or resolu- tion. Section 5: 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 any one or more sections, sub- sections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional. Section 6: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect 30 days after the date of its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law was thereafter -3- passed and adopted this 2nd day of May 1979, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Matteoni, Kraus & Corr NOES: Councilman Kalb ABSENT: Councilwoman Callon 'l"It ,1 MAYOR AT EST: CITY CLIERR- -4- c TY OF SARATOG.1 ~ V ~1 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 ME�M(N)�;ZANDIWI To: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Weed Abatement I have reviewed, office take over initial reaction over to sc-neone observations. with staff, the suggestion by the weed abatement program in is that we would be wore than else. In so doing, however, w DATE: September 9, 1975 the Fire M`rshall that his the City of Saratoga. Our happy to turn this procedure a x•.ould make the following An analysis of the cost of this program for the cne year experience that we have had, indicates that it it a very e: ;pensive activity. The direct discei:bible costs to the City this year wef�e $1,860.00, which included tech, ni_cal staff, clerical staff and mailing costs, c.Alile the 5% surcharge to the unpaid assessments only resulted in a collection of approximately $75.01 showing a definite City subsidy of the program. 'these costs do not reflect the time spent by the Saratoga Fire District or the Central Fire District i] rerroting out the parcels requiring abatement. We would assume the costs t4 double or triple over the City's costs. This all leads to the conclusion that the Fire Marshall's suggestion of a surcharge of 25% will not cover the administrative costs of this program and because the average weed abatement bill is rather small, it will po'L- ably not deter the property owner from having the County perform the abate- ment. Should the Fire Marshall's office recognize this in the future, they may request the Board of Supervisors to increase this surcharge sufficientl: to cover the costs. While I do not oppose the program paying for itself, we wculd be placing the authroity for increased costs with the Board of Supervisors rather than with our own Council. The administrati --e costs under the County's procedure might even be higher than our own inasmuch as our ordinance summarily declares that weeds are a nuisance and must be abated. However, the County procedure requires that the legislative body hold a public hearing to determine that the .seeds are • nuisance in each case. While I doubt that the Board of Supervisors spend • great deal of time taking testimony in this regard, it seems to me that additional notices, etc., are required to accomplish that hearing. Q�% r -2- Attached find memos dated July 15th and August 5, 1975 concerning the program as administered this year for your information. Let me know if additional information is required. _J Robert Shook Attachment RSS /dsm CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. 60_ DATE: July 1, 1981 DEPARIT,=: Community Services SUBJECT: DONATIONS FOR SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY ---------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Initial: Dept. Hd C. Atty C. Mgr. CC) e Summary The City Council had requested to be able to review and accept all donations to the Saratoga Community Library.. Attached is a letter from Library Supervisor Lois Thomas outlining recent gifts to the Library. Recommendation Accept donation to the Community Library and request that appropriate letters of acknowledgement be sent. Fiscal Impact None Exhibits /Attachments Letter from Library Supervisor Lois Thomas. Council Action Donations accepted. County of Santa Clara California Mr. Wayne City Hall 13777 An Saratoga, Dernetz, City Manager Uvale Avenuo Calif. 95070 Dear Hr. Dernetz, Saratoga Libraries Members, Santa Clara County Library System Saratoga Community Library 13650 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 867-6126 Village Branch Library 14410 Oak — ---t Saratoga, Califor, (408) 10, June 16, 1984 The Saratoga Libraries' Gift Committee recommends acceptarce by the City Council of the following iteis donated during the first six months of this year: From Friends of the Saratoga Libraries, P.O. Box 642, Sarptcga: Checks dated 3/25 and 4/22 in the amounts of 11000 and 31200 (total 32200) to he used suPplementary to the library's book budget for the purchase of books. A free-standin7, (adjustable) Eric Schramm, books, or etc oak display rack, 4'2 wide by and a bulletin board on either to be used to focus attention Cost: 0426. 02" high, with shelves side, designed and built by on special collections, gift A check in the amount of MO to be used as a cash fund to cover the cost of materials for children's proSrams, hair-styling magazines for youn,,._,, ndults, a padlock, whistles for emergency use, and other miscellaneouc ex tense a. Checks totalling 5348.57 for paperback books to be given as awards for children completing the summer reading prngram this year; for 20 sets of flash cards for check-out from the Cldldren's Desk; and Tor miscellaneous supplies for two specinl children's programs. From the Zantn Clara Alley Chapter of the California Native Pion Society, Step0nie (sic!) A. For gunon , President, 245 Vista De Sierra, Los Gatos, California, 95030: f check in the amount K 3100. This Nqn deposited in the trust fund at Library Headquarters and will be used for the purchase of aprropriate booku. Sponsored by Argonaut School, with labor nni wood donated by John Holt of Concepts in Wood, and glass donated by Martin Ettemq, of Argonaut Glass: An oak und glass oxhibit case, 41 wide, 2' deen 3' tall, with thn bottom be in; at 1 Wth of 15". This case is to be used exclusively for sciencc exhibits, and the depth of the display area (115") will allow for a microscope An Equal Opportunity Employer 1 County of Santa Clara Saratoga Libraries Members, Santa Clara County Library System California Saratoga Community Library Village Branch Library 13650 Saratoga Avenue 14410 Oak Street Saratoga, California 95070 Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 867 -6126 (408) 867 -3893 or other scientific apparatus to be used in displays. i'i'1e case was presented in honor of Raymond Perri, science teacher at Argonaut School, who cried of laukemin an December 4, i9- , after a brief illness. Man`. people `.forked toward completion of this project. Special mention should be made of Anne Sorden, who conferred with library staff as to a suitable memorial and who consulted with various Cabinet makers as to an estimated cost. It was she who talked with John Holt, of Concepts in Wood, who then offered his services and the necessary hood as a. gift to the studenta raising the fund. It was Mr. Holt who made the connection with Argonaut Glass, where Marti_, Ettema., once he learned : not the projected memorial, offered the glass, also, as a gift to the students„ At Mr. Holt's suggestion, the students were then able to offer the collected funds 0500) as a donations to Stanford University Medical Canter, for the Raymond Perri Leukemia Fund. !Addresses ,re: Nr. William S; Colton, Principal, Argonaut School, Shadow Mountain Drive, Saratoga, Calif. 95070 Mr. John Holt, Concepts in Mood, P.U. Box 1095, 3aratoga, Calif. 95070 Mr. Martin %,ttema, Argonaut Glass, 12 852 S �� toEa-.unn Idle Road , Saratoga, Calif. 9 070 Mrs. Anne ,Sorden, 14091 Shadow OaRs Iday, oaratoga, Calif. 9507' Sincerely, Say Lois H. Thomas Community Library Supervisor An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF SARATOGA CP C Initial: AGENDA BILL NO: J Dept. Head: DATE: July 1, 1981 City Atty.: DEPARTMENT: Community Services City Mgr. :_ W JV ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- SUBJECT: Notice of Completion - Reroofing of Civic Theatre Issue Summary In May the City Council awarded a contract for reroofing of the Civic Theatre to California Roofing Company. The prescribed contract has now been completed. Recommendation Approve Notice of Completion for reroofing project done by California Roofing Company. Fiscal Impact Contract called for payment of $20,173 for the complete reroofing job. The contractor is required to guarantee materials and workmanship for one year from the date of completion. Exhibits /Attachments Notice of Completion. Council Action Clevenger /Jensen moved to accept Notice of Completion. Passed 4 -0 (Mallory abstaining). :7 • X.qtirr is hereby give thal ... ...... ... . ... ...... .. Wayne Dernetz t,ze n .......... ............................ I .................. ......................................................... ............................. ..... ............... .......... .................................................. .................. acting as ......................... ............ 9 * .......... .... ............... =7= C , *- 11, owner ............ of the._ certain lot lice... or parcel of land situated in the C.Ity Qf...SA.ratpga ........... ...................................................... ....... cotolty of ....... �.a. n. t. a C..I..a,.r-.a .............................. ........... — ................. , S.'ate of and described as follows. to- mt., Saratoga Civic Theatre 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 That ............. �-LtX-Rf ................................ 6th.................. ' ......................................................... — ........... . .............................. as oUno ......... of said land, did, on the ... day of .......... M��Y ........................ 19....81..., enter into a contract with ..... ............................... * ............... Ca I i'�� .......................... ......................... ........ . Tni.a Roofing Company, Inc. ...................................... ... ............................................................................... ........................... ........... .... .................................................. ........... ............ I ..... . . .................. . .. ................ ....................................................................... ...................... .............. ........... ......................Reroofing i.nq of Saratoga Civic Theatre ....................... .................................................. ................................................................... ............................ I ......................................... ..................... I ....... . ..................... ........................................................... I ............................................ upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the...................................................... County of ........... ............................... ................................................. State of California, o;: the_ ................ ........ :..: ......... ............. ............... - day of........... .............- ..._............. . . ................ �.19 ............... That on the ...........j t ........................................... day of June 9-81 ................................................................................... 19_51 the said contract or work of inti,ro,vement as a zvholc, was actzraqly completed by the said .... ......................................... California Roofinq Co�pany ................. ............................... ......................................................................................................................................... . That the name and address .................. of all lire ow-ner of said property are as follows: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 and the nature of �i.t '.s ... ..........................title to said p,,oj)c;-ty is ....Owne rsh i p ...................... ............................... ................................... ... ................ .............................. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... ............................. .............. ...................................................... .............................. ..................... - ........................... -- .......... ............. .............................. ....................................... .......... ........................................ ST:47'h" OF CALIFORAV.-1 13 ................ ............. - Comity of .S.a.n.ta Clara ........... ................ J. Wayne Dernetz .................................................... .............. ................. .. .............. ...................................... ............ . ............ being dnlv szzvorn . ...... ............................... Wayne D.e.r.n.e..t.z .......... ............ ............ ... ................... ....... I am ........................... [tlzc aclent of I P W I ha-ue i-call lileforcrloill.r! ;1()!i(-c and "";!oZc the coll.f"711.'- hlic'n (12'' "Tod 11r1• SC;;'C 1 f.' of Vr 0"'; 1 knowledge. Slfhscribcd awl s-'z"or;1 to before Inc this .................. da 11 of . .... .... .. . .... .. . . ....... . . ........... . 9 ........... ............................ ............ — .......................................................... -- .................. --I., m b-,k— if C—d.. " Form No. 774—NOTICE Of COMPLETION BY CWNER. (C. C. P. S 1193,1) CITY OF SARATOGA AGrNI?A BILL NO DATE:—July 1, 1981 DEPARTMENT: Public Works SUBJECT: QUITO RD. /ALLENDALE AVE. BICYCLE FACILITY Issue Sumnazy Initial: Dept. Hd. M C. Mgr. czp.,� At the regular City Council Meeting of June 17, 1981, Council awarded the contract to construct a bike path on Quito Rd. and Allendale Ave: The bike path traverses within Saratoga's right of way except for one lot on Quito Rd. The homeowner was contacted and he agreed to grant Saratoga an easement - across his property to construct the bike path. Recomnendation The Public Works Department recommends approving Resolution No. , "Resolution Accepting Dedication of Pedestrian and Bicycle Easement." Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution No. 2. Offer to Dedicate Easement 3. Location Map Council Action Jensen/Clevenger moved to adopt Resolution 1024. Passed 5 -0. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE EASEMENT The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION l: Reference is hereby made to the hereto attached Offer to Dedicate Easement for Pedestrian and Bicycle Purposes along the westerly right -of -way of Quito Rd. southerly of Allendale Ave. SECTION 2: The aforesaid Offer of Dedication is hereby accepted by the City of Saratoga and is thereby and hereby declared to be a public service easement in the City of Saratoga. U The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 19 by the • following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR • CITY (-)I:, �ru�uv�t3 AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: July 1, 1981 a Public Works -------------------------------------------------- QUITO RD. /ALLENDALE AVE. BICYCLE FACILITY Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Att C. Mgr. Issue Surmiary At the regular City Council Meeting of June 17, 1981, Council awarded the contract to construct a bike path on Quito Rd. and Allendale Ave: The bike path traverses within Saratoga's right of way except for one lot on Quito Rd. The homeowner was contacted and he agreed to grant Saratoga an easement across his property to construct the bike path. Recommendation The Public Works Department recommends approving Resolution No. , "Resolution Accepting Dedication of Pedestrian and Bicycle Easement." • Fiscal Impacts None E.xchibits /Attachments 1. Resolution No. 2. Offer to Dedicate Easement 3. Location Map Council Action • OFFER TO DEDICATE EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PURPOSES For valuable consideration, the undersigned owners of the hereinafter des- cribed real property, hereby warranting that they constitute all of the owners thereof, for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corpora- tion, the use forever of a Pedestrian and Bicycle Easement under, over and across that certain real property situated in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California. Said property is more particularly described as follows: 7.00 foot pedestrian and bicycle easement along a portion of the westerly right -of -way of Quito Road, southerly of Allendale Avenue ; more particularly described as follows: I.y Beginning at the point of intersection of the centerline of ,-71 Quito Road with the centerline of Allendale Avenue as shown on that certain map of "Tract No. 1689 ", which was recorded in the Office of the Santa Clara County.Recorder on the 12th day of September, 1958 in Book 97 of Maps at Page 21; thence running along said centerline of Quito Road South 5 121'00" East 245.62 feet; thence North 89 130'15" West 20.10 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ; Thence from said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING running, parallel to , and 20.00 westerly of the centerline of Quito Road, South 50 21'00" East 103.91 feet. thence North 89 030'15" West 7.04 feet; thence running, parallel to and 27.00 westerly of the centerline of Quito Road, North 5 021'00" West 103.91 feet; thence South 89 030'15" East 7.04 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. The undersigned understands that the within offer can only be accepted by resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga, and recordation of this instrument shall not and will not constitute acceptance of the within offer to dedicate. This offer shall be irrevocable and shall be binding upon our heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. The plural as used herein shall include the singular, and the singular shall include the plural. Executed this 8th day of June 19 81 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF.-Santa .. Clara ............... ss. ° ♦♦e♦♦eso♦s♦eee♦seee♦♦ees ♦♦♦e ♦ OFFICIAL SEAL • BARBARA S. LEMAL o E, NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA e ♦ ' •` •� SANTA CLARA COUNTY e My Commission Expires June 24, 1981 j e0e0 ♦O ♦ ♦e ♦O ♦e0♦ ♦O ♦♦ ♦ee0 ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ On this ...8th day of June in the year one thousand nine hundred and ........$1............ before me, ..:.Barbara S. Lemal ............... ............................... . a Notary Public, State of California, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared.. Martin E. Schibler and Joan L. Schibler .......................................................... ............................... .......... . ............................................. ............................... known to me to be the person 5... whose name a „are••• subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that . t..heY.... executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Santa Clara official seal in the .......................... County of ........................... the day and year in this certificate first above written. This document is only a general form which may be proper for use in simple transactions ....... Kar.........••,...,•,•••••••,•••,_,•, r 'l """""""•••••'•_•••••••• and in no w acts, or is intended to act, as a substitute for the advice of an attorney. Notary Public, State of California The publisher does not make any warranty, either express or implied as to the legal validity of any provision or the suitability of these forms in any specific transaction. Cowdery's Form No. 32— Acknowledgement — General (C, C. Sec. 1190x) My commission expires .......................... ............................... My Commission Expiras June 24, 1981 �p�?O,oOSEDCoEDESTR /,�/V-B /CYCLE EASEMENT- Q U/ TO ROAD O A L L ENDA L E t AVENUE w Q) I rRUE' PO/A/7- SC_,4 L E: / "= SG ` 45' 30� 0 N 0 a �t m NIA N I I 1 45 /Y_69030'15 "W S89°30'/Sr E.1 7. 0.4 Z OIr 0 /VB9 °30%5"W 7. 04' - � \ IZOO O: '1 -o / ZD S.. RA VET ` ,O R. 1 1 1 CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: July 1, 1981 DEPARTMENT: Planning Department SUBJECT: GF -328 - DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE ,1 I' .rew 0 Issue Summary 1. Urgency Ordinance 3E -16 expires September 3, 1981. 2. The proposed ordinance supersides all references to single family dwellings in the current Design Review Ordinance (Article 13 of Ordinance NS3). 3. There is a set of guidelines to be utilized by the Planning Commission in evaluating Design Review proposals. 