HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. 300 Dept. Hd.
DATE: July 15, 1982 C. At -Y
DEPARTTmENT: Administrative Services C. Mgr.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----- L - -- - - - - --
SUW=: Civic Theatre Rental Fees
Issue Sunrary
An increase in rental rates for the Civic Theatre is being recommended in order
to increase revenues used to support the operating costs for the Civic Theatre.
Annual operating costs are estimated at $34,555. Theatre groups booked 71%
of the time during calendar year 1981. Revenues necessary to cover.costs at
the 71% level in 1981 total $24,535. If the recommended rates had been in
effect for the entire 1981 calendar year; they would have generated approxi-
mately $30,000. Based upon projected bookings for fiscal year 1982 -83, it is
anticipated the fee increases being recommended will recover 71% ($24,535) of
operating costs.
The fee increase will take effect August 1, 1982, except for groups already
..-haying -,Via'- signed rental agreement for calendar year 1982 (at current rental
Recommendation
l.Adopt Resolution No
as follows:
Use
Rehearsals
Performances
Partial Use
Move In /Move Ocut
2.Adopt gross receipts
altering the fee schedule for Civic Theatre rentals
Present Rate Rate Effective 8 -1 -82%
5.0 5
130.00 185.00
65.00 65.00
15.00 20.00
policy described in background memo.
Fiscal Impacts
Based upon average usage in calendar year 19$1, revenues fir calendar year
1982 -83 should increase by $7,665. At the old rates, revenues for 1982 -83
were estimated at $17,015 while at the new rates they would -be $24;680.
Exhibits /Attachments
Background Memo
Resolution No. _
Report from City Manager, 7/27/82
Summary of Cost Allocation for Civic Theatre
Council Action
7/21: Continued. to 8/4., directed staff to meet with drama groups.
8/4: Fanelli /Clevenger moved approval of Resolution 780 -22 with effective date of 1 /l. "
Passed 4 -1 (Moyles opposed).
48 -1 -82 new rates will not affect groups which have already signed a rental
agreement.
AgWe
NIEMOO RANDUI�'I
UMEW @:T 0&M&UQ)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438 .
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager
DATE: July 15, 1982
SUBJECT: Increase in Rental Rates of the Civic Theatre
Due to increased costs of operating the Civic Theatre building and
direction by Council to speed up cost recovery proposals, an increase
in rates for rentals of the Civic Theatre are being recommended. In
the 1981 calendar year the Civic Theatre was in use approximately 302
days of the year, 214 days of that reserved for drama group rentals.
The 214 days represent 71% of the total usage days.
Rental increases in Civic Theatre rates last occurred in January of
1981. The rates recommended are based upon the estimated annual opera-
ting cost of the Civic Theatre, $34,555.
The Civic Theatre has been booked on a calendar y
accomodate the scheduling of various drama groups
is based upon a fiscal year, which makes cost and
somewhat difficult. Based upon the bookings for
staff believes the fee increases recommended will
operating costs for 1982 -33.
aar basis in order to
The operating budget
revenue comparisons
calendar year 1981,
recover 71% of the
Staff is recommending an effective date for the increase of August 1,
1982, in order to recoup as much revenue in 1982 -83 as possible. Some
groups do have dates reserved for the remainder of 1982. However, many
of those who have dates reserved have not yet signed a rental agreement,
nor have they made a reservation deposit. Those groups who have a
signed rental agreement will not be subject to the fee increases.
Exhibit A is attached for comparison purposes showing rental rates for
similar theatre facilities.
Civic Theatre Rental Rates
July 15, 1982
Page two
Proposal for Percentage of Gross Receipts
During budget discussions the concept of developing a method to re-
cover more of our operating costs for the Community Center and the
Civic Theatre has been explored. Staff is recommending the implemen-
tation of a specific proposal as outlined below.
The proposal being recommended is to charge a percentage of gross
receipts for all groups charging admission, selling tickets or holding
fund - raising events held in City facilities. We are recommending an
assessment of 5% of gross receipts from all such events held in City
facilities in order to further offset the cost of operations. The
groups would continue to pay the established rental rates. Our rental
fees at this time for the Community Center and Civic Theatre do not
completely cover all operating costs.
In attempting to generate additional operating revenues, the gross
receipts method is an equitable way to supplement the rental fees in
that it spreads the charges based upon the amount of revenue being col-
lected by each group. A large activity, heavily attended, with a
higher ticket price, will pay more than a smaller activity. However,
the percentage (5 %) would affect each situation equally. The 5% of
gross receipts will be collected following each event and will be in-
cluded as part of the rental agreement.
With approval of the above recommendation, we propose a January 1, 1983,
implementation date in order to give users sufficient time to take the
gross receipts policy into consideration during their planning activities.
It is difficult to indicate a specific revenue projection for this pro-
posal as we do not have information from user groups on the amount of
gross receipts received. During 1983 -84 budget discussions, it will
be possible to give some projections as we will have six months of
experience with the policy. We do know, however, three primary drama
groups - the Saratoga Drama Group, Community Players, and West Valley
Light Opera Association - estimate annual sales at 20,000 tickets.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the
above proposal on gross receipts in order
that we can begin steps for implementation.
ck
64
Patricia M. Mu
ens
ck
EXHIBIT A
Montgomery Theatre, San Jose - capacity 536
8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m.
Rehearsals $130
Performances 200
6:00 p.m. -12:00 a.m.
Rehearsals $130
Performances 200
Reservations overlapping both time periods
Rehearsals $230
300
City of Sunnyvale - capacity 200
Non - profit /co- sponsored groups pay $9 per hour when audience
is in theatre
Rehearsals $15 per hour
Performance cost depends on admission price
Admission
Hourly Performance Cost
0-
our
1 -2
25 /hour
2-3
35 /hour
4 -5
45 /hour
5,-6
55 /hour
6 -7
65 /hour
Paul Masson
Does not rent theatre out. VITA pays all labor and security costs,
approximately $500 per performance.
EXHIBIT A
CIVIC THEATRE - RATE COMPARISONS
Saratoga Civic Theatre - capacity 300
Rehearsals $.55.00
Performances 185.00
Partial Use 65.00
Move In /Out 20.00
West Valley College - capacity 392
Non - profit groups
Performances
Rehearsals
Profit groups
Performances
Rehearsals
Villa Montalvo - capacity 299
$ 60 per hour + stage technician
12 times hourly salary
$ 30 per hour + stage technician
12 times hourly salary
$120 per hour + same as above
60 per hour + same as above
Rental rates are determined on an individual case -by -case basis,
set by the Board. Rates depend on group size, requirements of
the function, amount of space requested.
Rates range from $2.00 - $7.50 per person
($598 - $2,242.50)
City of Campbell - Theatre at High School - capacity 1,100
City co- sponsored groups $100 per use
Non - profit groups 150 per use
Profit groups 200 per use
In addition to the rental rates, all groups above must also pay:
$15 processing fee
60 custodial fee for evenings and weekends
6 per hour for stage manager + one hour for set up and
take down
Public Liability insurance with $300,000 minimum naming
City of Campbell as co- insured
The Campbell facility is not equipped with a sound system nor
special theatre lighting.
:J<sif:4tq.:w:ip�'.Y:..y: r,,^_:•r %> ... .:!i!ii: 'lvfai*.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ALTERING FEE SCHEDULE
FOR CIVIC THEATRE RENTALS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1: The follo�ji.ng schedule of fees is hereby
established for payment to the City of Saratoga on application
for each of the following uses of the Civic Theatre. This fee
schedule shall become effective on August 1, 1982, and shall be
applicable to all applications for reservation after its
effective date.
TYPE FEE
Rehearsals $ 55.00 /day
Performances $185.00 /day
. f
Partial Use of Stage $ 65.00 /day
Move In /Move Out $ 20.00 /day
The above and foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the
day of , 1982, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
MAYOR
EXHIBIT A
Montgomery Theatre, San Jose - capacity 536
8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m.
Rehearsals $130
Performances 200
6:00 p.m. -12:00 a.m. ,
Rehearsals- $130
Performances 200
Reservations overlapping both time periods
Rehearsals $230.
300..
City of Sunnyvale - capacity 200
Non - profit /co- sponsored groups pay $9 per hour when audience
is in theatre
Rehearsals $15.per hour
Performance cost depends on admission price
Admission
Hourly Performance Cost
0-
our
1 -2
25 /hour
2 -3
35 /hour
4 -5
45 /hour
5 -6
55 /hour
6 -7
65 /hour
Paul Masson
Does not rent theatre out. VITA pays all labor and security costs,
approximately $500 per performance.
0
C MEW o:T O&ULCUOO&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
VININI I O KIMPIZA1010 I
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Civic Theatre Rental Fees
DATE: July 27, 1982
Following your direction from the July 21 meeting, on July 27 I met
with representatives from the various drama groups who plan to use
the Theatre during the coming year.
The attached Summary of Cost Allocation For The Civic Theatre was
distributed to describe how the recommended fees were derived.
Relative to the method used, no questions or comments were raised.
All of the groups, however, express that they are caught in a spiral
of cost increases which prevents them from operating "in the black."
The groups agreed that a direct subsidy from the City for their
programs is'not desired.
The real issue seems to be timing.. Some drama groups explained that
commitments for scripts and commissions based admissions rates are
made nine months in advance in some cases. However, non-e` expressed
the concern that adjustment could not be made.
The resolution to amend,.the rates according to full cost recovery is
attached to the Agenda Bill No. 300.
Your options are:
1. Adopt the resolution, adjusting rates to full cost recovery,
effective August 1, 1982 (except for contracts already
signed.)
2. Leave rates as they are, recovering 69% of full cost.
3. Direct staff on some alternative formula.
Civic Theatre Rental Fees
July 27, 19 82
Page two
The difference between current rates and recommended rates would
amount to $7,665 for the full year. Because the rates would not apply
to those groups which have already signed an agreement, the amount of
$5,000 has been included in projected revenues, based on the rates
recommended.
J. Waynd Dernetz
ck
attachment
SUMMARY OF COST ALLOCATION
FOR CIVIC THEATRE
July, 1982
The following summarizes the methods used to allocate Civic Theatre
costs for theatre rental rates.
1. Cost to be allocated:
A. Projected Budget, Building Maintenance #750
1982 - 1983: $130,387
B. Total No. of square feet maintained: 32,086
C. Cost per square foot: $130,387 _ $4.06
TZ -I6$F
D. No. of square feet in Theatre: 7,526
E. Cost of budget allocated to Theatre:
$4.06 /s.f. x 7,526 s.f. _ $30,555.56
F. Other cost allocated not included in Program #750:
Replacement & Repair Equipment $ 2,000
Paint and Other 1,000
Administration 1,000
G. Total Cost Allocated (E + F) :
2. Proration of Costs to Drama Groups:
A. 1981 -1982 usage, by groups:
Drama groups 214 days
City meetings 66 days
"No fee" groups 22 days
Total days used 302 days
B. Proration of use to drama groups: 214 = 71%
C. Cost allocation to drama groups:
Cost to be allocated
Proportion charged
Amount of Cost to be Recovered:
$34,555
$34,555
x 71%
$24,534
W
3. Calculation of Cost Recovery:
TVDe of Use
Rehearsals
Performance
Partial Use
Set up /Take down
Total
Notes:
Projected Amount Amount
No. of Days x Of Fee = Of Cost Recovery
103 x $ 55 = $ 5,665
101 x 185 = 18,685
2 x 65 = 130
10 x 20 = 200
216
$24,680
The above cost'recovery assumes a full year of fees at the recommended
level. City proposes not applying new fees on any reservations pre-
viously secured by a signed agreement with deposit. The higher fees
will not apply to such rentals.
-2-
CITY OF SARZUCa'1
Initial:
AGh'.NDA BILL NO. 0% I Dept. Hd.
DATE: July 21, 1982 C. Atty.
DEPART: Cb- mmunity Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Development Fee Schedule
Issue Summary
City goal to recapture 80% of development processing costs. Staff has
estimated potential development activity and submits for approval the
attached fee schedule which is estimated to meet the above goal. The
schedule has previously been reviewed with you at a budget session.
Recomnendation
Adopt. Resolutions No. 780- 780- and 780-
Fiscal Impacts
Estimated to meet goal of 80% recapture of development processing costs.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolutions No. 780- 780- and 780-
Council Action
7/21: moyles/Mallory moved to adopt 780 -19. Passed 5 -0.
