HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-1985 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSCITY or StlitILTOCA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd _
DATE: March 27, 1985 C. Atty.
DEPalF:T.%Qv'T: City Attorney C. Mgr.
Establishment of Site Review Committee and amenc�nent to �3ivision
SUBJECT= Ordinance to.exenpt certain over 50% expansions
Issue SuTmary 'These ordinances (3) originate fr(xn the Code Revision Committee and represent
a further effort to expedite and.simplify the develowtent approval process.
The first ordinance amends Chapter 2 of the City Code to establish the SRC.
and designate the ccnnnittee as the advisor v agency for building site approvals
on single family residences. The second ordinance designates the SRC a% the
approving authority for design review applications oft single..f_aimily residences
which fully ccuply with the square footage standards. The third ordinance
exempts 50g or more expansion of single family residences from building site
approval.if all the conditions set forth in ordinance can be satisfied.
.. Reccm me ?dation . Staff recommends that the proposed ordinances be adopted.
The Planning Ccmunission has formally reccmumended adoption of the amendment to
the Zoning Ordinances. The'Cc�;dssion also informally reviewed the other
ordinances at.its study session and similarly recommends adoption thereof.
Fiscal Imoacts The fiscal impacts are difficult to assess at this tune. A reduction in
staff time on the processing of applications is expected to- occur, with
possible cost savings. However, these savings may be somewhat offset by a
reduction in application fees.
C
E:-1iibits /Attac1-ur__nts (a) Memo. from City ,Attorney to Planning Commission
(b) Proposed ordinances (3)
(c) Resolution-.by Planning Commission recommending adoption
(d)• Negative Declaration -
Council Action
4/3: Introduced all three ordinances 5 -0.
4/17: Adopted Ordinances 38.132, NS 3.67, and NS 60.16, 5 =0.'
FROM: HAROLD S. TOPPEL, City Attorney
RE: Site Review Committee
DATE: March 21, 1985
Submitted herewith are revised ordinances incorporating the changes
discussed during the study session of the Planning Commission on March 19, 1985. The
amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance and Chapter 2 of the City Code will be
acted on by %the City Council and are being furnished to the Commission for
information and comment only. It will be necessary for the Commission to take
formal action with respect to the amendment to the 'Zoning Ordinance designating the
Site Review Committee as the approving authority for certain design review
applications.. The various ordinances now provide as follows:
1. Amendment to. Zoning Ordinance Designating the Site Review.
Committee as Approving Authority for Certain Design Review
Applications
The earlier draft of this ordinance has now been revised to desi;nate both
the Planning Commission and the Site Review Committee as the approving authority
under the design review ordinance. The Planning Commission will have jurisdiction
over all design review applications which are not specifically delegated to' the SRC.
As now revised, the ordinance designates the SRC as the approving authority only with
respect to design review approval of a single family residence which does not exceed
the floor area standard applicable to the site. In addition, the SRC is authorized to
grant setback variances only as part of its design review approval. No reference to
impervious coverage is made in the ordinance because any such coverage in excess of
the standard will require a variance, and the Sk.0 has no authority to grant such
variance. Consequently, a proposal which exceeds i►r►pervious coverage will
automatically go to the Planning Commission.
As in the case of the earlier draft, appeals from any decision or
determination by the SRC will be made directly to the City Council. Section 24 of the
Zoning Ordinance is being amended to accommodate this procedure. As indicated
-1-
ATKINSON • FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
660 TEST O= NA STREET J. rl. ATKINSON. (11392.1982)
PAUL 0. SMITH
L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -19791
ERIC L. FARASYN
P.O. BOX 279
LEONARD J. SIEGAI.