4. The proposed Ordinance utilizes the term of Floor Area Ratio versus Building Coverage and incorporates a maximum on impervious cover which current does not have at the present time. Recommendation 1. Conduct a Public Hearing which has been scheduled for July 1, 1981 and schedule a Committee of the Whole on July 7, 1981 to discuss the Ordinance in great detail with the Deputy City Attorney and members of staff. Any input received at the Public Hearing can be discussed in greater detail at the Committee of the Whole. Fiscal Impact The possibility of increased staff participation at Planning Commission meetings is the only expected impact as a result of this ordinance. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution GF -328 2. Ordinance 3. Background Report 4. 4egative Declaration S. Minutes from Planning Commission Council Action 7/1: Mallory/Watson moved to continue to adjourned regular meeting 7/7. Passed 5 -0. 7/7: Jensen/Clevenger moved to accept Negative Declaration and Planning Corrmission Resolution GF 328. Passed 3 -2 (Callon, Mallory opposed). Jensen/Watson moved to waive full reading of the ordinance. Passed 5 -0. Jensen/Watson moved to introduce ordinance as amended, by title only. Passed 3 -2 ( Callon, Mallory opposed). Watson/Mallory moved to direct City Manager to initiate process to organize design review committee. Passed 5 -0. 7/15: Jensen /Clevenger moved to waive reading, Passed 5 -0. Jensen /Clevenger moved to adopt, Passed 3 -2 (Callon and Mallory dissenting). RESOLUTION NO. GF -328 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING DESIGN REVIEW OF PROPOSED ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL .STRUCTURES AND MAJOR ADDITIONS THERETO, AND..ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR THE APPROVAL THEREOF WHEREAS, on September 3, 1980, the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted interim urgency Ordinance No. 3E -16 enti- tied "An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Impos- ing a Moratorium upon the Issuance of.Building Permits Without Prior Design Review for Certain Residential Structures Pendina Review and Amendment of height Limitations and Other Building Restrictions Pertaining Thereto;" and WHEREAS, during the period in which urgency Ordinance No. 3E -16 has remained in effect, the Planning Commission has reviewed the existing ordinances of the Citv of Saratoga and has determined that certain chances should be made therein in order to achieve consistency with the qeneral plan and the declared policies and objectives of the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared and approved a proposed ordinance entitled: "An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Requiring Design Review of Proposed One Family Residential Structures and Major Additions Thereto, and Establish- ing Standards for the Approval Thereof," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as the "Design Review Ordinance "); and WHEREAS, noticed public hearings were conducted by the Planning Commission on 5/27/81, 6/10/81, 6/16/81. and 6/24/81, at which time any person desirinq to comment upon the proposed Design Review Ordinance was given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after careful consideration of the proposed Design Review Ordinance the Planning Commission is of the opinion -1- that such ordinance 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 Design Review Ordinance, in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto, be and the same hereby is affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to send a copy of this resolution, together with a copy of the proposed Design Review Ordinance, to the City Council for further action and adoption Pursuant to state law. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannina Commission of the City of Saratoga held on the 24th day of June 1981, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners King, Bolger, Crowther and Mon.ia NOES: Commissioners Laden, Schaefer and Zambetti ABSENT: None ATTEST: Secr Mary r -2- Cpairman, Planning Commission � `kvV - �l C-ti {F•. �•.aw! Y r:p -r,�. .�� rF `� y. - .:_•v. r '3 :->. ,�' � •«L ,�, x i..•. a \ f 'i �a�t .� �i a � . ` . �'l ._ -s.1t ... .`• _ �� ,rCi6 .: P r ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REQUIRING DESIGN REVIEW OF PROPOSED ONE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND MAJOR ADDITIONS THERETO, AND ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR THE APPROVAL THEREOF The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1: Statement of Policies and Findings It is the policy of the City of Saratoga to review the construction of one - family detached residential structures and major additions thereto under circumstances where such structures or major additions would constitute an invasion of privacy, unreasonable interference with views, light and air, and create adverse impact upon the aesthetic character of neighboring residen- tial structures. It is also the policy of the City of Saratoga to preserve natural topography, promote the construction of energy efficient residential structures, to minimize the coverage of •.•..•.,,..... residential u o 'n structures builds p n g sites, and to insure that the objectives of the General Plan are met through Design Review. The City Council finds that effective implementation of the foregoing policies requires review and revision of existing zoning ordinances regulating the height and bulk of one - family detached f1;� ;�� ;z::Kk_- �• main structures and revision of existing procedures and standards for Design Review. Section 2: Purpose The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish a set of criteria, objectives and procedures to be followed with respect to the design review of any proposed one - family detached main structure, or major addition thereto, and to ensure that new development occurs in a manner which is consistent with the policies of the General Plan. Section 3: Definitions For the purposes of this Ordinance, certain words and terms t '` ��. ��' �aitr= Sf�"4.:.?;1�+y:kzT'a'�3� a�^+t.��`•.y�,,� r i � :7....> kA. _.:.. .�:�..i;,n '^a• �� ,.a;,va.�. ., T.; `. w '`� `t; �. .. -�, 7' _ _ .,.: - used herein shall be defined as follows: 1 (a) The term "site" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 1.5, subparagraph "ss" of Ordinance NS -3. '.:T:�a..+U ^:�. -r ''s`.'.ti �.::J•_r+,Yw��+n ��4�.w`:.�.: u.sx•.i -e -w _06_ (b) The term "main structure" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 1.5, subparagraph "aaa" of Ordinance NS -3. (c) The term "multi -story structure" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 1.5, subparagraph "aaa -1" of Ordinance NS -3. (d) The term "hillside lot" shall mean any site having an average slope of ten percent (10 %) or greater. _(e) The "height" of a structure shall be measured by a vertical line from the highest point of the roof to either the natural grade or the finish grade (excluding non - visible basements), whichever distance is greater; provided, however, that chimneys, flagpoles, radio and television aerials, and necessary mechanical appurtenances may be erected to a height not more than twenty -five feet (25') above the highest point of the roofline. The method of measuring "height ", as set forth herein, shall supersede the definitions contained in Sections 3A.26(c) and 14.8 of Ordinance NS -3. (f) The "slope" of a site shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.9 -2(c) of Ordinance NS -60. (g) The term "floor area ratio" shall mean the relationship between the total usable square footage of a structure to the total square footage of the site and shall be expressed in terms of percent. The total square footage shall include all interior area within the walls of the structure capable of being used, including the garage. Total Floor = Interior Usable Square Footage of Structure Area Ratio Total Square Footage of Site (h) The term "approving authority" shall mean the Planning Department in cases where applications for Design Review are submitted to such department for initial approval, or the Planning Commission in cases where applications for Design Review are -2- ..,:� ...r•.. ,. .. _� h � ...,:: �>?; 'r.c:ia`"'�r Y;I�.aC? ��'4V�. vK`PL'� ��;Nw�i ,y?v y;a �,,h ,..;4...r .� <�..- ,•.ay:,1��5 submitted to such Commission for initial approval. (i) The term "appellate body" shall mean the Planning Commission in the case of an appeal from a decision of the Planning Department, or the City Council in the case of an appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission. (j) The term "major addition" shall mean either or both of the following, whichever may be applicable: (1) A major addition in size, which is defined as any addition to an existing main structure which, when added to the interior usable square footage of the existing main structure, equals or exceeds the maximum floor area ratio for the district and the site. (2) A major addition in height, which is defined as the conversion of a single story residential structure to a multi -story residential structure. (k) The term "impervious cover" shall mean any structure, or hard surface which substantially impairs the natural permeability of the soil, including, but not limited to, solid surface decks, patios, swimming pools, recreation courts, and paved driveways and parking areas. (1) The term "in- fill" shall mean a structure to be con- structed on a site substantially surrounded by developed lots. Section 4: General Guidelines for Design Review Where Design Review is required for any one - family detached main structure, or major addition thereto, the approving authority shall consider and be guided by the following: (a) The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed structure or major addition shall be considered with reference to the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots in order to avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, while considering also the topographic and geologic constraints imposed by particular building site conditions. (b) The natural landscape shall be preserved insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes -3- - •4.&w' ��.] %�:� .:.:.,'H:�nes"�4.t;L'��S.S... f ::dh, - i> + r_. 5:..�.Y b _: >i -:;.. .._.......