Clevenger/Moyles moved to adopt 780 -20. Passed 5 -0.
IalloryAloyles moved to adopt 730 -21. Passed 5 -0.
ITEM IV. C.
14 7j p
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA AMENDING SUBPARAGRAPH (C) OF TABLE 1
OF THE SARATOGA SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, RELATING
TO SERVICE FEES FOR GEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve
as follows:
SECTION 1: This resolution. is adopted pursuant to Section 4
of Article One of Ordinance NS -60, the Subdivision Ordinance
of the City of Saratoga, which permits the fees set forth in
Table I attached to said ordinance to be modified and changed
from time to time by resolution of this City Council.
SECTION 2: Subsection (C) of Table I of the appendix of
Ordinance NS -60 and Resolution 780 are hereby amended to
provide as follows:
('C) SERVICE FEE - GEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Where the subdivision comes within the provisions
of,Section '13.9 (Hillside Subdivision) of this ordinance, or
is located wholly or in part in an HC -RD zoning district or
NHR zoning district, a fee shall be paid representative of the
actual cost to the City of a Consulting Engineering Geologist
Investigation and Report concerning the development, consist-
ing of a partially refundable deposit as listed below, together
with such additional funds, as required, to fully reimburse
City for all.such expenses. Said payments and regulations
relating thereto shall be as follows:
(1) Subdivision in areas not geologically mapped
by City:
Adminstrative
Type Application Deposit Fee
Site Modification $ 200.00 $ 40.00
Single
Lot Site Approval
$ 500.00
100.00
Minor
Subdivision (1 -4 lots)
$ 750.00
150.00
Major
Subdivision (less than
20 lots)
$1000.00
200.00
Major
Subdivision (more than
20 lots)
$1500.00
300.00
(2) Subdivisions
in areas
geologically
mapped by
City:
Adminstrative
Type Application
Deposit
Fee
Single
Lot Site Approval
$ 200.00*
$ 30.00
Minor
Subdivision (1 -4 lots)
$ 350.00*
50.00
Major
Subdivision (5 or more
lots)
$ 500.00*
75.00
*And in addition, $100.00 per lot to reimburse City for
cost of preparation of its geologic map.
In addition, any actual charges by City Geologist for review
of the subdivision in excess of the above deposit amounts.
(At cost)
(3) Partial Refundabilit
In the event the cost to the City shall be less
than the initial deposit by more than $25, City shall in that
event reimburse such excess to the subdivider.
(4) Payment
(a) Deposits as'above prescribed shall be paid
at the time of application for tentative
approval.
(b) Additional charges shall be paid upon
billing by City and not later than Final
Map Approval.
(c) any refund in excess of $25.00 shall be
determined at time of final map approval.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the day of 198_, by the
following vote:
AYES. '
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
r' r
I i
x . X43
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ALTERING & ESTABLISHING
FEE SCHEDULE
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1: The following schedule of fees is hereby established
for payment to the City of Saratoga on application for each of
the following enumerated applications, and no delivery to nor
acceptance by the City or any of its officers, agents or employees
of any of the following enumerated applications shall be con-
sidered as filing thereof, until said fee has been paid in full.
This fee schedule shall become effective immediately and shall
be applicable to all applications filed from and after its
effective date.
TYPE FEE
CHANGE IN ZONING $1000
DESIGN REVIEW
Residential
Single family $400
(building greater than 22')*
(hillside lots)*
Condo /Multiple Family $500 /lot
Non - Residential $700 /lot
Modification of Approved Application $150 /lot
Signs $100 #
*PUBLIC HEARING CHARGE $50 + $150 deposit*
(First hearing and additional
charge for any requested con-
tinuance for re- noticing)
APPLICANT REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FEE $100
USE PERMIT
Residential (single - family districts)
$250
Tennis Court
$200
Multi- Family
$1000
Non - Residential
$500
PD (General Plan Designation)
$1000
Temporary ($200 cleanup deposit in
$100
addition)
VARIANCE
Residential
$250
Non - Residential
$300
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Environmental Impact Assessment
$75
Environmental Impact Report Admin-
$500
strative and Handling
*If the actual cost of the consultant's noticing is less than $150
the difference will be refunded to the applicant. If the cost is
greater an additional deposit will be required before the noticing
is done.
TYPE FEE
SITE APPROVAL
Single Family Residential
$250 /lot plus
Building Site Approval up
noticing fee for
to and including 4 lots
2 or more lots
Building Site Approval
$500 /lot
for all other types
LAFCO Fee
Single Family Residential
$1500
Subdivision Approval first
10 lots - each lot over 10
$50 /lot
Multiple - Family Building
Site Approval
Lots of 1 acre or less
$600 /lot
Lots of 3 acres or less
$1200 /lot
Lots of more than 3 acres
$2000 /lot
Modification of Site Development Plan
$100
Lot Line Adjustment
$150
Preliminary Tentative Map
$200
Reversion to Acreage
$125 /lot
(Public hearing cost additional)
TIME EXTENSION TO APPROVED APPLICATIONS
$100
FINAL MAP
1st lot
$150
2nd and above
$50 /lot
GENERAL PLAN CHANGE
$1000
ANNEXATION
$100
Plus LAFCO Fee
LAFCO Fee
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
Fences, walls and hedges
Non -fence
MINISTERIAL PERMIT (i.e. horse)
STORM DRAIN FEE
"A"
R -1- 10,000
R -1- 12,500
R -1- 15,000
R -1- 20,000
R -1- 40,000
Planned Development
RM & PA District
C & M Districts
Churches, Schools, etc.
Public Utilities and other quasi -
commercial
$200
Actual Cost ($50 Minimum)
$50
$25
$1100 /lot
$600 /lot
$650 /lot
$720 /lot
$850 /lot
$1100 /lot
Same as fee for
District with which
PD is combined
$2400 /gross acre
$2800 /gross acre
$1425 /gross acre
$2400 /gross acre
v
'
TYPE FEE
*IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECKING & INSPECTION FEE
For the first $10,000 15%
For the next $30,000 12%
For the next $60,000 8%
For all improvements over $100,000 6%
Deposit of 25% at time of submission.
*Where slopes are greater than 10 %, increase fee by 1% above fee
percentage shown.
SECTION 2: The portion of Resolution 780- Altering and Estab-
lishing Fees for Building, Plumbing, Heating, Com-
fort Cooling, Electrical, Plan Checking and Grading Permits is
hereby rescinded and pursuant to Section 3 -3 3 -19, 3 -41 and
6 -2.2 of the.Saratoga City Code, as amended by Ordinance 38 -83,
"
the following schedule of fees elaborated in Exhibit "A ", "B ",
:--' -
"C ", "D" and. "E" is hereby established for payment to the City
-
of Saratoga,on application for each of the enumerated applica-
tions, and no delivery to nor acceptance by the City or any of
its officers, agents, or employees of any of the following enum-
.r
erated. applications shall be considered as filing thereof, until
said fee has been paid in full. This fee schedule shall become
-
effective immediately and shall be applicable to all applications
filed from and after its effective date.
�"r5r3c3r�I_ MOM
SECTION 3: Except as above- modified, the schedule of fees
heretofore adopted by Resolution 780, as amended,
* +, v�K < r„r: x - •:?y,? t -.y�-+ ^+..°
shall be and remain in full force and effect.
, ice,
- ---— -�
The above and foregoing resolution was adopted at a Regular Meeting
of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day
of 198_, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
,...:.:.,... :
MAYOR
ATTEST:
- j�:ti °." 'm•• ::,:; ;:? ?iii
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT . "A"
BUILDING PERMIT FEES
TOTAL VALUATION
$1.00 to $2,000.00
$2,001.00 to 25,000
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00
$50,001.00 to $1- 00,000.00
100,000.00 and up
FEE
$30.00
r
$32.50 for the first $2,000.00
plus $6.00 for each additional -
$1000.00 or fraction thereof,
to and including $25,000.00
$170.50 for the first $25,000.00
plus $4.50 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,
to and including $50,000.00
$283.00 for the first $50,000.00
plus $3.00 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,
to and including $100,000.00
$433.00 for the first $100,000.00
plus $2.50 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof
Plan Check Fees shall be 65% of the Permit Fee
� -5,. ^� yr �ti �_r°"�^�'iL"r- tt^c ^'°f- at^.�.'= �.-Ga •
EXHIBIT "B"
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
1)
New Single Family Dwelling
3.0,�/S.F.
•��
2)
Commercial /Professional
3.0C /S.F.
3)
Institutions, Multiple Residential
3.5fi /S.F.
4)
Additions of more than 1000 S.F.
3.0C /S.F.
5)
Additions of less than 1000 S.F.
$30.00
6)
Remodels, residential
$35.00
7)
Remodels, commercial
$50.00
8)
Swimming Pools (with pump & heater)
$30.00
9)
Misc. Structures
$30.00
10)
Misc. permits without associated
$30.00
_.._. ..__..:..:.:......__....._:....
building permit
� -5,. ^� yr �ti �_r°"�^�'iL"r- tt^c ^'°f- at^.�.'= �.-Ga •
r
EXHIBIT "C"
HEATING & COMFORT COOLING PERMITS
1)
New single family dwelling
1.54 /S.F.
" 2)
Commercial /Professional
1.74 /S.F.
••_....:.;.,. -. 3)
Institutional, Multiple Residential
1.74 /S.F.
4)
Additions of 13ss than 2500 S.F.
$30.00
5)
Additions of more than 2500 S.F.
1.24 /S.F. (Minimum $30.00)
6)
Remodels, residential
1.54 /S.F.(Minimum $30.00)
7)
Remodels, commerical
1.74 /S.F.(Minimum $30.00)
8)
Mi�c. Structures
$30.00
` 9)
Misc'. permits without associated
$30.00
building permit
Plan check fees shall be 25%
of the permit fee
t
-v r
EXHIBIT "D"
ELECTRICAL PERMITS
1)
Single family dwelling
3.01,/SF
2)
Commercial /Professional
3.0� /SF
3)
Institutional, Multiple Residential
3.5C /SF
4)
Additions less than 1000 SF
$30.00
5)
Additions more than 1000 -SF
3.0C /SF
6)
Remodels, residential
$35.00
7)
Remodels, commercial
$50.00
8)
Swimming Pools, etc. (with pump &
$30.00
heater
9)
Misc. Structures
$30.00
10)
Misc. permits without associated
$30.00
building permit
Plan check fees shall be 258 of the permit fee
EXHIBIT "E"
GRADING PERMITS
PLAN CHECKING FEES
65% of Grading Permit Fee
GRADING PERMIT FEES
50 Cubic Yards or Less $30.00
50 to 100 Cubic Yards $45.00
101 to 1000 Cubic Yards $45.00 for the first 100
Cubic Yards plus $15.00 for each additional 100
Cubic Yards or fraction thereof.
1001 to 10,000 Cubic Yards $180.00 plus $12.00 for
each additional 1000 Cubic Yards or fraction thereof.
10,001 to 100,000 Cubic Yards $288.00 plus $50.00 for
each additional 10,000 Cubic Yards of fraction thereof.
100,001 Cubic Yards or more $738.00 plus $30.00 for
each additional 10,000 Cubic Yards of fraction thereof.
'�Jd±?�aa�!tbivy 41cl+�til,'�sfiii:�(;e2'??.:4a5
<^u5r
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ALTERING & ESTABLISHING
FEE SCHEDULE
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1: The following schedule of fees is hereby estab-
lished for payment to the City of Saratoga on
application for each of the following enumerated applications,
and no delivery to nor acceptance by the City of any of its
officers, agents or employees of any of the following enum-
erated applications shall be considered as filing thereof,
until said fee has been paid in full. This fee schedule shall
become effective immediately and shall be applicable to all
applications filed from and after its effective date.
TYPE
CONSTRUCTION TAX 50fi per square
foot of any building
or structure
40C per square
foot of any mobile
home lot.
SECTION 2: Section 14- 55(a)(1) and Section 14- 55(a)(2) of
the Code of the City are hereby repealed. t
SECTION 3: Section 14- 55(a)(4) shall be modified to read as
follows:
Reconstruction of a building which was damaged or
destroyed by earthquake, fire, flood or other cause over which
the owner had no control; provided, that compliance with any
building -code or other ordinance requirement of the City of
of any other applicable law shall not be deemed a cause over
which the owner has no control, and only if the number of
square feet in the building is not increased. If the number
of square feet in the building is increased, the tax imposed
under this article shall apply to such increased floor area.