1KOuNT. \I\ ♦•IL•'w, CALIFORNIA 040 -12
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
GREGORY A. MANCHUK
(415) 967 -6941 '
STEVEN G. EJAIRO
ALEXANDER J. TRAFICANTI
MEMORANDUM
TO:
SARA`1'OGA PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: HAROLD S. TOPPEL, City Attorney
RE: Site Review Committee
DATE: March 21, 1985
Submitted herewith are revised ordinances incorporating the changes
discussed during the study session of the Planning Commission on March 19, 1985. The
amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance and Chapter 2 of the City Code will be
acted on by %the City Council and are being furnished to the Commission for
information and comment only. It will be necessary for the Commission to take
formal action with respect to the amendment to the 'Zoning Ordinance designating the
Site Review Committee as the approving authority for certain design review
applications.. The various ordinances now provide as follows:
1. Amendment to. Zoning Ordinance Designating the Site Review.
Committee as Approving Authority for Certain Design Review
Applications
The earlier draft of this ordinance has now been revised to desi;nate both
the Planning Commission and the Site Review Committee as the approving authority
under the design review ordinance. The Planning Commission will have jurisdiction
over all design review applications which are not specifically delegated to' the SRC.
As now revised, the ordinance designates the SRC as the approving authority only with
respect to design review approval of a single family residence which does not exceed
the floor area standard applicable to the site. In addition, the SRC is authorized to
grant setback variances only as part of its design review approval. No reference to
impervious coverage is made in the ordinance because any such coverage in excess of
the standard will require a variance, and the Sk.0 has no authority to grant such
variance. Consequently, a proposal which exceeds i►r►pervious coverage will
automatically go to the Planning Commission.
As in the case of the earlier draft, appeals from any decision or
determination by the SRC will be made directly to the City Council. Section 24 of the
Zoning Ordinance is being amended to accommodate this procedure. As indicated
-1-
during the study session, staff is recommending a direct appeal to the City Council for
the following reasons:
(a) To encourage the finality of decisions by the SIIC and avoid the
appearance of the Committee as being merely an advisory body.
(b) To minimize processing time on design review applications by
avoiding multiple appeals.
(e) To encourage applicants to present their "bottom line" to the SRC
instead of holding concessions in abeyance for later presentation to
the appellate body.
(d) To minimize staff time as well as the time and expense of the
applicants and other interested persons.
2. Ordinance Establishing the Site Review Committee and Designating
Such Committee as the Advisory Agency for Certain Building Site
Approvals
No change has been made in the draft of this ordinance as presented to the
Planning Commission during your study session. Section 1 of the ordinance amends
Chapter 2 of the City Code by adding Article VIII establishing the Site Review
Committee. Although the ordinance specifies that such Committee shall meet on the
second and fourth Wednesday of each month, commencing at 3:00 p.m., the ordinance
allows the Committee to change the day, time or place of its regular meetings by
resolutio_ n._ ._ The will operate according to the same procedural rules as
applied to the Planning Commission. The Committee may also adopt its own rules and
procedures provided the same are not inconsistent with the procedures specified in the
City Code.
Section 2 of the ordinance designates the Site Review Committee as the
advisory agency under the Subdivision Ordinance with respect to building site
approvals for single family residences to be constructed or expanded on a single lot or
parcel, along with the authority to grant extensions or modifications of such approvals.
ferred by the Committee to the Planning Commission
Any such application may be re
whenever the Committee deems such referral to be necessary or appropriate.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the proposed ordinance are basically "clean up"
provisions. Section 2 officially repeals Section 2.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance
relating to the composition of the land development committee. This Section has been
inoperative ever since the time the land development committee was disbanded and its
functions transferred to the Planning Commission. Section 3 of the ordinance amends
Section 15.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance so as to authorize the Site Review
Committee to grant exceptions in the same manner as the Planning Commission
(within the limits of its jurisdiction). Section 5 repeals Section 27 of the Subdivision
Ordinance which relates to an alternative procedure for obtaining building site
approval from the land development committee. This section is currently obsolete and
should have been repealed at the time the land development committee was abolished.