�: � .: .x .. ... _ .. _ .. a appearance of neighboring developed areas. (c) Due regard shall be given to orientation of the proposed structure or major addition to the immediate neighborhood in order to minimize the perception of excessive bulk. (d) The proposed structure or major addition will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential structures located within five hundred feet (500') and within the same zoning district, and shall not unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. in the case of a proposed main structure or major addition which exceeds twenty -two feet (221) in height, the approving authority may consider, in addition to any other mitigation measures, a requirement for increase in any one or more of the standard set -backs by ten percent (108) for each foot in height in excess of twenty -two feet (22'), or such other increased set -backs as the approving authority may deem appropriate under the circumstances, such increased set -backs to be imposed only with respect to that portion of the structure in excess of twenty -two feet (22') in height. (e) The proposed site development or Grading Plan shall incorporate current grading and erosion control standards used by the City of Saratoga. (f) On in -fill situations and major additions, design emphasis should be placed on compatibility of bulk with adjacent structures, minimizing obstruction of views, and minimizing privacy impacts on adjacent property owners. Furthermore, designs should incorporate the natural features of the site. (g) On exposed hillside lots, structures should be encouraged to follow the natural contours of site with the emphasis on minimal grading, minimum impervious cover, and maximum erosion protection. Variety in design should be encouraged in order to avoid monotony of regularly spaced buildings of uniform height. (h) On wooded hillside lots, multi -story structures may be -4- :,.� . ""�' -'+-• ?'-^RLy Y q"Y'A+MH %Li+faw *i. ;•4� hiwa>i'in. C. . F..-- we-...: �i..r. :, ., #f .:n v- a;,yo, ^Gut .. {� �' .i �c'`!h i. n- ,...'' .'rc� C,u� � � � r ^'< � ti 3. ✓-� z a .t w t - �t t- encouraged in order to minimize grading and vegetation removal. The use of decks should be encouraged to provide usable open space, but the decks should not encroach on adjoining properties in terms of privacy. Section 5: Standards for Development of Residential Structures (a) The following standards shall be utilized for Design Review of all one - family detached main structures or major addi- tions thereto: District Maximum Floor Area Ratio R -1- 10,000 298 plus 68 of site area in excess of 10,000 sq. ft. R -1- 12,500 278 plus 68 of site area in excess of 12,500 sq. ft. R -1= 15,000 248 plus 68 of site area in excess of 15,000 sq. ft. " R -1- 20,000 208 plus 68 of site area in excess of 20,000 sq. ft. R -1- 40,000 138 plus 68 of site area in excess of 40,000 sq. ft. HC -RD and NHD 128 plus 68 of site area in excess of 43,560 sq. ft., not to exceed a maximum of 10,000 sq. ft, (b) The following standards for impervious cover shall be utilized for Design Review of all one - family detached main struc- tures or major additions thereto: Districts Maximum 8 of Impervious Cover R -1- 10,000 608 of site area R -1- 12,500 558 of site area R -1- 15,000 508 of site area - R -1- 20,000 458 of site area ' R -1- 40,000 358 of site area HC -RD and NHD 15,000 sq. ft., or 258 of site area, whichever is less (c) In the case of a site having a total square footage which is less than the minimum lot size for the zoning district wherein the site is located, the maximum floor area ratio and the maximum percentage of impervious cover shall be determined by those percentages set forth in Sections 5(a) and 5(b) above applicable to the next lowest zoning district for which the minimum lot size does not exceed the total square footage of the site; provided, however, the proposed structure shall adhere to the standard set -backs for the district wherein the site is -5- �' 4. � hi' L'.-4! k ft'4 >:•t!at•^.: s1 %t ys/, yl..' ..._'C f 1 w tr ~yi ,,;:'1_:��3Y , i :Y "F''N ..��'�. j�"un 'W. � __ _ � n . .. ,- located. For example, if a site is 14,000 square feet in total area and located within an R -1- 20,000 district, the percentages applicable to an R -1- 12,500 district shall be utilized for design review of any main structure or major addition to be constructed upon such site. In the case of any site having less than 10,000 square feet, wherever located, the maximum floor area ratio shall be 298 and the maximum percentage of impervious cover shall be 608. (d) In the case of any proposed multi -story structure, or a major addition in height, to be constructed upon a site which is non- conforming for the district in terms of length or width,.the provisions of Section 14.3 of Ordinance NS -3 shall not be applicable and the proposed multi -story structure or major addition in height shall comply with the standard set -back requirements for the ` district wherein the site is located. (e) The maximum height of any one - family detached main structure shall be thirty feet (30') to the highest point of the roof, as measured in accordance with Section 3(e) of this Ordinance. Section 6: Variations from Standards The Planning Commission shall have authority to approve single or multi -story residential structures, or major additions thereto, which exceed the standards for floor area ratio or " impervious cover specified in Sections 5(a), 5(b) or 5(c) by not more than 5.08, if the Commission finds that the proposed structure or major addition satisfies the criteria set forth in Section 4 of r'S „• r'.^ this Ordinance. If a proposed single or multi -story structure or major addition exceeds the standards of Sections 5(a), 5(b) or 5(c) by more than 5.08, or if a proposed multi -story structure or major addition in height does not comply with the requirements of Section 5(d), or if the height of a proposed structure or major addition exceeds thirty feet (30'), a variance shall be required pursuant to Article 17 of Ordinance NS -3, and the findings required .- under Section 17.6 of Ordinance NS -3 shall be made in addition to -6- y •.S .._, +., r ..}j..v t , t:Zu . jf... �, v..t R il.. \Y v 1,'f.:,,: .._ : y A;�"r .d. > % �• ;9 � ..?:� r a h ?} ��,:, R?'F•}'��i +: ;3Y x'7''. ! Jx cx.i,, x .�'wsi� I: the finding that the proposed structure or major addition satisfies the criteria set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. Section 7: Requirement for Design Review No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any one - family detached main structure or major addition in any R -1 district until such structure has received Design Review Approval, as follows: (a) In the case of a structure or major addition not exceeding twenty -six feet (26') in height, and to be constructed upon a site having an average slope of less than ten percent (10 %), and in full compliance with the standards set forth in Section 5 of this Ordinance, the application for Design Review shall be subject to approval by the Planning .Department of the City of Saratoga. (b) In the case of a structure or major addition having a height in excess of twenty -six feet (26'), or to be constructed upon a hillside lot, or a structure which does not meet the standards set forth in Section 5 of this Ordinance, the applica- tion for Design Review shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga. Section 8: Application Requirements Each application for Design Review approval shall be accompanied by the following exhibits: (a) Site Plan showing property lines, easements and dimensions, structure setbacks, building envelope, topography, location of all trees over twelve inches (12 ") in diameter, and areas of dense vegetation and creeks. (b) Solar shade study showing all adjacent sites and structures. (c) Elevations of the proposed structures showing exterior materials, roof materials and window treatment. (d) Cross sections for all projects located on a hillside lot. (e) Grading and drainage plans, including cross sections if the structure is to be constructed on a hillside lot. (f) Floor plans that indicate total floor area. -7- ..I y� k M. �Ft rah �rr"'�'> �..� s ��'` . �'?. • ��u�� All exhibits shall be drawn to scale, dated and signed by the person preparing the exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted shall consist of two (2) sets drawn on sheets 18" x 28" in size and ten (10) sets on sheets 11" x 18" in size. Section 9: Public Hearings A public hearing shall be required for design review approval of a one - family detached main structure or major addition in each of the following cases: (a) Where the proposed structure or major addition will exceed twenty -six feet (26') in height. (b) Where the proposed structure is classified as an in -fill situation, as defined in Section 3(1) of this Ordinance. (c) Where the proposed improvement is a major addition in height, as defined in Section 3(j)(2) of this Ordinance. (d) Where the proposed structure or major addition will exceed by not more than five percent (5%) the standards for floor area ratio or impervious coverage as specified in Sections 5(a), 5(b) or 5(c) of this Ordinance. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of the hearing to all persons whose names appear on the latest adopted tax roll of Santa Clara County as owning property within five hundred feet (500') of the boundaries of the site upon which the structure or major addition is to be constructed. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published in a news- paper having general circulation in the City of Saratoga not later than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. -8- Section 10: Appeal (a) Upon the granting or denial of Design Review Approval by the Planning Department, either the applicant or any other interested person shall have the right to appeal such decision to the Planning Commission. (b) Upon the granting or denial of Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission, either the applicant or any other interested F person shall have the right to appeal such decision to the City Council. (c) The appeal shall be taken by filing with the City Clerk -• - a written notice thereof within ten (10) days from the granting or denial of Design Review Approval by the approving authority. The sry,�l ,r:.ki� gr notice of appeal shall be signed by the appellant and shall set forth all of the grounds for the appeal, and shall be accompanied by a filing fee to cover the administrative cost of handling the �. appeal. Upon receipt of a notice of appeal and filing fee, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for hearing before the appellate body at its next regular meeting that falls not less than ten (10) days after the date of filing the notice of appeal. The appellate _ body shall conduct a noticed public hearing de novo on all Design '.. Review Appeals where a public hearing was required to be conducted x ..