SECTION 4: Except as above modified, the schedule of fees
heretofore adopted by Resolution 780, as amended, shall be
and remain in full force and effect.
the above and foregoing resolution was adopted at a Regular
Meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the
day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
198_, by the following vote:
MAYOR
CI'T`Y OF SAWI
AGE.NIII BILL l�J
DATE: July 21, 1982
DEPARTM=: Com=ity Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: TRACT NO. 6628, MCBAIN AND GIBBS, AMEND= TO THE CC & R'S
Issue Surmary
McBain & Gibbs have revised the CC & R's-for their Tract 6628 as requested
by the City. These amended CC & R's need to be approved by the City
Council per the tentative map conditioning and the original CC & R's.
They have been reviewed and recommended for your approval by the City
Attorney's office.
Recomnendation
Adopt the resolution amending the CC & R's
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated
E-hibits /Attachmnis
1. Letter from Deputy City Attorney requesting approval
2. Resolution to Amend CC$R's for Tract 6628
Council Action
7/21: Callon/Mallory moved adoption of Resolution 2000 consenting to amendment. Passed 5 -0.
ITEM VII. B.
t
ATKINSON • FARASYN
PAUL B. SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ERIC L. FARASYN 660 WEST DANA STREET
DUNHAM B.SHERER
P. O. BOX 279
LEONARD 1. SIEGAL
HAROLD S.TOPPEL MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
STEVEN G. BAIRD (415) 967 -6941
July 6, 1982
Ms. Kathy Curtis
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Re: McBain & Gibbs Subdivision
Tract No. 6628
Dear Kathy:
1. M. ATKINSON, (ftmmD)
L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979)
iv-
JUL 0 7 1982
COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT
Enclosed herewith is a copy of the amended declara-
tion of covenants, conditions and restrictions and reservation
of easements for the McBain & Gibbs Subdivision which have
been reviewed by our office. Certain changes requested by us
have now been made and incorporated into the enclosed draft.
The amended covenants, conditions and restrictions
are intended to supercede the earlier declaration as recorded
on February 22, 1980. Since the previous declaration requires
the consent by the City of Saratoga to any amendment or modifi-
cation, the revised declaration must be submitted to the City
Council for approval. Please note that the applicant has pro-
vided on page 2 for insertion of a resolution number and date
of adoption by the City Council. I am also enclosing herewith
a form of resolution.
It is requested that this matter be placed on the Consent
calendar for the regular meeting of the City Council to be conducted
on July 21, 1982.
If you have any questions concerning his matter,
please give me a call. ��
HST:ns
encs.
cc: Mr. David Baratti
Sin,c4�r
S. TOPPEL
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA CONSENTING TO AMENDMENT
- •:.:,,::.
OF THE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS FOR TRACT NO. 6628
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga has
previously approved the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions for Tract No. 6628 submitted by McBain & Gibbs, Inc.,
as declarant, and recorded on February 22, 1980, in Book F -151,
Pages 287 et seq., Official Records of Santa Clara County,
California; and
WHEREAS, the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
RS.r �r';r ;• �? *,,�Fc�w,S
Restrictions, as recorded, provides that no amendment shall be
made thereto without the prior consent of the City of Saratoga; and
WHEREAS, McBain & Gibbs, Inc., desires to record a new
declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions and reserva-
tion of easements for Tract No. 6628, which declaration shall
supersede and cancel the prior declaration recorded on February 22,
1980; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga finds
the proposed declaration to be consistent with the restrictions
imposed by the City for development of Tract No. 6628 and the agree-
ments entered into between the declarant and the City of Saratoga,
• =t; = =- aw;:,:;c -:;, :r= ,ti,';;,R_;,,; ;.;rY
including that certain settlement agreement dated June 2, 1981,
the declaration o•f_.covenants, conditions and restrictions recorded
thereto on June 10, 1981 -,(the terms of which have been
`pursuant
incorporated =into ,and will-not-be superseded by the proposed amended
declaration), and that certain private road maintenance and storm
drain maintenance agreement dated June 9, 1981,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Saratoga does hereby consent to amendment of the
covenants, conditions and restrictions for Tract No. 6628 and the
r. , -)-->
c -r b^ yx:h� Gs$"'Y�?'`•, -ti +t r i �:r t.. _.iY =i;
recording of the amended declaration in the form of Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the
day of July, 1982, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
2.
E
MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. / Dept. Hd.
DATE: July 9, 1982 C. Att
DEPARTMENT: 'Planning & Policy Analysis C. Mgr.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT`: Update of City's CEQA Resolution (Resolution No. 653 -5)
Issue Sumo ury
1. State law requires the City's environmental review process to be
consistent with CEQA and its guidelines.
2. The proposed resolution updates the previous resolution which has not
been updated since 1978.
3. City is already complying with State requirements which took effect in
February so approval of the resolution is primarily just a formal pro -
cedure.
4. Explanations of underlined changes are in left hand margin of revised
resolution.
Recommendation s �i
3, >
1. Adopt Resolution No. 635 -5 aG drafted by staff.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated
Fsrhi }-�i i-c �A+ �anhrrnn�c
Exhibit A - Staff Report dated 7/9/82.
Exhibit B - Explanation of changes in Resolution No. 635 -5.
Exhibit C - Resolution i:o. 635 -5
Exhibit D - Staff Report dated 10/3/80.
Council Action
7/21: FanelliAlallory moved to adopt resolution 653 -5. Passed 5 -0.
ITEM IV. A.
o)
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 7/ 9/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 7/21/82
SUBJECT Update of City's CEQA Resolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached is a copy of an annotated revision to the Resolution
Setting Forth Environmental Impact Report Criteria and Procedures
for Private Land Projects in the City of Saratoga. Each year
some portion of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
is amended by the legislature or new court interpretations of
this law occur. When this happens the State's CEQA Guidelines must
be amended to reflect these changes.
State law requires a City's environmental review process to be
consistent with CEQA and its guidelines (Section 15050(a) California
Administrative Code). This latest proposed revision to the
Resolution Series 653 is to update the series which has not been
done since June 1978 and make corrections due to the City's
reorganization of Departments or to clarify language. Those
portions of the previous Resolution (Resolution No. 653 -4) that
have been changed or updated have been underlined with an explanation
in the left hand margin for each change.
Also included is a memo by Vicci Rudin dated 10/3/80 to refresh
your memory about the major purposes and procedures involved with
CEQA. Also pertinent sections of the CEQA Guidelines are included.
Staff will answer your questions on the CEQA process at a study
session prior to the regular meeting where the Resolution will be
considered.
Michael Flor s
Assistant Planner
DIF /mg r
Attachments
NOTE: Additions or corrections to the previous text are underlined.
Explanation of corrections or additions is found in the left
hand margin.
RESOLUTION NO. 653 -5
_i
RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR PRIVATE LAND PROJECTS IN
THE CITY OF SARATOGA - SUPERSEDING PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
NOS. 653, 653 -2, 653 -3 AND 653 -4
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve
as follows:
Section 1: This resolution is adopted to implement the
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 insofar as it
is applicable to private land projects within the City of Saratoga,
and specifically the criteria and procedures hereinafter set forth
are adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083 of the
State of California and Section 15014 of the California Administrative
This includes all
Code. Except as may hereinafter be modified, interpreted or
pertinent sections of
particularized by the within resolution, the provisions of Chapter 3,
Title 14, Division 6 of the California Administrative Code (Section
California Admin. Code
15000 -15203 will be applicable.
The term "significant effect on the environment"
shall be as presently defined in California
Administrative Code Section 15040, or as the same may hereafter from
time to time be amended, and wherever in this resolution or any
amendments thereto the term "substantial adverse impact" is used,
the same shall mean significant effect on the environment.
In the event that any of the provisions of this
Resolution Series 653 should now or hereafter at any time be or
become in conflict with any of the provisions of the Public Resources
Code of the State of California or of the California Administrative
Code, the provisions of the latter Codes shall take procedence over
any contradictory or conflicting provisions contained in this
Series of resolutions.
Section 2: Pursuant to the foregoing, the following processes,
procedures and criteria are hereby adopted:
(1) Authority to Planning Director or Community
Development Director
The Director of Planning or the Director of
Community Development of the City of Saratoga,
Correction so that both
each hereafter to be designated the Director of Planning and Environ-
Dept. Heads with
mental Control or Director of Community Development and Environmental
environmental review
Control respectively, and each hereafterin this Resolution called
"The Director ", are hereby authorized and directed to make a
responsibilities are
determination as to whether or not a proposed project within the
given necessary
purview of their department will or will not require an environmental
authority.
impact report (hereafter called EIR). The Director shall cause the
preparation of each proposed negative declaration, and shall cause
the preparation of each proposed draft EIR, and shall assemble and
present each proposed final EIR to the decision making body. The
within delegation of authority includes the authority to ultimately
determine whether or not a proposed project comes within a ministerial
exclusion or a categorical exemption, but does not include the
authority to approve a negative declaration or to certify a final
EIR, which authority is vested in the decision - making body in each
To streamline process.
case. The Director may delegate his authority to another member o'
Director may review.
his department.
(2) Ministerial Exclusions
The provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of
1970 apply only to discretionary projects. Discretionary projects
include the rezoning of land from one district to another, the
imposition of new or different regulations in a zoning district,
Within thirty (30) days after receipt of an
application requesting approval of the project, the Director shall
determine in-writing (Form EIA -2) whether such application is
complete or incomplete and shall transmit such determination to the
applicant. No application for a project shall be deemed or shall
be accepted as complete unless and until all data and information
both in form and substance which will enable the Director to prepare
an initial study is provided to his satisfaction. In the event
that the application is determined not to be complete, the written
determination shall specify those parts of the application which
are incomplete and shall indicate the manner in which they can be
made complete.
(5) Project Evaluation and Determination
(A) On all discretionary land projects not
categorically 'exempt, the Director shall determine whether the
project may have a substantial adverse impact on the environment
adopting general and precise plans and amendments thereto, the
granting of zoning variance, a conditional use permit, design
review, approval of tentative subdivision or site approval maps,
and may include grading permits where discretionary engineering
criteria is additionally necessary. Although discretionary, a
project may still be categorically exempt. See Section 2(3)
following.
Ministerial land projects, which are not
subject to the Environmental Quality Act, include approval of final
subdivision, parcel, and record of survey maps, final site approval,
issuance of building permits, issuance of grading permits where
Allowed b17 Section
discretionary engineering criteria is not required, issuance of
15� % 3 (b) Of the
business licenses, and individual utility connections and
disconnections.
California Administrative
Code.
Application for approval of a land project which
is specifically listed as ministerial need not be accompanied by a
questionnaire (Form EIA- la)and the Director need not make any
separate determination as to the ministerial nature of the project.
As to any project not specifically listed above as being a minis-
terial project, the Director shall make a determination as to the
discretionary or ministerial nature of the same, and shall fill out
an EIA -3 form accordingly..
(3) Categorical Exemptions
Correction tO include
Section 15101 through 15129 of the California
all categorical
Administrative Code list twenty -nine classes or projects which,
although discretionary in nature, have been determined by the
exemptions allowed by
State Office of Planning ands Research not to have a significant
CEQA Guidelines
effect on the environment, and are therefore exempt from the require-
ment of preparation of an EIR. The specific activities listed under
the above referenced classes are hereby incorporated into the City's
list of exempt activities. The City Council shall, from time to
time, and pursuant to Administrative Code Section 15100.4 amend this
list by resolution or order specific activities that fall within
each of such classes.
TO streamline process.
The Director or a designated member of his staff
Director
shall determine whether each project applied for falls within a cate-
may review.
gorically exempt class, whether the same is specifically listed in
accord with the above or not.
(4) Project Application
Each application for approval of a discretionary
Reflects new fee
land project shall be accompanied by a completed questionnaire from
EIA -la (Environmental Information Form, Appendix H, January 1, 1977
approved by Council.
Amendments to California Administrative Code, and as from time to
time hereafter amended), together with a filing fee in the sum of
$75.00. Pursuant to Section 15054.2 of the California Administrative
Code, the Director shall specify criteria by which to determine the
completeness of applications.