- by the approving authority pursuant to Section 9 of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall give notice of the appeal in the same manner as provided in Section 9 of this Ordinance. ;;�;•.�� HERS < =::�: ':;� +: %y�:,:;± - (d) The appellate body may affirm, reverse or modify the y decision of the approving authority, and may refer the matter back to the approving authority for further action as may be directed by the appellate body. Section 11: Repeal of Other Ordinances This Ordinance shall supersede Urgency Ordinance 3E -16, Section 3.7 -2 of Ordinance NS -3 (commonly known as the "Multi- Story Ordinance "), and Section 16 -15 of Ordinance NS -3 (relating to conversion permits), and the same are hereby repealed and _ declared to be of no further force or effect as of the effective -9- " date of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall also supersede Article 13 of Ordinance NS -3 to the extent that such Article applies to single - family detached main structures or major additions " thereto. Section 12: Exceptions This Ordinance shall not apply to any one - family detached main structure or major addition which has received design review approval as of the effective date of this Ordinance, nor shall this Ordinance apply to any major addition in height for which a conversion permit has been issued pursuant to Section 16.15 of Ordinance NS -3 prior to the effective date of this Ordinance; provided, however, that in the event an appeal has been taken from such design review approval or issuance of a conversion permit which is heard by the appellate body after the effective date of this Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be applicable to the proposed structure or major addition which is the subject of the appeal. Section 13: Replacement of Destroyed Structures In the event an existing one - family detached main structure which does not conform to the standards set forth in Sections 5(a), 5(b) or 5(c) of this Ordinance is destroyed as a result of fire or other calamity or by act of God, the structure may be replaced with a new structure having a maximum floor area ratio and a maximum percentage of impervious cover no greater than the original structure and set -backs no less than the original structure. :: >,;.� <, ;: ;; :,:..:; _;.:.,:..:;•_.: ;, ,,;:. ,,; >d x. Design review approval pprova pursuant to this Ordinance shall be required for the proposed replacement structure, but the requirements of this Section 14 shall be applied in lieu of the standards set forth in Sections 5(a), 5(b), 5(c) and 5(d) of this Ordinance. The provisions of this Section 14 shall supersede any inconsistent provisions as may be contained in Section 15.8 of Ordinance. NS -3. Section 14: Lapse of Design Review Approval Design Review approvals issued pursuant to this Ordinance `. shall expire eighteen (18) months after the date of approval in -10- -_ •..4...r. K �J - +.+..'.T hazy ...- .v,�f��Y+_•��.!�NI.UWkV .. .,r_. -t, .Y :. 1'U.�'v- .• � - Ft 'k1.a 3Y�^ �'!��'. ^_' A %` .6'�aalryRt!.<Y,= 1..,4., :f7.ty 2 y+:tw�W7.iyTsW.M.:. �`yC'^!L'J�"S �'lK�4yY.R`C.L�IS� i l J -i(Y � a� , d.• G. '_ zda'\ •\A• } � -a.. N d -. ,h ,N .:, _!. w,. NOR, the event a building permit has not been obtained within such period of time for construction of the structure or major addition as finally approved. The approving authority may, in its discre- tion, extend the expiration date provided herein for an additional period or periods of time not exceeding a total of twenty -four (24) months, upon written application for extension filed prior to the expiration date. Should the approving authority deny any application for extension, the applicant shall have the right to appeal such decision to the appellate body within ten (10.) days • `? `- �_• „•, ;,_ >; b_, e,; _ } V after the date of denial. -r In the event a building permit is issued and thereafter expires, the design review approval pursuant to which the permit was issued shall also expire as of the date of expiration of the r.. building permit. Section 15: Partial Invalidity 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 ,Y•_ , 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 jµ held invalid or unconstitutional. Y v x '''•a` ;"�'i >Ff�"s�h� ''r'r� Section 16: Effective Date This Ordinance takes effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held .£tea",' -11- �. a,. ',.C;� �, �:. - _� r z'+^ ,� .. ... '�- ..�.�, �:Y�:- tc�-Yv:_. v; _i.;: � ;..;: ".� "� - -.:^ � �c.,y - .,� _,awc�g: r.Yi ,�..,u ^,.. - _:,��.;. �. a,. ',.C;� �, �:. - _� r z'+^ ARC �jFOg REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: June 25, 1981 COUNCIL MEETING: July 1, 1981 SUBJECT' DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE - GF -328 The City Council adopted the Urgency Ordinance in September of 1980 and extended said ordinance via Public Heari.ng in December of 1980 for an eight month period of time to September 3, 1981. During this period of time, staff met with an informal committee to establish some of the initial concerns which should be addressed in the new Design Review Ordinance. Participants in the committee included Vice Mayor Clevenger, Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission-SC.haefer, Warren Heid, AIA, Jim Moreland, AIA, and Jerry 'Fricksor> AIA, as well as members of the Planning staff. After several meetings the committee established the main purposes of the Design Review Ordinance and staff went to work to make the revisions in close coordination with the Deputy City Attorney. After numerous study sessions with the Planning Commission and numerous revisions to the Ordinance, the Planning Commission at their June 24, 1981 meeting approved the attached Resolution which recommends approval of the ordinance for City Council action. The main contents of the Design Review Ordinance is indicated on the comparison chart which is attached for Council review. It should be indicated that there are some areas which the City Council should address in their first study session which is scheduled for July 7, 1981. These issues include how to handle structures which would be partially destroyed as a result of fire. Under Section'13 of the Ordinance, the Planning Commission came up with some wording for 100% destruction but there was a failure to consider what happens with any structure which was destroyed less than 100 %. Is there a requirement for Design Review Application or could the applicant re -build the same square footage without any approval? Report to Mayor and City Council Design Review Ordinance - GF -328 Page Two The strongest points of the new Design Review Ordinance, from the staff's standpoint, is Section 4 which establishes general guidelines for Commission use in evaluating Design Review Applications. In the current Urgency Ordinance as well as Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, there are no specific guidelines by which the Planning Commission can utilize when evaluating design. This proposed Ordinance sets forth eight specific guidelines which the Planning Commission may consider when deliberating over Design Review Applications. The other significant change from the current Ordinance is Section 5 of the new Ordinance. Under the current Ordinance, there is no mention of the Floor Area Ratio Concept. The Floor Area Ratio Concept gives the architect and applicants the maximum flexibility in determining how they will design a structure given a specific ratio of useable floor area to the lot size. The Commission felt that with the Floor Area Ratio it would be much more desirable designs than currently which states that you have strictly a percent building coverage. The other major change is in Section B which places a maximum percent of impervious cover for all one family detached main structures. Impervious cover by the definition includes driveways, tennis courts, the main structure itself, accessory structures, paved patio and swimming pools. In preparing the Ordinance Istaff worked very closely with the Deputy City Attorney as well as attorneys from the League of California Cities who encouraged as much flexibility as possible. For this reason, Section 6 was incorporated in the ordinance which will allow some variation from the very specific standards stated in Section 5. Under the proposed concept, an individual who wishes to exceed the standards in 5A or 5B and they felt that they could as a result of the site conditions then the applicant would have a public hearing before the Planning Commission who would then have the final say on the matter. The variance procedure would be utilized for anybody who would exceed this 5% or the 30 foot height limit. The findings would be the same as in Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance.. Another change made by the Planning Commission is the method of measuring height. Under the current ordinances, there are three separate methods for measuring height. On slopes greater than 10% but not in the HCRD district, height is measured from the average finished grade to the mid point of roof. On those slopes of less than loo and not in the HCRD district, the height is measured from the average finished grade to the peak of the roof while in the HCRD district the concept of warped plane is utilized to measure height. The Ordinance clarifies this and has one procedure for measuring all height. As noted in Section 3, Sub- paragraph e, height shall be measured by a vertical line from the highest point of the roof to either the natural grade or the finished grade, excluding non - visible basements, whichever distance is greater. Staff will have some diagrams at the Committee of The Whole to explain this concept the the Planning Commission. Report to Mayor and City Council Design Review Ordinance - GF -328 Page Three Currently under the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Director is responsible for hearing all two story conversions on slopes of less than 10 %. Under the proposed Ordinance, any structure considered to be an infill situation or a major addition in terms of height will be considered a Design Review Application and will be a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission. The Planning Director will not be conducting the use permit procedure for two story conversions any longer. The above memo and the attached exhibit is an intent to give the Council some information regarding the Ordinance and as I have indicated in the Agenda Bill, staff and the Deputy City Attorney will be available to go over in great detail the concepts of developing the Ordinance and what went into actually determining some of the numbers utilized in this Ordinance. The vote of the Commission last night was a 4 -3. Two of the Commissioners dissented on the Ordinance from the standpoint they felt that the percent of floor area ratio was too low and did not meet the original direction as set forth by the City Council. Another dissenting vote was based on the fact that the 22 foot height limit seemed to be unreasonable and felt that the 26 foot was a much better figure. In.general, all seven members of the Commission felt that this proposed ordinance is much better than the existing Article 13 and would be a better tool to work with in evaluating design proposals. tRS . Rob i 4 on', Jr. Planning Director (Items Regulated) REQUIREMENTS Structure Height Height Limit Coverage Building Coverage Limits R -1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 HC -RD m ii-E Impervious Coverage Limits COMPARISON OF CURR= ORDINANCE REGULATIONS WITH PROPOSED DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE Measured from average finished grade to mid point of roof or from peak of roof to average finished grade (lots less than loo slope). 