Within thirty (30) days after receipt of an
application requesting approval of the project, the Director shall
determine in-writing (Form EIA -2) whether such application is
complete or incomplete and shall transmit such determination to the
applicant. No application for a project shall be deemed or shall
be accepted as complete unless and until all data and information
both in form and substance which will enable the Director to prepare
an initial study is provided to his satisfaction. In the event
that the application is determined not to be complete, the written
determination shall specify those parts of the application which
are incomplete and shall indicate the manner in which they can be
made complete.
(5) Project Evaluation and Determination
(A) On all discretionary land projects not
categorically 'exempt, the Director shall determine whether the
project may have a substantial adverse impact on the environment
r
J
4
through preparation of an initial study (Form EIA -lb). In making
such determination, he shall follow the general guidelines set
forth in Sections 15080 through 15083 of the California Administra-
tive Code, together with the following specific criteria:
Addition of General Plan's role in
determining environmental impact.
(a) Saratoga is a residential
community and the present zoning of its
undeveloped residential lands has been
established after much study, public hearings
and the input and analysis by professional
planners and consultants. Residential
General Plan Designations and .implementing
zoning have been adopted only after t:ie Coincil
found that residential development of said .
lands is in accord with the General Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance and will not have an adverse
effect or impact on the environment.
Accordingly, the approval of a tentative
subdivision map or tentative site approval
for development of residential uses in accord
with existing residential zoning will not be
expected to have any substantial adverse
impact on the environment, and will normally
be expected to result in a negative declara-
tion. In this regard, existing residential
zoning shall be deemed to be a pre- esistinc
approval of the major phase of an ongoing
project within the meaning of Administrative
Code Section 15070 as to all permitted, as
distinguished from conditional uses.
(b) Commercial and industrial zoning
districts, unlike residential districts,
generally permit a range of different
uses and structures. Accordingly, the fact
of pre- existing zoning in a "C" or "I"
district does not create any inference that
a particular proposed use will or will not
have a substantial adverse impact, nor
does pre- existing residential zoning create
any inference that a proposed conditional
use (requiring a use permit) will or ;gill
not have such substantial adverse impact.
(,c) Rezoning from one "C" district
classification to another "C" district
classification, taken alone, will normally
not have any substantial adverse impact,
because of the similarity of available uses
throughout all "C" districts. A negative
declaration on such rezoning shall not,
however, preclude the Director from requir-
ing an EIR at a later tentative map or site
approval for development of a particular use
within such district.
(d) Rezoning from one "R" district to
another "R" district of lesser density, or
rezoning from a "C ", "M" or "PA" district
to an "R" district, will normally be expected
to have no adverse impact and be entitled to
a negative declaration.
(e) Rezoning from an "R" district to a
"C ", "M" or "PA" district, or rezoning
within an "R" district to an "R" classifi-
cation having a higher density, are types of
projects which ordinarily would be expected
to have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, but still may or may not be entitled to
a negative declaration under and pursuant to
Administrative Code Section 15083.
Allowed under California Administrative
Code Section 15067.5 to streamline
process.
Allowed under California Administrative
Code Section 15079.7 (new) to
streamline process.
(f) Where a rezoning has been required
to be accompanied by an EIR, and has been
certified, no new EIR shall be required for
any subsequent tentative subdivision map
or tentative site approval for the develop-
ment of any permitted use or uses within
the zone, unless the use intended is not
one considered as a possible proposed use
at the time of the prior EIR and rezoning,
or unless conditions defined in Administra-
tive Code Section 15067 are found to exist,
requiring the preparation of a subsequent
EIR. In lieu of a subsequent EIR, a supple-
ment to an existing EIR will be allowed if
the conditions defined in Administrative
Code Section 15067.5 exist.
(g) Administrative Code Section 15105(a)
categorically exempts certain zoning variances.
Because of the restrictive nature of the
zoning variances allowable in this City
pursuant to Section 17.2 of Ordinance NS -3,
any such allowable variances not falling
within the exemption will still normally be
expected to have no substantial adverse impact,
and will be expected to result in a negative
declaration.
�'(h) Design review approval (Sections
13.1 -13.6 of Ordinance NS -3, Ordinance
NS -3.47) and sign permits (Sections 10.1 -10,
Ordinance NS -3) to the extent that the same
may be both discretionary and not otherwise
exempt, and therefore within the purview of
the Environmental Quality Act, are so
limited in scope, and the regulations concern-
ing them are by their very nature designed
specifically to foster and protect the environ-
ment, so that any impact at all from such
approval will normally be to enhance the
environment, and such will thus be expected
to result in a negative declaration.
(i) Encroachment permits provided for
under Article V, Chapter 13 of the Saratoga
City Code are hereby deemed to be minor
within the terms and meaning of the Adminis-
trative Code Section 15105(b) and therefore
categorically exempt. Encroachment permits
for pipes, drains and conduits under Article
IV, Chapter 13 of the Saratoga City Code,
may or may not be minor, and may or may
not have substantial adverse impact, dependent
upon the circumstances of each case.
(j) Residential projects conforming
to a Specific Plan for which an EIR has been
prepared shall normally be exempted from
preparation of another EIR or negative
declaration (per Administrative Code Section
15079.7). However, should an event arise as
described in Administrative Code Section
15067 (e.g., significant changes are proposed
in the project creating new impacts not
considered, substantial changes in project
circumstances occur, or new information or
substantial information becomes available)
this exemption shall not apply until a
suppiementai EIR is prepare or the--Specific
Plan.
i'
ti.
Canceller :tdon of Williamson Act Contract
has no sigrii'ficant environmental impact
in and of itself if it is consistent
with the General Plan. Therefore a
negative declaration would be appropriate.
EIR's may be required for specific
projects subsequent to the cancellation.
Allowed by Section 150 80 (d) , (2 )
California Administrative Code to
streamline process.
One of the purposes of an initial
study is to focus an EIR on significant
environmental effects (15080(b)
California Administrative Code) to
streamline process.
Allowed by Section
15054.1 California
Administrative Code to
insure adequate review
time.
(k) The cancellation of Willia -mson
Act contracts shall normally require the
preparation of a negative declaration rather
than an EIR if the parcel affected is
designated for residential development in the
General Plan. This exemption is appropriate
because considerable study, analysis, and
public input were utilized in the formulation
and adoption of the General Plan and its
EIR. Through this process mitigation measures
are added to the plan or it is otherwise
modified to reduce potential adverse impacts
to insignificant levels. Therefore, actions
such as cancellation of Williamson Act
contracts, if such cancellation is proposed
for a project consistent with the General
Plan, will normally be expected not to
create adverse effects or impacts on the
environment. Use of a negative declaration
for a Williamson Act contract cancellation
does not preclude the City from requiring a
further negative declaration or an EIR for a
specific development proposal on a cancelled
contract parcel.
(1) A mitigated negative declaration
shall be prepared instead of an.EIR .:here the
significant effects of a project ide:-T_ified
in an initial study are clearly mitigated
to a point where no significant enviro=ent l
effects would occur. The use of a mitigates
negative declaration shall be subject to the
limitations and required finding of
Administrative Code Section 15080(d)(2).
(m) A focused EIR is an EIR that describes
the specific impacts of a particular project
identified in an initial study and depends
upon a master EIR or an EIR for a similar
project for its more generalized background
information. The purpose of a focused EEIR is
to reduce the time and cost of environmental
reviews while assessing those aspects of the
project which would create significant impacts.
The.City encourages the use of focused EIR's
whenever possible. Such EIR's should
reference the General Plan EIR and others
for general background information and identify
those significant impacts that are particular
to the proposed project.
(B) A project shall not be deemed as
received or accepted for filing under City ordinances until such
time as the environmental documentation required by this Resolution
and CEQA has been completed in conformance with the conditions
listed under Administrative Code Section 15054.1. This will allow
the City adequate time to comply with CEQA for those projects
requiring,by ordinance, short time periods for action (e.q. =0 say limit f--.
action on a tentative subdivision).
(D) Notwithstanding the fact that the
Director might determine a project to be exempted or excludes, or
otherwise that an EIR is not considered necessary, the applicant
(C) Within forty -five (45)
days after the
Previous resolution
acceptance
of the application for project approval,
the Director
allowed Oril 30 days.
Y Y
shall make
his determination and shall indicate the
same by
,
executing
Form EIA -3 and permanently filing a signed
copy in the
Section 15054.2(c)
City file.
Should the application for project approval
require an
California Administrative
EIR, the Director
shall notify the applicant within
the same forty -
Code allows 45 days.
five (45)
days.
(D) Notwithstanding the fact that the
Director might determine a project to be exempted or excludes, or
otherwise that an EIR is not considered necessary, the applicant
nonetheless shall have the right and option to require the adoption
and approval of an EIR by the decision - making body of the City, prior
to the City acting upon the application in chief, and shall
exercise his option by written request filed with the Director no
later than five (5) days after the Director's determination. In
the event of such request by the applicant, it shall constitute an
admission that the proposed project may have a significant effect
on the environment.
(A) Negative Declaration (Filed with County
Clerk) In the event that it is determined that the proposed project
will not have a significant effect on the environment, a negative
declaration shall be prepared in accord with the provisions of -
Section 15083 of the California Administrative Code, which declaration
shall include, inter alia, a brief description of the project, its
location and the name of the project .. proponent, a finding that the
project will not have a significant effect on the environment having
attached thereto a copy of the initial study documenting the reasons
to support such finding, and mitigation measures, if any, included
in the project to avoid potentially significant effects. Such
negative declaration shall be substantially in accord with the Form
EIA -4 attached hereto. The Director shall prepare a draft of the
proposed negative declaration, and the same shall be adopted by the
decision - making body at or prior to time of acting on the project.
Notice of the preparation of the draft negative declaration shall
be provided to the public at least ten (10) days prior to final
adoption of such declaration by the decision making body, and said
notice shall be as follows: If an action on the proposed project
already requires one or more of the types of notices as set forth
in California Administrative Code Section 15083(d), then the notice
on the hearing on the project shall also include a notice that the
negative declaration shall also be heard at that time; in the event
there are no notice procedures for a hearing on the project in chief,
than notice may be given in any one of the methods as provided by
the above- captioned Code section, at least ten (10) days prior to the
(E) Where a project is revised in response
to an initial study so that potential adverse effects are mitigated
to a point where no significant environmental effects would occur,
a negative declaration shall be prepared instead of an EIR. In
this event, the negative declaration shall be completed and adopted
within not more than 105 days from the date of acceptance of the
application as complete.
(6) Consultation
(A) As soon as the Director has determined
that a project is not exempt and that an initial study will be
required to determine whether a negative declaration or an EIR is
Requirement to consult
required, the Director shall consult with all responsible agencies
trustee agencies in
and trustee agencies in compliance with Administrative Code Section
- -
15066(b), responsible agencies being all public agencies other than
1981 version of Section
the City which have discretionary approval power over the project and
15066(b) California
trustee agencies being all state agencies having jurisdiction by
Administrative Code,
law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in
trust for the people of the State of California.
(B)i'- Before completing a negative declara-
Lion (Form EIA -4), the Director shall consult with all responsible
agencies pursuant to Administrative Code Section 15066. This
consultation may take place during the public review period.
(C) Immediately after determining that an
Allowed by Section
EIR is required for a project, the Director shall send to each
responsible agency by certified mail (.or any other method of trans -
15066 (c) (4) California
mittal which provides a record that the notice was received) a Notice
Administrative Code.
of Preparation (Form EIA -5) stating that an EIR will be prepared.
This notice shall also be sent to every federal agency involved in
approving or funding the project. The Notice of Preparation shall
provide sufficient information on the project to enable the respon-
sible agencies to identify their concerns.
(7) Legal Notices Required
(A) Negative Declaration (Filed with County
Clerk) In the event that it is determined that the proposed project
will not have a significant effect on the environment, a negative
declaration shall be prepared in accord with the provisions of -
Section 15083 of the California Administrative Code, which declaration
shall include, inter alia, a brief description of the project, its
location and the name of the project .. proponent, a finding that the
project will not have a significant effect on the environment having
attached thereto a copy of the initial study documenting the reasons
to support such finding, and mitigation measures, if any, included
in the project to avoid potentially significant effects. Such
negative declaration shall be substantially in accord with the Form
EIA -4 attached hereto. The Director shall prepare a draft of the
proposed negative declaration, and the same shall be adopted by the
decision - making body at or prior to time of acting on the project.