30' Limits only building coverage. Varies by Zoning District and by whether structure is single story or multi- story. Single -Story Multi -Story 35% 200 35% 20% 30% 17% 30% 17% 25% 13% 25% or 15,000 sq. ft., which- ever is the lesser N/A '01:4 9 tl D Measured from highest point of roof to natural or finished grade, whichever distance is greater. 30' Limits building and impervious surface coverage. Uses floor area ratio which applies to both single and multi -story structures. Varies by Zoning. District. % Site Area 290 + 6% additional site area over 10,000 sq. ft. 27% + 6% over 12,500 sq. ft. 24% + 6% over 15,000 sq. ft. 20% + 6% over 20,000 sq. ft. 13% + 6% over 40,000 sq. ft. 12% of lst acre + 6% of additiona: site area 12% of 1st acre + 6% of additiona: site area with maximum of 10,000 square feet structure in NHD % Site Area (includes main structure) R -1- 10,000 NONE 60% R -1- 12,500 NONE 55% R -1- 15,000 NONE 50% R -1- 20,000 NONE 45% R -1- 40,000 NONE 35% HC =RD 25% or 15,000 sq. ft. (lesser) 25% or 15,000 NHD N/A 25% or 15,000 Variation from Coverage Regulations Any Variation from requirements must go through standard variance process not at Design Review stage. sq. ft. (lesser) sq. ft. (lesser) Up to 5% of building or imper- vious surface coverage can be approved at Design Review stage by Planning Commission. Over 5% will require standard variance. Page 2 (Items Regulated) CURRENT PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS ORDINANCE ORDINANCE Design Review Criteria Vague, General Statements Specific guidelines to avoid barring the "ugly, inharmonious impacts on view, privacy, natural and "monotonous." setting, compatibility with neighborhood, solar access, adequate light and air, additional setbacks, grading, and removal of vegetation. Multi -Story Conversions Requires use permit approval Requires Public Hearing Design from Planning Director on lots Review Approval from the Planning with slopes less than 10 %. Commission regardless of lot slope. Public Hearings For structures over 22' in For structures over 26' in height, height and on lots less than in fill projects, two -story con - 10o in slope. versions, or where proposed addition exceeds the standards for building or impervious coverage by 5 %, regardless of slope. Non -Conforming Lots Setbacks reduced for both Setbacks not reduced for multi - single -story and multi -story family structures regardless of structures if lot width or lot width or depth. depth is substandard. Design Review Required For more than 3 building permits For structures over 26' in height, on one block in one year by hillside lots, or structure that same developer, as a condition does not meet new coverage of building site approval or standards,Planning Commission site in HC -RD District Planning must review. Major additions Commission must review. Other also reviewed by Planning structures including major Commission. If structure less additions reviewed by staff than 26' high, slope less than (slopes less than 10 %). 10% and coverage requirements complied with reviewed by staff. Lapse of Design Review No time limit. Approval good for 18 months with Approval possible extensions up to an additional 24 months. Appeal Procedure Planning Coiumission decision Planning Department decision can can be appealed to City Council be appealed to Planning Commission but not automatic de novo as an automatic de novo hearing. hearing. 10 day appeal period. Planning Commission can be appealed to City Council as an automatic de novo hearing. Appellate body can refer matter back to approving authority. 10 day appeal period. ETA- 9 saratoga DECLARATIOII TIIAT ENVIT:ONV T:N`I'AL I11PI= REPORT NO`1' REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970. File I40; GF 328 'ili(! undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a 1,1unicipal Corporation; after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmcntal.Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15030 through 15023 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 — of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment Within the teri;ls and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project involves the creation of a new Design Review Ordinance which would supersede the existing urgency ordinance implemented by.the City Council in September of 1980, the current Design Review Ordinance as it relates to single family detached structures, sections of the zoning ordinance that relate to conversion permits for single family to multi -story structures. The proposed ordinance revision will create standard criteria for evaluation of all single detached dwellings by the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff, as well as creating ]QAIiT ANTI) ADDP.ESS OF A ?PLICAI�T new concepts such as floor area ratio, limit on impervious cover and new methods for measuring height PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SARATOGA of structures. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sarato a, CA 95070 RI;I�SON FOR ICE ATIVE DECLARATION The-proposed ordinance revision will not have a significant impact on the environment since each project which will be evaluated under this ordinance wil..l go through a separate environmental determination. In fact the proposed ordinance will take into consideration the environmental concerns.of the site and will be more closely tied to the General Plan. Executed at Saratoga, California this 3rd day of' June , 1981 R. S. ROBINSON, JR . DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND EI,�\7IRO'1,r ENTAL CONTROL/ ? THE CITY 01' SAI:ATOCA DIRECTOR S ALT:IOI;IZED JTAF F rt\iJ lV CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION b1INUTES f. DATE: Tuesday, June 16, 1951 - 5:30 p.in I PLACE: Crisp Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting ------------------------------------------------- -- ------ ------- ------- -- - - - -- ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer Absent: Commissioner Zambetti ITErMS OF DISCUSSION A. A -711 - Valley Title (Blackwell Homes) Parker Ranch, Design Review for 2 Residences. Lots 13 and 14 There were some questions regarding the Santa Clara Valley Water District casements and.if those actually were counted into the total square footage. Staff assured the Planning Commission that the lots all. conformed to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and in fact, were approved in 1975 with the Tentative Map. There was some discussion regarding the possibility of changing the siding to create some diversity within the subdivision. It was suggested by the Commission that prior to bringing in any more Design Review Applications for Parker Ranch that the architect sit down with the Planning Commission and explain his philosophy for developing the whole subdivision as it relates to design and diversity in that area. After further discussion with regards to the design and the height, Commissioner King moved to approve A -711, Lots 13 and 14 with Commissioner Schaefer seconding the motion. The motion was approved 3 -2 -1 with Commissioners Bolger and Monia voting no and Commissioner Crowther abstaining. B. A -771 - Blackwell. Homes, Design Review Approval for Lot 7, Parker Ranch There was an explanation of the report given by the Chairman and again Commissioner Monia expressed some concerns about the lack of diversity in the subdivision. It appeared to him that this was a similar design to the ones already existing and the two that were just approved. Commissioner King moved to approve A -771 with Commissioner Monia second - in(, the motion and the motion was approved 4 -1 -1 with Commissioner Bolger 'oti.ng ro and Commissioner Crowther abstaining. GP -32S consideration of a Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance as it _�rclates to Design Review l'hc discussion was opened with an cxplanati.on by Staff o[ some of the changes made by the City Attorney in review of the draft ordinance. The majority of the changes were gramati.cal with the exccpti.on of Page 2, Item (g) Floor Area Ratio. 