Notice of the preparation of the draft negative declaration shall
be provided to the public at least ten (10) days prior to final
adoption of such declaration by the decision making body, and said
notice shall be as follows: If an action on the proposed project
already requires one or more of the types of notices as set forth
in California Administrative Code Section 15083(d), then the notice
on the hearing on the project shall also include a notice that the
negative declaration shall also be heard at that time; in the event
there are no notice procedures for a hearing on the project in chief,
than notice may be given in any one of the methods as provided by
the above- captioned Code section, at least ten (10) days prior to the
(c) The draft EIR shall not be
accepted by the City for general circulation
and review until the Director undertakes
a preliminary review of the draft's
acceptability relative to the given project
and its consistency with State guidelines
relative to California Administrative Code
Section 15150. This review period shall be
no greater than ten (10) days.
date'of the action on the negative declaration and the project.
Once the negative declaration has been adopted by the decision -
making body, in the event that it then or thereafter makes a decision
to, carry out or approve the project, a copy of the negative declara-
tion shall be attached to the notice of determination and filed with
the Santa Clara County Clerk.
(B) Notice of Completion (Filed with State).
Where an EIR is required, at such time as the draft of such EIR is
completed, the Director shall cause a Notice of Completion (Form
EIA -6) thereof to be filed with the-Secretary of the Resources
Required by Section
Agency of the State of California, such filing to be at least ten (10)
15085 (c) California
days prior to.action on the final EIR and action on the application
in question. This notice shall contain the information required by
Administrative Code
Administrative Code Section 15085(c).
(C) Notice of Determination (Filed with
County Clerk). Wherever a discretionary project is neither excluded
nor exempt, and the Director has either issued a negative declaration
or has required an EIR, then upon final action of the particular
project by the decision - making body approving or conditionally
Clean u of language
approving the project, the Director shall within five (5) days after
such final action cause a notice of such determination to be filed
with the County Clerk of Santa Clara County, which notice (Form
EIA -7) shall include (a) the decision of the decision - making body
agency to approve or disapprove the project-, and (b) the determination and
(c) whether a final EIR has been prepared pursuant to the provisions
Required by Section
,of the Environmental Quality Act, including therein such findings as
may be required by law and (d) the information required by
15083(f) and 15085(h)
Administrative Code Sections 15083(f) or 15085(h).
of the California
Administrative Code
(8) . Preparation and Adoption of EIR
(A) If the Director has found upon
initial study that an EIR is required for the project, he shall
cause the same to be prepared in accord with the Administrative Code
Section 15085 and in accord with the following:
(a) The applicant will be required
to submit a draft EIR containing all the
information specified in Administrative Code
Sections 15140 - 15145;
(b) The City shall utilize an
..independent party (consultant) to prepare '
the draft on the project; and the.cost of
the service of the independent party
(consultant) shall be borne by the appli-
cant. The independent party (consultant)
shall be chosen by the City from a select
list of professional consultants, which
select list shall be prepared by the
Director and forwarded annually to the City
Council for certification. Neither the
consultant as selected nor any of his or
its officers, agents, employees or sub-
contracting consultants shall have been
engaged or employed by the applicant or any
of the applicant's owned or controlled
affiliates within the 12 -month period
immediately preceeding the submission by
applicant of the draft EIR to the City.
(c) The draft EIR shall not be
accepted by the City for general circulation
and review until the Director undertakes
a preliminary review of the draft's
acceptability relative to the given project
and its consistency with State guidelines
relative to California Administrative Code
Section 15150. This review period shall be
no greater than ten (10) days.
i
4
t`
Reflects new fee approved by Council.
Previous fee $200.
Section 15161.5(d) requires 45 days for
review by State agencies
(d) Upon acceptance of such draft
the Director shall, after filing the notice
of completion with the Secretary of the
Resources Agency, send copies of said
draft out for review to those public agencies
having jurisdiction with respect to the
project, for their analysis, comment and
reports. Where project is deemed to be of
statewide, regional or areawide significance,
distribution of said draft shall be in
accord with Administrative Code Section
15161.5 and 15161.6. Said distribution shall
also be to the same agencies as required to
review and report on the tentative subdivision
maps pursuant to Section 12.5 -1 of Ordinance
Series No. 60 of this City, but not limited
to those agencies. In addition, the
Director may, but needs not, submit the draft
EIR to one or more independent consultants
for analysis as to accuracy and objectivity.
In the event of such independent referral,
the applicant shall be required to pay the
reasonable costs and expenses of the same,
but not to exceed the sum of $500.00. Public
notice of the completion of thee drat EIR
shall be given as provided by California
Administrative Code Section 15085 (d)(2) at
least thirty (30) days prior to presentation
of any proposed final EIR to the decision-
making body for action thereon.
(e) Upon the expiration of fortv -five
(45) days after the date of dissemination
and referral of copies of said draft EIR to
such public agencies, the Director shall
assimilate the comments and reports as have
been received by him from such agencies as
of that time, together with any and all
other comments from members of the public,
and shall present the same together with
the draft EIR to the decision - making body
for action thereon, which presentation may
be made in the same manner as received by
the Director, or may be in the form of a
proposed final EIR. In the event the
application is for a project approval which
requires either a public hearing or a hearing
open to the public, the Director shall set
the hearing on the proposed final EIR at the
same time and place as such hearing; other-
wise, the hearing on the proposed final EIR
shall be set on such date as the application
has its initial or subsequent hearing by the
decision - making body or agency.
(B) Where an EIR is required, the decision -
making body shall certify the final EIR prior to any final approval
of the application for the project in question, and in acting on such
application, shall review and consider said EIR.
(9) Timely Compliance
(A) When the City acting as a Lead Agency,
pursuant to California Administrative Code Section 15065, for a
project it will grant a lease, license, permit, certificate, or other
entitlement for use, the decision making body shall complete and
certify an EIR in not more than one year or complete and adopt a
negative declaration in not more than 105 days.
Reflects new fee approved by Council.
Previous fee $200.
Section 15161.5(d) requires 45 days for
review by State agencies
(d) Upon acceptance of such draft
the Director shall, after filing the notice
of completion with the Secretary of the
Resources Agency, send copies of said
draft out for review to those public agencies
having jurisdiction with respect to the
project, for their analysis, comment and
reports. Where project is deemed to be of
statewide, regional or areawide significance,
distribution of said draft shall be in
accord with Administrative Code Section
15161.5 and 15161.6. Said distribution shall
also be to the same agencies as required to
review and report on the tentative subdivision
maps pursuant to Section 12.5 -1 of Ordinance
Series No. 60 of this City, but not limited
to those agencies. In addition, the
Director may, but needs not, submit the draft
EIR to one or more independent consultants
for analysis as to accuracy and objectivity.
In the event of such independent referral,
the applicant shall be required to pay the
reasonable costs and expenses of the same,
but not to exceed the sum of $500.00. Public
notice of the completion of thee drat EIR
shall be given as provided by California
Administrative Code Section 15085 (d)(2) at
least thirty (30) days prior to presentation
of any proposed final EIR to the decision-
making body for action thereon.
(e) Upon the expiration of fortv -five
(45) days after the date of dissemination
and referral of copies of said draft EIR to
such public agencies, the Director shall
assimilate the comments and reports as have
been received by him from such agencies as
of that time, together with any and all
other comments from members of the public,
and shall present the same together with
the draft EIR to the decision - making body
for action thereon, which presentation may
be made in the same manner as received by
the Director, or may be in the form of a
proposed final EIR. In the event the
application is for a project approval which
requires either a public hearing or a hearing
open to the public, the Director shall set
the hearing on the proposed final EIR at the
same time and place as such hearing; other-
wise, the hearing on the proposed final EIR
shall be set on such date as the application
has its initial or subsequent hearing by the
decision - making body or agency.
(B) Where an EIR is required, the decision -
making body shall certify the final EIR prior to any final approval
of the application for the project in question, and in acting on such
application, shall review and consider said EIR.
(9) Timely Compliance
(A) When the City acting as a Lead Agency,
pursuant to California Administrative Code Section 15065, for a
project it will grant a lease, license, permit, certificate, or other
entitlement for use, the decision making body shall complete and
certify an EIR in not more than one year or complete and adopt a
negative declaration in not more than 105 days.
Required by
15165.5(b)
California
Code
(a) The time limits shall be measured from
the date on which an application requesting
approval for the project is received and accepted
as complete by the Director.
(b) The time periods specified in this
section may be extended for a reasonable period
of time in the event compelling circumstances
justify. additional time and the project applicant
consents to such extension.
(10) Appeal and Review
(A) Negative Declaration Review At the time of
hearing on a proposed negative declaration, the decision making body,
either on the motion of the applicant or upon its motion, shall have
the right to refuse to approve the negative declaration for the
proposed project, and shall require an environmental impact report
if it should find that the project may have a significant effect on
the environment. In such event it shall direct the preparation of
a draft EIR and the following of such other procedures as are herein -
above set forth for the preparation and adoption of an EIR.
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
(B) Appeal Procedures In mast instances of private
projects (e.g., rezoning, subdivision and site approval, conditional use permits,
-zoning, variances, etc.) the decision making body will be the
advisory agency of the City of Saratoga, and there is already
available an appeal procedur from the decision of the advisory
agency. Whenever a negative declaration has been adopted, or an
EIR has been adopted, by the decision - making body, and there is a
regular appeal procedure on such decision to either the Planning
Commission, or the City Council, such right of appeal shall include
a review of the action of the decision - making body approving the
negative declaration or certifying the EIR, or from. any failure to
approve or certify after the same has been required, such appeal to
be at the same time as, and in accord with the same procedure as set
forth for the appeal to, or review by, the decision making body's
Section
action on the project in question. If appropriate, findings under
of the
Administrative Code Section 15080 and 15089 shall be made by the
Administrative
decision making body hearing the appeal.
In the event there is no appeal procedure
from the particular action of the decision - making body on the pro-
ject in question and the decision making body is not the City Council,
then in that event there shall be an appeal to the City Council from
the action of the advisory agency in approving or disapproving a
negative declaration, or certifying or failing to certify an EIR,
in the same manner and following the same procedures as on appeal
from a Planning Commission decision on the granting or denial of a
conditional use permit.
Whenever a right of appeal is given as
hereinabove set forth, it shall be an administrative prerequisite
that such appeal rights be exhausted prior to the institution of
any action or proceeding referred to Public Resource Code Sections
21167 or 21168.
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 1982 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
uka
k1
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE:10 /3/80
COUNCIL MEETING:10 /7/80
SUBJECT' City of Saratoga Procedures for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to review the requirements of CEQA and
the procedures by which the City implements these requirements. The
public frequently has questions concerning the environmental process
and it is important that all decision - makers as well as staff, under-
stand the purpose and complexities of the law. Staff is also consi-
dering making some modifications to our procedures and would like to
discuss these with you.
BACKGROUND
The City has been diligent in its efforts to observe the requirements
of CEQA since its enactment in 1970, and particulary since its appli-
cation to private, as well as public, projects in 1972.
Within the past few months, the State Resources Agency amended the
state guidelines for environmental impact reports (EIRs). The Planning
Department, in conjunction with the City Attorney, is in the process
of updating our City resolution which sets forth our local procedures
for implementing the state guidelines. It is important that our local
procedures reflect the amendments and also that they heed recent court
decisions interpreting the intent of CEQA.
BODY OF REPORT
Purposes of CEQA: "The basic purposes of CEQA are to:
(1) Inform governmental decision - makers and the public about
the potential, siqnificant environmental effects of pro-
posed activities.
(2) Identiify_ways_ that environmental damage can be avoided
or significantly reduced.
•
Mayor and Council
-2-
0
10/3/80
(3) Prevent significant. avoidable amage _ to the environment
by requiring changes in projects through the use of al-
ternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental
agency finds the changes to be feasible.
(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a_ governmental
agency approved the project in the manner the agency
chose." (Sec. 15006,-State EIR Guidelines)
CEQA applies to all discretionary projects, i.e., projects which re-
quire the exercise of judgement, deliberation or decision on the part
of the public agency. Such projects include, but are not limited to,
private developments, public works construction, clearing or grading
of land, enactment and.amendment of zoning ordinances and general plan
elements, and the issuance of use permits and variances. (The EIR
guidelines [Article 83,d6 identify certain classes of projects as
"categorically exempt" from CEQA requirements, making a prior deter-
mination that these specific projects do not have a significant effect
on the environment).