'There was some discussion with regards to O the actual definition of: the Ordinance and it was the consensus of. the Planning Commission that the term "total square footage" shall .include all interior area within the walls of the structure capable of be.i.ng used i.nc.luding the garage. They stated that they wanted to ensure that the volume was the primary thing they were concerned with therefore, they were lookin <o at area that could he used. There was some discussion with regards to the basements r.hi.ch was an exposed and the attorney and There were some questions from Commissioner Crowther with regards to the area and width and he again expressed some concerns about there being a moratorium in the Measure "A" area. Staff explained that Parker Ranch was exempt under the court agreement which had been signed by the City Council. There was some discussion regarding the possibility of changing the siding to create some diversity within the subdivision. It was suggested by the Commission that prior to bringing in any more Design Review Applications for Parker Ranch that the architect sit down with the Planning Commission and explain his philosophy for developing the whole subdivision as it relates to design and diversity in that area. After further discussion with regards to the design and the height, Commissioner King moved to approve A -711, Lots 13 and 14 with Commissioner Schaefer seconding the motion. The motion was approved 3 -2 -1 with Commissioners Bolger and Monia voting no and Commissioner Crowther abstaining. B. A -771 - Blackwell. Homes, Design Review Approval for Lot 7, Parker Ranch There was an explanation of the report given by the Chairman and again Commissioner Monia expressed some concerns about the lack of diversity in the subdivision. It appeared to him that this was a similar design to the ones already existing and the two that were just approved. Commissioner King moved to approve A -771 with Commissioner Monia second - in(, the motion and the motion was approved 4 -1 -1 with Commissioner Bolger 'oti.ng ro and Commissioner Crowther abstaining. GP -32S consideration of a Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance as it _�rclates to Design Review l'hc discussion was opened with an cxplanati.on by Staff o[ some of the changes made by the City Attorney in review of the draft ordinance. The majority of the changes were gramati.cal with the exccpti.on of Page 2, Item (g) Floor Area Ratio. 'There was some discussion with regards to O the actual definition of: the Ordinance and it was the consensus of. the Planning Commission that the term "total square footage" shall .include all interior area within the walls of the structure capable of be.i.ng used i.nc.luding the garage. They stated that they wanted to ensure that the volume was the primary thing they were concerned with therefore, they were lookin <o at area that could he used. There was some discussion with regards to the basements r.hi.ch was an exposed and the attorney and City of Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes 6/16/81 Page 2 the Commission felt that there was enough latitude that the Commission could use discression in defining usable area. The next item of discussion was the term impervious cover. The Planning Commission then discussed Item (j), Paoe 2 "Impervious Cover" the Commission had some discussion with regards to decks and it was then decided that they were talking about soild surface decks and impervious patios. The next item of discussion was Item (e) "Method of Measuring Height ". There was concern that if measuring in the current manner if some one were to cut into the side of a hill you could end up with a house much higher than 30 feet. Therefore, the method of measuring the height of a structure was changed to read, to the highest point of the roof as measured by a vertical line from the natural grade or from the finished grade shall be 30' or whichever is greater. Under Section 4, Subparagraph(a), the entire section was changed to read "the proposed height and location of a structure shall concern location of adjoin- ing structures in order to minimize unreasonable interference of views of privacy while considering the topographical constraints imposed by the site." Under Section 6, Subparagraph (d) was eliminated as it was explained that this item is covered by rearanging titles under Section 6, Subparagraph (a). The next major point of discussion dealt with requirements for public hearings. The Commission agreed that the slope of the site is not as important as the height of the structure. Therefore, under Section 7, Subparagraph (b) the last line is eliminated that relates to slope of less than 10%. However, there was a section (d) added that stated that any conversion or infill situation or any multi -story structure shall have a public hearing. The feeling here was that there could be significant impact on the neighborhood with a new two-story especially with an infill situation. Staff explained that conversion permits already required a public hearing before the Planning Director. There was some discussion with regards to Section 12 "Exceptions" and the Commission agreed to eliminate the provision which required previously approved Design Review Applications having a time limit on it. However, they had not agreed on a specific period of time that a new Design Review would be current. This item will be discussed at the next Committee -of- the - Whole. Chairman Laden requested that there be a meeting next Monday since there was a time limit on when this item is to be heard and approved by the City Council. It was agreed that the Planning Commission would meet at 5:30 p.m. in the Coiunuaity.Center Meeting Room in a study session to discuss specifically, Section 13 dealing with the lapse of Design Review, Section 6, which deals with the standards for developing of residential structures. Commissioner Bolger moved for adjournment and was seconded by Commissioner Schaefer and the meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m. Z. S. }Xobiison, Jr. , cretary RSR /clh Planning Commission Acting 11.inutes 5/27/31 UP-495 (cons.) Page 6 by evergreen trees. Comn.issioner Bolger suggested the eastern wing of the house along the corral area as an alternate location. Commissioner Laden suggested plaiting heavy shruhbery adjacent to the panels on the applicant's property, which would provi.de some screening of the panels and would also not affect the sun coming, in if they were just as high as the panels. She commented that this would not impact the Baccis' view but would essentially provide some kind of curtain to the side of the panels. Mrs. Bacci also mated that tile), objected to the view of the scaffolding involved. Staff i.ndi_cated that if the shrubbery unis planted to the cast it is unlikely it viou.ld have any adverse shading impact. 'they added that if the shrubbery was low enoul;h it would not affect the Baccis' vi.ew. NI vs. Bacci stated thn it still would affect it, since they are lower. She commented that Mr. McLaughlin's panels have reduced their property value by one - quarter. She added that she would like the Commi.ssi.oners to comic and stand in her hack yard, so they could visualize the situation. The possible landscaping was discussed with the applicant, and he stated that he would he happy to plant anything the Conuni.ssion requested. Com- missioner King encouraged fir. Plato to discuss the planting with ytr. McLaughlin, and posA blly the problem concerning his panels could also be solved. Commissioner moved to approve 0495, per Exhibits "B" and "C ", subject to the condition that there be screening planti.ligs placed to the east, which will require Staff review and approval.. Commissioner king seconded the motion. Commissioner Bolger indicated that he felt Mrs. Bacci 's statement about the tact that, if you are going to have the benefit of solar, you should look at it as well. IN stated that lie would not be voting for the variance, since he feels there are other alternatives. Connnissi.oner Schaefer stated that she would like the panels moved so that it would he within the setback, and a use permit would not be necessary. lfowever, she added, she could understand the reason far not putting, it closer to the house because the shade factor is very major. Staff pointed out that, by using a use permit, the Commission can add miAgat.i.ng measures which you could not otherwise. e vote was taken on the motion, Wish was carried, with Commissioner lger dissenting. Chairman Laden noted the 10 -clay appeal period. nsi.derati.on of a 'Text llmendnlent to the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to si n Review (-F;t�- -- i Staff stated that the present ordinance does not have any criteria by Which the Commission can evaluate projects. They reported that a sub- committee had been set up to work on the modification of the ordinance prior to it coining to the Commission. Staff noted major changes of (1) inclusion of major additions of interior space, and (2) standards for development of residential structures. The public hearing t•,as opened at 10:15 p.m. Discussion followed on the floor area ratio. It was determined that the numerator should he changed to read: "Footprint plus any additional storage usable space ". The possibility of an Architectural. Review Connn.ittee being utilJ Zed was discussed, which could view the homes along with Staff.. Chairman Laden commented that she felt the ordinance. should have a trial period, and then it could be determined if there was a need for an Architectural Review Committee. Cormissioner i:ing commented that the Commission has wasted time hecause of lack of any deNni.tile criteria. He felt: that the existing small Architectural Review Comm.i,ttee has not been properly utilize" Commissioner Schaefer agreed ghat the Committee should he used more often. Commissioner Zombett:i questioned the fact that an sddition of 800 sq. ft. 0 Ilannirig Commission Mooting MinuLos 5/27,/8l Des i:;n Review (coat. so Page 7 would require a public hearing, since he feels that it is quite restrictive. lie staged that he felt it should be based on a sliding scale for the zoning districts or completely eliminate it and toe the over 50% expan- sion policy curronU y existing. Discussion followed, and it was deter- mined that it should read that a major addition would he anything that, exceeds the al.l.owablo floor area ratio. Considerable discussion ims held on no length of time the approval for the design review application t,ould remain in effect. It was determined that it should be consistent with the length of time applied to tentative maps, which is an approval. for 13 months, plus two 1 year extensions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Crowther expressed Ids concern that a 30 ft. height in many cases is too high. He suggested addling to the setback as the structure is increased in height. Chairman laden requested that lie submit a diagram showing the architectural result of that idea, and it can be studied at the next Committee of the- h'hol.e. Conunissi.oner Monin also noted that ltd would like to further discuss the percentage mentioned with regard to the need for a variance. It was directed that this item be continued to the study session on June 2, i 1981, at which times the above subjects can he discussed. This matter wvi.11 be agendized for the regular meeting of June 10, 1981. , nPsTGV REVIFIV 8a. N'e,ative Declaration - A -769 - Loyde Paradise 8b. A -769 - Loyde Paradise, Mendelsohn Lane, Two- Story, Single - Family Rc si- dence, Final Design Review Approval Chairman Laden reported that this item would be continued to an on -site visit on June 16, 1951 at 4:30 p.m. and the regular meeting on Junc 24, 1981. MISCELLANEOUS Referral. of the Specific Plan from the City Council. Staff submitted copies of the consensus changes from the City Council on the Specific Plan. They explained that these were heing referred back to the Commission for their report, which is required by the Govern- ment Code from the Planning Commission, indicating their review of the changes made by the City Council. The major changes ::ere discussed. Regarding the Density Policies, Commissioner Crowther stated that he was concerned about condominiums in the hills and moved to request the GoUnCil to change the words back to "singlc-f:amily detached" " Item 1 on page S. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Laden and Schaefer dissenting and Commissioners King and Zambetti abstaining. Concern was expressed over the potentially reStrictive impact of the County Lands Policies. Concerning the Protection of the Ridgelines, Commissioner Schaefer expressed strong disagreement with the phrasing of protecting all of the ri.dgelines, to the point where, when it is the only stable ground, there will be no building on it. Rogardins z the Morse and Trail Policies, there were questions concerning private land - Owners being required to maintain the trails and emergency access roads al.l.owA11 pedestrian access. The need for the Agricultural Zoning Poten- tial.i" s questioned and the implementation was discussed. Considerable discussion laas held on CircuIat ion . Commissioner Laden stated that there had previously been a majority feeling na t the Council, should seriously consider toki.ng full rights -of -way and easements for the roads, even if. they are only goinn to be, developed as cmcrgcney access. She commented that she personally would like to ;ingest that the City Cotmc.i:l rcconsi.dcr tnki_nr; a public road width right -of -way around the emergency access road" Commissioner CrOwther stated that ho would then be concerned) that roads 1,!ould go through that arc not wanted 7 - Planning CatmLission Page 5 Meeting hlinutes 6/10/81 A 770 (cant.) Eileen Shapiro, 19612 Farwell Avenue, spoke against the application, submitting photographs showing the elevation of the roof line of the present Kelly house above a neighboring house. She felt the proposed house would adversely affect the views, privacy, and property values of at least twelve homes. Brian Kelly, 14772 Live Oak, spoke as the applicant. He suhmitted photographs of the site showing the view of houses in the area. He noted that the height limit was 30'. With respect to the privacy issue, he pointed out that the widows had been kept away from the east side of the house to protect the neighbors' privacy. As to the elevation of the house, he said that it was planned with the intent of blending in the existing grade so that the tennis court would be level and the house would not appear to be "in a hole." This might be modified, he said, by lowering it about two feet. Mrs. Shapiro countered that the lot was not "in .a hole," but at the top of a hill, and suggested that the grading be accomplished so that the house would be at the lowest part of the lot rather than the highest. Commissioner Monia noted a dis- crepancy in the maps; Asst. Planner Lester stated that the map in the Ccnmission packet was correct. CONSENSUS TO CONDUCT ON -SITE INSPECTION AT Ca%24ITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ON JULY 21 AT 4:30 AND COWI INUE PUBLIC HEARING AT REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 22. (Note: Item 10 was heard next but is listed in agenda order for purposes of the minutes.) S-14 6. GF 333 - Consideration of a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as it Relates to Design Review; Continued from May 27, 1981 Planning Director reviewed staff report, stating that criteria and guidelines were the most important points. The public hearing was opened at 10:40 p.m. Nancy Arias, 20590 Canyon View Drive, expressed concern over several aspects of the proposed ordinance, including bulk, height, and placement of infill multi -story hones, as well as the character of the neighborhood. She urged that allowance be made for the input of neighbors. Planning Director pointed out the difficulty of defining such terms as "neighborhood" and expressed his belief that the CcmTdssion should look at the ordinance as a whole. In response to Bill Heiss, he explained that the height would be measured by a warned plane in all districts. Rodger Griffin, Junipera Way, suggested that homes be built so that the second story element would be in front, away from one -story structures to the rear. Commissioner Zambetti suggested that individuals have more than one year for their design review deadline, since many must ask for extensions. He also suggested the formation of a design review committee of five appointed by the City Council to save the Commission time spent on design review. Commissioner Schaefer said she favored the idea, and Ccmnii.ssioner Bolger said that such a committee would be useful as an advisory body. Commissioner Monia stated that at the last study session he had presented floor area ratio figures; he presented new figures to the Cawnission. Planning Director e.�xplained that, in writing the design review ordinance, staff had attempted to encourage flexibility; the square footage of the home would be a ratio of the lot coverage. Commissioner Moniia favored tying setbacks to height in a new paragraph, 6.c., of the ordinance such that every foot above 22' of height, the setback would increase an additional 10 %. Commissioner King noted that the ordinance could include provisions for attractive reconstruction of buildings in the Village. . CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE TO ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETR;G JUNE 16. Planning Commission Page 6 fleeting Minutes 6/10/81 GPA- 81- 2- General Plan Amendment to Consider the Interim Draft Housing Element\ (Goals, policies and programs) uty City Attorney explained that the draft housing element mist be at th Sta e HCD office by July 1, 1981, and.the element adopted by the Council b Octo r 1, 1981. Associate Planner Rudin explained that the Council is ' terested in t draft, but it will not be formally sent to than at this point. e draft before e Cmmission was simply a skeleton with suggested goals,poli es, and programs She explained the meaning of these terms and how the draf had been developed. The public aring was opened at 11:10 p.m. Mildred Gordon 20299 Blauer Drive, spoke as a representative f the Saratoga Aaea Senior Coordina ing Council. She stated that she felt ren housing was an impor- tant need and rental programs should be available; sh felt suitable low inane housing should be ncouraged for all age groups. She fel the Housing Element was not flexible enough since, for instance, it emphasized e rural character of the City while residents' ne s may be changing. Further, she lieved the Housing Element should be more specif c. The Citv has relied on the ivate sector and should consider other options, she believed. Ms. Gordon al suggested that the possibility of a hotel or retiremen inn should be left open. Sanford Getreu,925 Regan S eet, San Jose, expre ed agreement with the concerns mentioned by Ms. Gordon wit respect to senior itizen housing. He also stated that the existing densities in S toga are not satisfactory and should be studied to provide up to 7 or 8 dwelling per acre. Andy Beverett, 19597 Via Monte, poke in f or of senior housing needs and expressed willingness to assist in any tas force f revision of the Housing Element. Margaret Sherill, 14290 Paul, spoke for roviding housing opportunities for all residents and at all economic levels d making the Housing Element as specific as possible. Bert Toevs, Via Madronas, asserted hat e present Housing Element was a hollow document which did not meet guide nes a requirements in its scope or in its "adequate provisions." Kathy McGoldrick, 12860 Paseo P esada, asked t sections 6456 a (non- market housing) and b (all economic gments of the nity) be added. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak W , speaking as a of the General Plan Advisory Comuttee, spoke against the draft Ho ing Element., saying most areas in Saratoga or any subsidized ho ing. She also felt it in rrectly cited,as the main problem faced by seniors, that they would be forced o of their houses by rising property taxes; • did not propery define wants nd needs; did not address the role of the private se or in housing assistance; did no clarify the upper limits to qualify for subsidiz housing; and contained outdated s istics. She also corrected page four to say tha the City will rent rehabilitated uni at fair market value. Jim Stewart, Alle le Avenue, stated that the plan should be what the residents want rather than w t the State wants. He felt that needs of 1 segments of the popula- tion should be i tified rather than those of one segment; the ity should not "provide" suitable housin alternatives; Goal 43 should be eliminated cone ring sustaining the existing c ratter of Saratoga. He felt there was no great ne for additional rental units; also believed the data was obsolete; he felt it sh ld be clarified that the Cit does not "provide" SHARP loans or housing. Sanford Ge eu suggested the use of "encouraged" rather than "provide" i several cases and rged retention of Goal U. Shelley illiams, 11951 Brookridce, spoke of the need for more housing and t fact that f -r people can qualify for financing. He also urged flexibility to allot for g ..;th and changing demography. Kat y McGoldrick, 12860 Paseo Presada, spoke for flexibility to take account of � va ing neighborhood needs as to such issues as subsidized housing. i i e public hearing was closed. Commissioner bona asked what the consequences would be if the draft were not sub- mitted by July 1; Associate Planner replied that it could not then be written to 1977