Local Procedures: To acquaint you with our local procedures, we have
attached our procedures list. (See At A). CEQA mandates
specific documents and a precise time schedule. In the administration
of the process outlined here, the City is the Lead Agency; other
public agencies which have discretionary approval power over the pro-
ject are Responsible Agencies.
The Initial Study is a critical document in the CEQA process. Again
quoting from the State EIR Guidelines,
"The purposes of an Initial Study are to:
(1) Identify environmental impacts;
(2) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project,
mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is written;
(3) Focus an EIR, if one is required, on potentially sig-
nificant environmental effects;
(4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design
of a project;
(5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the
finding in a Negative Declaration that a.project will
not have a significant effect on the environment;
(6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs." (Sec. 15080(b)).
Mayor and Council
Further,
-3-
10/3/80
"(1) The Initial Study shall be used to provide a written
determination of whether a Negative Declaration or an
EIR shall be prepared for a project.
(2) Where a project is revised in response to an Initial
Study.so that potential adverse effects are mitigated
to a point where no significant environmental effects
would occur, a Negative Declaration shall be prepared
instead of an EIR. If the project would still result
in one or more significant effects on the environment
after mitigation measures are added to the project,
an EIR shall be prepared.
(3) The EIR shall emphasize study of the impacts determined
to be significant and can omit further examiniation of
those impacts found to be clearly insignificant in the
Initial Study." (Sec. 15080(d)).
"If any aspects of the project, either individually or cumu-
latively, may cause a significant effect on the environment,
regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is
adverse or beneficial, then an EIR must be prepared. All
phases of project planning, implementation, and operation
must be considered in the Initial Study of the project."
(Sec. 15080 (a)) .
"Determining Significant Effect. (a) The determination-of-
whether a project may have a significant effect on the envi-
ronment calls for careful judgement on the part of the public
agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific
and factual data. An iron clad definition of significant
effect is not possible because the significance of an activity
may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may
not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a
rural area. There may be a difference of opinion on whether
a particular effect should be considered adverse or beneficial,
but where there is, or is anticipated to be, a substantial body
of opinion that considers or will consider the effect to be
adverse, the Lead Agency should prepare an EIR to explore the
environmental effects involved.
(.b) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect
of a project, the Lead Agency.shall consider both primary or
direct and secondary or indirect consequences. Primary con-
sequences are immediately related to the project, while sec-
ondary consequences are related more to primary consequences
than to the project itself.
(c) Some examples of consequences which may be deemed to be a
significant effect on the environment are contained in Appendix
G." (Sec. 15081) .
Mayor and Council
-4-
e
10/3/80
Appendix G referred to above appears as Attachment B to this report..
Improving the Process: A frequent criticism of CEQA is the time and
redtape involved in the process. The recent amendments to the guide-
lines seek to deal with this: see Attachment C for recommendation.
i
Our Planning Department philosophy is receptive to these amendments.
We have been .using focused EIRs and mitigated negative Declarations
whenever appropriate. Further, we are seeking ways to solicit input
from all interested and /or affected agencies, citizens, and special
interest groups at the Initial Study phase of the environmental
assessment process.
The Responsibility of the Planning Commission and City-Council: The
guidelines state:
"Findings. (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out
a project for which an environmental impact report has been
completed which identifies one or more significant effects
of the project unless the public agency-makes one or rr.cre of
the following written findings for each of those significant
effects, accompanied by a statement of the facts supporting
each finding.
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the signi-
ficant environmental effects thereof as identified in the
final EIR.
(2) Such changes.or alterations are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency .
making the finding. Such changes.have been adoped by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic,.social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by Subsection (a) shall be supported
by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in Subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the
agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with
another agency to deal with identified mitigation measures or
alternatives." ASec. 15088).
The new amendments add:
"(d) A public agency shall:not approve or carry out a project
as proposed unless the significant environmental effects have
been reduced to an acceptable level.
•
Mayor and Council
M•7c
10/3/80
(e) As used in this Section, the term "acc.eptable level"
means that:
(1) All significant environmental effects that can
feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substan-
t ally lessened as determined through.fiinndings as
described in.Subsection .(a), and
(2) Any remaining, unavoidable significant effects
have been found-acceptable under Section 15089."
The referenced Section 15089 reads:
"15089. Statement of Overriding Considerations.. (a).
CEQA requires the decision -maker to balance the benefits
of a proposed project against its unavoidable environ-
mental risks in determining whether to approve the project."
(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the
occurrence of significant effects which are identified in
the final EIR but are not mitigated, the'agency must state
in writing the reasons to support its action based on the
final EIR and /or other information in.the record. This
statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a
finding. under Section 15088 (a) (2) or (a) (3) ."
The Use of Consultants: Current City procedure is to maintain a list
of environmental consulting firms which is certified by the City
Council. This list is compiled after careful consideration by the
Planning Director and other City personnel who are involved in the
land development and planning processes. When it is determined that
a project warrants preparation of an EIR, proposals are solicited.
from the firms on the certified list. However, our experience in
recent years has been that no more than three or four EIRs are pre-
pared annually, and in the case of 1979 -801 only one. We do foresee
the preparation of an EIR'on the Special Plan for the Measure A area
within the next six months.
• •
Mayor and Council Page 6 October 3, 1980
As demonstrated in the earlier sections of this report, the emphasis in
CEQA is turning to greater use of the documents which precede the full -
blown EIR. City planning staff currently prepares an average of 50 to 75
Initial Studies a year and also oversees the preparation of such documents
in the Public Works Department for their projects. With the increased im-
portance of these studies has come a concomitant demand on staff time.
Several public agencies are beginning to utilize consultants to prepare their
Initial Studies and Negative Declarations.
Attachments A, B, C
Submi tr ed by
' icci Ru in 6 &-1 -4
Associate Planner
�rAL Inn Acr ;,- ass�n_N,rr PROg-BUIu10
IIM5L-l�x�li`C�:lTiu2(`17 \r STEM
EIA Document Procedures Time
(All forms filleUToi.l _b_y_Tlanning Depart-
ment Staff carless noted otherwise.)
EIA -la
Filled out by applicant and submitted to
Applicant determines.
Envirormiental
Planning Depar uient, along with $50 fil-
Impact Question-
ing fee and specific application., File
naire
questionnaire with application.'', --
EIA-lb
This constitutes the Initial Study, in
After submittal of EIA -la
Criteria for Deter-
conjunction, with EIA -la. Filed with
by applicant.
mining Significant
EIA -la and application.
Environmental
Impacts
Consult informally with all Responsible
During preparation of
Agencies (i.e. all other public agencies
EIA -lb; prior to EIA -3.
involved in carrying out or approving
project). Include input in Initial Study.
EIA -2
Mail to applicant and place copy in
Within 30 days after sub -
Application
Department file. If application not
mittal of application:
Acceptance
accepted as complete, assist applicant
by specifying what is required.
ELA -3
Mail cop), to applicant and place original
Within 30 days after
EIR Evaluation
in Department file. (Staple into left
acceptance of application.
side of each new application file.)
(Notice -of
Exempfion)
This notice is permissive, not manda-
tory. If
Qptional, at time of EIA -3.
a court challenge is antici-
pated, file notice with County Clerk.
EIA -4
Attach copy of EIA -la -b (Initial Study)
Public noticing required
Negative
to EIA -4,
at least 10 days prior to
Declaration
Planning Commission Meeting.
See instructions for EIA -7 for subsequent
Planning Comission must
filing of Negative Declaration.
adopt Negative Declaration
in not more than 105 days
from date of EIA -2
(Acceptance of Application).
EIA -5
Immediately after determining that EIR
At time of EIA -3, or earlier,
Notice of
is required, send EIA -5 to each Responsi-
if it is certain an EIR is
Preparation
ble Agency by certified mail.
warranted.
Responses due from Respon-
sible Agencies within 45
days.
Begin work on Draft EIR; secure
Concurrent
applicant deposit, prepare RFPs,
contract with consultant, etc.
City Staff review of preliminary Draft
Within 10 days of receipt
EIR from consultant
of preliminary DEIR
Distribute copies of Draft EIR for
Public noticing required
review by Responsible Agencies, other
at least 30 days prior to
public agencies, and public.
Planning Commission meeting.
EIA -6
When an EIR is required. As soon as
At time of distribution of
Notice of
Draft EIR is completed and distributed
Draft EIR" least 10 days
Completion
for review, file EIA -6 with State
prior to Planning Commis -
Resources Agency, for publication
sign action.
in California EIR Monitor. Place copy
in Department file.
t
Certification of Final EIR by decision
Final EIR must be certified
making body (Planning Commission or
and project approved of
City Council depending on nature of
disapproved within 1 year
project.)
from date of acceptance
of application as complete.
EIA-7
If either a Negative Declaration has been
issued,
Withirl 5 days arts go
�y �ecision
Notice of
or an cIR prepared, then EIA -7
ject is approved
Determination
st be filedithhc €o�ru�� Clerk,
Race copy ill
making bony.
617S
e1) !ten i
Distribute Final EIR to Responsible Agencies.
1
APPENDIX G
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if
it will:
(a) Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community
where it is located;
(b) Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect;
(c) Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of-animal or plant
or the habitat of the species;
(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species;
(e) Breach published national, state, or local standards relating to solid
waste or litter control;
(f) Substantially degrade water quality;
(g) Contaminate a public water supply;
(h) Substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources;
(i) Interfere substantially with ground water recharge;
(j) Disrupt or alter an archaeological site over 200 years old, an his -
toric,site or a paleontological site except as part of a scientific
study of the site; !'
(k) Induce substantial growth or concentration'of population;
(1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system;
(m) Displace a large number of people;
(n) Encourage activities which result,in the use of large amounts of fuel,
water, or energy;
(o) Use fuel, water or energy in a wasteful manner;
(p) Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining.areas;
(q) Cause substantial flooding, eros -ion or siltation;
(r) Expose people or structures to major geological hazards;
(s) Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development;
(t) Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants;
(u) Disrupt or divide the'physical arrangement of an established com-
munity;
(v) Create a public health hazard or a potential public health hazard;
(w) Conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or
scientific uses of the area;
(x) Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially.to
an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
6hf �.
3. Section 15016 is added to read:
15016. REDUCING DELAY AND PAPERWORK. Public agencies should reduce delay
a .... ........_. and paperwork by:
(a) Integrating the CEQA process into early planning. (15013)
(b) Ensuring the swift and fair resolution of lead agency disputes.
(15065.5)
(c) Identifying projects which'fit within categorical exemptions and are
therefore exempt from CEQA processing. (15100.4)
(d) Using initial studies to identify significant environmental issues
and to narrow the scope of EIRs. (15080)
(e) Using a negative declaration when a project not otherwise exempt will
not have a significant effect on the environment. (15083)
(f) Consulting with state and local responsible agencies before and
during preparation of an environmental impact, report so that the document will
meet the needs of all the agencies which will use it. (15066)
(g) Allowing applicants to revise projects to eliminate possible
significant effects on the environment, thereby enabling the project to
qualify for a negative declaration rather than an environmental impact
report. (15080(d)(2)).
(h) Integrating CEQA requirements with other environmental review and
consultation requirements. (Public Resources Code Section 21080.5)
(i) Eliminating duplication with federal procedures by providing for
joint preparation of environmental documents with federal agencies and by
adopting completed federal NEPA documents. (15063)
(J) Emphasizing consultation before an environmental impact report is
acs« rrn��- a�ausrs�u;: >, utryu prepared, rather than submitting adversary comments on a completed document.
(15066)
(k) Combining environmental documents with other documents such as
general plans. (15148)
(1) Eliminating repetitive discussions of the same issues by using
environmental impact reports on programs, policies, or plans and tiering fro
statement of broad scope to those of narrower scope. (15066.5)
(m) Reducing the length of environmental impact reports by means such as
setting appropriate page limits. (15140.5)
(n) Preparing analytic rather than encyclopedic environmental impact
reports (15140)
(o) Mentioning only briefly issues other than significant ones in EIRs.
/ (15143.5)
(_p) Writing environmental impact reports in plain language. (15140)
Following a clear format for environmental impact reports. (15140)
- ..:ar..�i�.;r:;:- •,- 'cyz..� i:.:C d.!._ tcL ';ii<� ":;cYf:�si.'vi:•��;�.�iu
(r) Emphasizing the portions of the environmental impact report that are
useful to decisionmakers and the public and reducing emphasis on background
material. (15140(e))
(s) Using incorporation by reference. (15149)
(t) Making comments on environmental impact reports as specific as
possible. (15085.5(d))
.,e.f..r. y t vr.., ,? ru c ,�e �.�+.:x•�r w -, .r ,y u a�,�' � r ,,..+
a..� ,j.•.o. � ...rc( ;.T, 1K; ,sy t.�}:A i w :+•tt e 4�i, � a,y... kin
C
C
in I`', t ^Y rf c, - r�s""° t+c,.,.Z.f' P�-`w .m'i... fr *o- Y;-•.a .,:;.�
C. .. .
3. Section 15016 is added to read:
15016.. REDUCING DELAY AND PAPERWORK. Public agencies should reduce delay C
and paperwork by:
(a) Integrating the CEQA process into early planning. (15013)
(b) Ensuring the swift and fair resolution of lead agency disputes.
(15065.5)
(c) Identifying projects which fit within categorical exemptions and are
therefore exempt from CEQA processing. (15100.4)
(d) Using initial studies to identify significant environmental issues
and to narrow the scope of EIRs. (15080)
(e) Using a negative declaration when a project not otherwise exempt will
not have a significant effect on the environment. (15083)
(f) Consulting with state and local responsible agencies before and
during preparation of an environmental impact report so that the document will
meet the needs of all the agencies which,-will use it. (15066)
(-g) Allowing applicants to revise projects to eliminate possible
significant effects on the environment, thereby enabling the project to
qualify for a negative declaration rather than an environmental impact
report. (15080(d)(2)).
(h) Integratinf CEQA requirements with other environmental review and
consultation requirements. (Public Resources Code Section 21080.5)
(i) Eliminating duplication with federal procedures by providing for
joint preparation of environmental documents with federal agencies and by
adopting completed federal NEPA documents. (15063)
Emphasizing consultation before an environmental impact report is
prepared, rather than submitting adversary comments on a completed document.
(15066)
(k) Combining environmental documents with other documents such as
general plans. (15148)
(1) Eliminating repetitive d1scussion3 of the same issues by using
environmental impact reports on programs, policies, or plans and tiering from
statement of broad scope to those of narrower scope. (15066.5)
(m) Reducing the length of environmental impact reports by means such as
setting appropriate page limits. (15140.5)
(n) Preparing analytic rather than encyclopedic environmental impact
reports-(15140)
(o) Mentioning only briefly issues other than significant ones in EIRs.
(15143.5)
Writing environmental impact reports in plain language. (15140)
Following a clear format for environmental impact reports. (15140)
(r) Emphasizing the portions of the environmental impact report that are
useful to decisionmakers and the public and reducing emphasis on background
material. (15140(e))
(s) Using incorporation by reference. (15149)
(t) Making comments on environmental impact reports as specific as
possible. (15085.5(d))
AGENDA BILL NO. .2 Q v
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE:—July 14, 1982 C. Atty
DEPA r: Planning & Policy Analysis C. Mgr.
SUBJECT. NS -3.52, Amend Zoning Ordinance to Allow Private Profit Making
Schools as Conditional Uses in A, R -1, R -M and P -A Districts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary
1. Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending adoption of the
proposed ordinance amendment at its meeting of June 9, 1982,
2. This amendment was initiated by the Commissfon after a series of use
permit and General Plan hearings that dealt with surplus school sites.
3. Purpose of amendment is to allow more flexible use of surplus school
sites thus making it easier for school districts to maintain properties
in institutional uses.
Recommendation
1. Conduct the required public .hearing and receive public input for first
reading of Ordinance.
2. Make the required findings (E•xhibit D).
3. Approve Negative Declaration.
4. Introduce Ordinance NS -3.52 as proposed.
5. Approve Ordinance NS -3.52 at second reading next meeting,
Fiscal Imraacts
None anticipated
5
Exhibits /Attachmcnts
Exhibit A - Staff report dated 6/3/82
Exhibit B - Planning Commission minutes..dated 6/9/82
Exhibit C - Resolution GF -338
Exhibit D - Findings report for GF -338
Exhibit E - Ordinance NS -3.52
Exhibit F - Current Ordinance text dealing with schools as conditional uses
Exhibit G - Negative Declaration
Council Action
7/21: Clevenger /Fanelli moved to introduce by title only, waiving further reading. Passed 5 -0.
Fanelli /Moyles moved to approve Negative Declaration. Passed 5 -0.
8/4: Callon /Fanelli moved second reading by title only, waiving further reading, and
adoption. Passed 5 -0.
E
r I SE NNE TATNIT.6 I
U1,11 I
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 6/ 3/82
Commission Meeting: 6/ 9/82
SUBJECT GF -338, Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Profit
Making Private Schools as Conditional Uses in A, R -1,
R -ML_
and P -A Districts ------- ------------ ------ - - - - --
------ - - - - -- - -- ---- ---------- - - - - -- -
At its Regular Adjourned meeting of May 18, 1982 the Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance which would allow profit making private schools to occupy
surplus school sites.in R -1 Districts. The Commission also requested
that residents concerned with the nature of the uses to be allowed
on surplus-school sites bring suggestions to the May 26, 1982
meeting. No different suggestions for use were raised at that
meeting. However, the Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association
appears to support continued open space and non -adult educational
use of school sites.
Considering the Commission's direction,
Section 3B.4(a) of the recently adopted
Residential (NHR) District contains the
private profit making schools to operat
surplus school sites. Further; the use
consistency among residential districts
uses allowed.
staff has determined that
Northwest Hillsides
necessary language to allow
as conditional uses on
of this language ensures
in terms of the conditional
Upon review of the Zoning Ordinance it can be seen that the A,
R -M, and-P -A Districts all contain the same language regarding
community facilities as conditional uses as-is found in Section 3.3(a)
of the R -1 Districts. To maintain consistency within the Zoning
Ordinance it is recommended that the language in these sections be
amended as well. The impacts generated'by the conditional uses
listed in Section 3B.4(a) would be roughly similar regardless of
the district they would be located in but would vary based on
specific locations. Modifying the language for each district is
appropriate with use permit controls since specific locations that
may be more adversely impacted can-be more carefully controlled or
the conditional use prohibited.
Currently, Sections 2.3(a) (Agriculture), 3.3(a) (One Family
Residential) and 5.3'(a) (Multi - family Residential) read as follows:
June 3 • •
June 3, 1982
Page 2
"Community facilities and institutions including public
and parochial elementary schools, junior high schools,
high schools and colleges; nursery schools; private non-
profit schools and colleges, not including art, craft,
music or dancing schools or business, professional or
trade schools and colleges; public playgrounds', parks,
community centers, libraries, museums,.art galleries, police
and fire stations and other'-public buildings, structures
and facilities; churches, parsonages, parish houses, monas-
teries, convents and other religious institutions; public
and private charitable institutions, hospitals, sanitariums
or nursing homes for mental or drug addict or liquor addict
cases; private non- commercial.clubs and lodges; golf courses."
Section 6.3(a) (Professional and Administrative Office) reads
exactly the same with -the exception that multi- family dwellings
are listed as a conditional use. Staff is not recommending that
multi - family dwellings be eliminated as a conditional. use in the
P -A District.
The proposed language for Sections 2.3(a), 3.3(a) and 5.3(a)
world be the same as Section 3B.4 of the NHR Ordinance which reads
as follows:
"Community facilities and institutions, including public
and private schools, playgrounds, parks, community centers,
libraries, museums, police and.fire stations, public-buildings
and facilities, religious'or charitable institutions, hos-
pitals and golf courses, provided such facilities and
institutions do not create major traffic or noise impact and
are found to be compatible :•7ith the immediately surrounding
area."
Section 6.3(a) would contain the same language but would retain
multi - family dwellings as a conditional use.
The major charges that would result from adoption of the NHR
language would be:
1. Allowance of profit making private schools including
art, craft, music or dancing schools or business,
professional or trade schools which were previously
prohibited.
2. Allowance of hospitals for mental or drug addict or liquor
addict cases which were previously prohibited.
3. Prohibition of art galleries, private nen commercial
clubs and lodges which were previously allowed.
4. Prohibition of sanitariums and nursing homes which were
previously allowed.
2
338
Ju • •
June 3, 1982
Page 3
(It should be noted that Items 1 and 2 listed above would only
be allowed if they met the conditions of no adverse traffic and
noise impacts and compatibility with the immediately surrounding
area.)
Since a use permit is required prior to operation and specific
findings have to be made in addition to the three standard
findings required under Article 16 of the Zoning Ordinance this
proposed change in language is consistent with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance as listed in Section 1.1 and the purposes
of the A, R -1, R -M and P -A Districts as listed in Sections 2.1,
3.1, 5.1, and 6.1 respectively.
Specific Findings
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will:
1. Foster harmonious, convenient, workable and stable
land uses by preventing adverse impacts and ensuring the
compatibility of uses through the controls of the condi-
tional use permit process.
2. Facilitate the appropriate location of community facilities
and ensure that public and private lands ultimately are
used for the purposes which are'most appropriate and most
beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole by
allowing greater fleXibi.lity in the types of conditional
uses permitted, especially on vacant or surplus school
sites, allowing for controls that will ensure compatibility
with surrounding uses and enhance the City's abilit11 to
preserve and continue the use of an open space resource.
3. Protect residential properties from excessive noise and
traffic by requiring the proposed conditional uses not to
create major traffic and noise impacts.
4. Provide space for community facilities and institutions
which appropriately -may be located in professional and
administrative office districts by allowing such uses
through the use permit process.
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council that the
Zoning Ordinance be amended so that Sections 2.3, 3.3, 5.3, and
6.3 have the same or substantially the same language as Section
3B.4 of the NHR Ordinance recently adopted.
��tLa_e_ (4,&7t�
Michael Flo es
Assistant Planner
3
"
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti (Commis -
sioner Zambetti arrived at 7:38 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioners Crowther and King
Minutes
The following change was made to the minutes of May 26, 1982: On page 3, add
to the first part of the first sentence: "Relative to GPA 82 -1 -C, E1 Quito
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING
COMMISSION
r {M'iYFtW::�= - �.... •. ,....
waive the reading of the minutes of May 26, 1982 and approve as amended. The
MINUTES
motion was carried unanimously. The following changes were made to the minutes
of May 18, 1982: The first
— .•;
DATE:
Wednesday, June 9, 1982 - 7:30 p.m.
(Chair -
man of the School Board of the Moreland School District), Sally Carlson and
........
PLACE:
City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale
Ave., Saratoga, CA
TYPE:
Regular Meeting
District that it would be too difficult at this time to accomplish." On page
2, paragraph 5, it should state that Reasoner reclarified his position .
Commissioner Laden moved,
-----------------------------------------
seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to waive the reading
of the minutes of May 18, 1982 anal
ROUTINE
ORGANIZATION
was not present at the meeting.
"
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti (Commis -
sioner Zambetti arrived at 7:38 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioners Crowther and King
Minutes
The following change was made to the minutes of May 26, 1982: On page 3, add
to the first part of the first sentence: "Relative to GPA 82 -1 -C, E1 Quito
Park School ". Commissioner Laden moved, seconded by Commissioner Monia, to
waive the reading of the minutes of May 26, 1982 and approve as amended. The
motion was carried unanimously. The following changes were made to the minutes
of May 18, 1982: The first
sentence should read: "Commissioner Schaefer dis-
cussed a previous meeting with Glen McNicholas, Bob Reasoner, Art Lund
__
(Chair -
man of the School Board of the Moreland School District), Sally Carlson and
herself, to come up with options for consideration on how the Brookview and
�=
E1 Quito School sites should be used." Add before last sentence of the first
paragraph: "It was decided by the representatives from the Moreland School
District that it would be too difficult at this time to accomplish." On page
2, paragraph 5, it should state that Reasoner reclarified his position .
Commissioner Laden moved,
t
seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to waive the reading
of the minutes of May 18, 1982 anal
approve as amended. The motion was carried,
with Commissioner Monia abstaining since he
was not present at the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. John Pursley, 13889 Upper dill Court, Site modification to allow the con-
_._
struction of a swimming pool on a site of over 10% slope
Commissioner Monia moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, to approve the
above item on the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried unanimously.
.•..'..
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. GF -338 - City of Saratoga, Consideration of Amendment of Sections 2.3(a),
3.3(a), 5.3(a) and 6.3(a) by replacing the language contained in
Section 3 -B.4 - Conditional Uses of the recently adopted NHR
Ordinance (NS- 3.49). This change would allow private schools,
whether they are profit making or not, to operate in A, R -1, R -M
and P -A Districts upon receipt of a Use Permit
F
Staff explained that the Commission had requested them to come back with a
revised Zoning Ordinance that would allow profit making private schools to
operate in vacant or surplus school sites, and, on review of the Zoning
Ordinance, it was determined that not only the R -1 district, but also the
P -A, R -M and A all have similar language in terms of conditional uses.
Therefore, Staff decided to amend all of those other sections to maintain
consistency within the Zoning Ordinance. They added that they also realized
that the language of the recently adopted NHR Ordinance had the language
the Commission desired, and therefore they have recommended that the language
from that ordinance section be used for all of the other residential and P -A
districts.
Discussion followed on the changes that would result from the adoption of
the NHR language. The Deputy City Attorney indicated that the intent of
the NFiR Ordinance was to simplify the language and express community facili-
ties in generalized terms. He added that if it is the Commission's desire
to specifically exclude certain types of uses, that should be articulated
in the ordinance itself.
The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. No one appeared to address the
Commission.
- 1 -
Planning Commission /..
Meeting Minutes 6/9/82 -
GF -338 (cont.)
Page 2
Discussion ensued on the NHR Ordinance and its applicability to other
zoning districts. Commissioner Laden commented that it may be difficult
to have an ordinance that is uniform for all zoning districts. Commis-
sioner Monia agreed and suggested continuing the matter in order to study
the ramifications of having NHR conditional uses in the R -1 district.
Staff suggested that if the only issue at this time is to amend the regu-
lations of the R -1 district, this could be accomplished by removing the
word "non- profit" from the language.
Commissioner Monia moved to recommend Resolution GF -338, amending the
Zoning Ordinance, to the City Council, with the removal of "non- profit"
from the language of Sections 2.3(a), 3.3(a) and 5.3(a). Commissioner
Laden seconded the moti @n, which was carried unanimously. The Deputy
City Attorney indicated that he would prepare the revisions to the ordi-
nance for transmittal to the City Council.
3. A -826 - G. Sinsley, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two -
story dwelling on a hillside lot zoned NHR, Parker Ranch (Parker
Ranch Road and Burnett Drive)
The proposal was described by Staff. They indicated that they did not
feel that the project meets the criteria of the Design Review Ordinance
relative to the appearance of bulk and the amount of grading involved,
and further that it is not in compliance with the Parker Ranch EIR relative
to home placement and building design. They added that they were recom-
mending denial; however, if the Commission wishes to approve the applica-
tion, they would suggest that there be a condition that there be substantial
landscaping. "Discussion followed on the height, and it was clarified that
the height of the house measured to the natural grade is 30 feet.
The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m.
Grover Sinsley, the applicant, spoke to the proposal. He submitted an
alternate drawing showing the revised driveway.
Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Monia moved to approve A -826, making the necessary findings,
with the condition that a landscaping plan be submitted for review and
approval by the Commission, and with Condition No. 2 of the Staff Report
regarding conformance with the Fire Code. Commissioner Laden seconded the
motion. It was noted that this approval also constitutes approval for
modification to the Site Development Plan, per Exhibit "B -2 ". The motion
was carried unanimously.
4. Consideration of Amendments to the 1974 General Plan of the City of Sara-
toga; continued. from June 1, 1982
Staff gave the status of the General Plan Review. They noted that the
next item to be considered would be the Goals and Policies, and it was
determined that there should be a study session on June 15, 1982. Dis-
cussion followed on Area .I, and Staff indicated that no action had been
taken on the specific proposals in that area, nor on the density issue
regarding Area I. It was noted that Staff had been asked to come back
with an overlay format for the Area J.
The Director of Planning and Policy addressed the Commission regarding
the issue of the overlay. He reported that the Heritage Commission dis-
cussed the possibility of looking at the Village as one of the historical
districts and they talked about the possibility of combining that action
with the overlay. He indicated that Staff can begin looking at the various
uses and /or performance standards and the district boundaries, and pre-
sent this to the Commission. It was determined that the first study
session in July would be an appropriate time to consider this.
The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m.
Russell Perry, attorney representing four commercial property owners on
Big Basin Way, referenced the two letters he had submitted advocating that
the present zoning of C -V be retained.
- 2 -
RESOLUTION NO. GF -338
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
WHEREAS, an application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
has been initiated by the Planning Commission -f the City cf Saratoga,
and
WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing on said proposed
amendment, which public hearing was held at the following time and
place to -wit: At the-hour of 7:30 P.M. on the 9th day of June, 1982
City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale'Avenue, Saratoga, California;
and thereafter said hearing was closed, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration of the proposed amendment
as it would affect the zoning regulations and General Plan of the
City of Saratoga, and after review of a Negative Declaration prepared
for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission
has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed
amendment attached hereto and marked NS 3.52 should be affirmatively
recommended to the City Council..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached
hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City
Council of the City of Saratoga.for adoption as part of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City, and that the Report of Findings of this
Commiscion, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marred
Exhibit "B ", be and,the same is hereby.approved, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send
a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed
Amendment and Report of Findings and a summary of hearings held by
this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with
State law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 9th day of June 1982 by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti
NOES: None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther and King
Chairman of the Pl nning Commission
ATTEST:
Sec etar to he Planning Commission
Exkt6A D _
EXHIBIT "B"
Report of Findings - GF -338 (Ord. NS -3.52)
1. The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is required to achieve
the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance prescribed in Section 1.1
of Ordinance NS -3.
2. The amendment would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements iri-the areas affected by the amendment.
3. The amendment would not adversely affect the development of the
City of Saratoga.
4. The amendment will foster harmonious, convenient, workable and
stable land uses by preventing adverse impacts and ensuring the
compatibility of uses through. the controls of the conditional
use permit process.
5. The amendment will facilitate the appropriate location of
community facilities and ensure that public and private lands
ultimately are used for the purposes which.are most appropriate
and most beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole
by allowing greater flexibility in the types of conditional uses
permitted, especially on vacant or surplus school sites, allowing
for controls that will ensure compatibility with surrounding uses,
and enhance the City's ability to preserve and continue the use
of an open space resource.
6. The amendment will provide space for community facilities and
institutions which appropriately may be located in professional
and administrative office districts by allowing such uses through
the use permit process.
ORDINANCE NS -3.52
Exkik E
.a.� -.-.,N ..tea -n-;- _,.._
- '. ,, - . i'•-^ _ —
--AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING - --
_--�
_ORDINANCE NS =3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING_
OA�TtOF�T PfI1KIN HOO1~b HLV�I ON ESN -
" "
THE A, R -1, R -M and P -A DISTRICTS --
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain
as follows:
Section 1: Subsections 2.3(a) (Conditional Uses in A
-
Uses in 1 istricts), and
Districts)* 3 . R- D.
, 3. (a) (Conditional
- --
,
- - -'• - ,- 5 - _(Conditional Uses - in-_R= M--Districts) are hheereb__
- _ .
"Community facilities and institutions including public
and parochial elementary schools, junior high schools,
high schools and colleges; nursery schools; private
schools and colleges; public playgrounds, parks, community
centers, libraries, museums, art galleries, police and
fire stations and other public buildings, structures and
facilities; churches, parsonages, parish houses, monasteries,
convents and other religious institutions; public and
private charitable institut ,ions;..hospitals,.sanitariums
or and nursing homes, not including hospitals, sanitariums,
or nursing homes for mental or drug addict or liquor
addict cases; private non - commercial clubs and lodges;
golf courses."
Section 2: Subsection 6''3(a) (Conditional Uses in P -A
Districts) is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Community facilities and institutions, including public
and parochial elementary schools, junior high schools,
high schools and colleges; nursery schools; private
schools and colleges; public playgrounds, parks, community
centers, libraries, museums, art galleries, police and
fire stations and other public buildings, structures and
facilities; churches, parsonages, parish houses,.monasteries,
convents and other religious institutions; public and
private charitable institutions; hospitals, sanitariums,
er and nursing homes, not including hospitals, sanitariums,
or nursing homes for mental or drug addict or liquor
addict cases; private non - commercial clubs and lodges;
golf courses; multi - family dwellings.
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court
of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, 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, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective
of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
on v_2his`orcii cue-- a e din fiiTl --
force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date - --
of 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
on the day of 1982, by the following
- vote: _
_ AYES: -
-- 1.12 N E - - - -
Vigv
_ 1 -
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
im
M1
MAYOR
Rodentia family (rabbits, hamsters, squirrels, mice,. fl
rats guinea pigs, s, etc.) in reasonable numbers; at all times ~'
g p
on leash or chain or fully confined in a cage or other en-
closure.
,.Birds and fowl, excluding peafowl, turkeys, chickens.,.
ducks, geese, roosters, and any other species capable of
raucous outcry, in reasonable numbers, at all times to be
fully confined in a cage or other enclosure.
Reptiles and fish, excluding any poisonous species
and excluding all species of crocodilians, in reasonable
numbers and at all times to be fully confined in a suitable
enclosure.
The keeping.of any other species of animal, or any of
the above - enumerated permitted animals which.are vicious or
dangerous, or constitute a public health hazard, or the
keeping of any animal which.by sound or outcry shall disturb
the peace and comfort of any neighborhood or interfere with
any person in the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment of
his property, is hereby prohibited and,declared to be.a
public nuisance. .(Ord. NS -3.22 §3, 1969: Ord. - -NS -3.15 §1
(part) , 1968: Ord. NS -3.12 §7 (part) , 1968) .
Section 3.3 Conditional uses. The following co. ndi-
• tional uses shall be permitted upon the granting of a use
permit, in accord with the provisions of Article 16':
(a) Community facilities and institutions including
public and parochial elementary schools, junior high schools,
high schools and colleges; nursery schools; private non -
profit schools and colleges, not including art, craft,
music or dancing schools or- business, professional or trade
schools and colleges; public playgrounds, parks, community
centers, libraries, museums, art galleries, police and fire _
stations and other public buildings, structures and facili-
ties; churches, parsonages, parish houses, monasteries, con-
vents and other religious institutions; public and private
charitable institutions; hospitals, sanitariums and nursing
homes, not including hospitals, sanitariums or nursing homes
for mental or drug addict or liquor addict cases; private
noncommerical clubs and lodges; golf courses.
(b) Public utility and public service pumping stations,
power stations, drainage ways and structures, storage tanks
and transmission lines found by the City Planning Commission
to be necessary for the public health, safety or welfare.
(c) Repealed by Ord. 3.25 §1.
(d) Accessory structures and uses located on the same
site as a conditional use.
(e) Community stables, as defined in Section 8 -35.2
of the Saratoga City Code, on a site area satisfactory to
• the Planning Commission, subject to the regulations of
24
F:
�sC��DMC D
CL 9go Al C
JUL .2 91982
G� , -- = - - - - - -
�UC-Q .,� ORo /VS 3,52
�-�l tkA
tT
EIA -4 I File No: GF -338
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15080
through 15083 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 terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Amend the Zoning Ordinance (NS -3) of the City of Saratoga to allow
profit making private schools and other uses,as conditional uses in
the A - "Agriculture ",: R -1 - "Single Family Residential ", R -M -
"Multi- family Residential ", and P -A - "Professional- Administrative"
Districts of the City.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
City of- Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The proposed amendment of.the!Zoning Ordinance will not have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment since all uses will be controlled
through the conditioning power of the use permit process and all uses
which could create major traffic or noise impacts are expressly
prohibited in the Ordinance. The Ordinance could make it easier to
preserve existing surplus school sites for educational use.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 3V-a day of \/ d Nr—
R. S. Robinson, Jr.
Planning and Policy Analysis
D RECTOR'S AUTHORIZED, STAFF MEMBER
19