3. Amendment to Section 21 of the Subdivision Ordinance to Exempt
Certain Expansions in Excess of Fifty Percent from the Requirement
of Building Site Approval
As discussed during the study session, Section 21 of the Subdivision
&A
Ordinance has been amended as follows:
(a) Paragraph (c) has been amended to create an additional exemption
from the requirement of building site approval in the case of an
expansion of a single family residence which satisfies all of the
conditions set forth in Paragraphs (1) through (6). Paragraph (2) has
been revised so as to permit an exemption even where a dedication to
the public may be required, but the applicant voluntarily agrees to
make such dedication. The condition that the expansion be subject to
design review approval has been deleted in response to the comment
from Community Development that certain expansions would not
otherwise require design review approval but could be conditioned, if
necessary, in connection with the issuance of a building permit.
(b) Under the existing ordinance, a residence destroyed by fire, act of
God or other calamity is exempted from site approval. This provision
has been modified in Paragraph (e) to exclude a destruction caused by
landslide, earthquake, earth movement, soil instability or flood. In
such cases, building site.approval will be required.
(c) Paragraph (f) of the proposed ordinance adds a further condition to a
lot line adjustment to the effect that no addition of land to another
parcel will be permitted if such addition results in the new parcel
being capable of further subdivision.
The foregoing ordinances are the result of the deliberations by the Code
Revision Committee and staff would recomme approval and referral to the
City'Council for adoption. + /�k/
gh440LD S— TUPY %L r
Saratoga City Attorney
-3-
RESOLUTION NO. C -218 -1
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 13A.3, 13A.9, 17.12, 24.2 AND 24.7 REGARDING
THE POWERS OF THE SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the Planning 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
27th day of March, 1985, at the City Council Chambers, 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration of the proposed
amendment as it would affect the Zoning Regulations in the
General Plan of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of
the staff report, the Commission has made certain findings and is
of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached thereto shall
be formally recommended to the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Saratoga as follows:
1. That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the
same as hereby affirmatively recommended to the City
Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of
the Zoning Ordinance of the.City.
2. That the report of Findings of this Commission, a copy
of which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit
"B ", be and the same as 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 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 27th day of March, 1985, by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger, J. Harris, Peterson and Siegfried
NOES: None
C -218
EXHIBIT ".B"
1. The proposed amendment to the text of the Zoning
Ordinance is required to achieve the objectives of the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as prescribed in
Section 1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance in that:
a.) It will streamline the existing development process
and maintain the City's development standards.
2. The proposed amendment to the text of the Zoning
Ordinance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties
in the City.
EIA -4
Saratoga
U',,
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
File No: C -218
NS -60.16
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 15063 through
15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code,.and.Resolu-
tion 653- of the'City of Saratoga, that the following described project will
have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on th6 environmen
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by designat-
ing the Site Review Committee (SRC) as the reviewing and approving body
for single family residential Design Review (and associated variances) and
modifications to such applications. 2. Amend the text of the Subdivision
-Ordinance by designating the SRC as the.reviewing and approv.ing.body for
single site, single- family residential Tentative Building Site Approval
(TBSA) and exempting certain over 50% expansions from the TBSA process if
necessary urban services are provided.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment
since existing development standards will not change and a new reviewing
body will take over some of the current review and approval functions'of
the Planning Commission in order to streamline the process.
Executed at Saratoga, California this �L day of
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIIJONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF
SARRVOGA. ; \ 111�
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
CITY OF Sr1R1UMN
AGENUN BILL No. �70.Z 1.
DATE. March 28, 1985
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
.DEw -un IIV•T: City Attorney
C. Mgr.
--------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- .
Special event permits for parades, footraces, festivals ancT sinu`Iar`� - -" ' --
SUBJECT: activities involving street use or closure.
Issue SU.ary The proposed ordinance amends Article III in Chapter 13 of the City Code,
entitled, "Parades and Meetings." The Article has been totally revised and now applies to
parades, footraces, festivals and similar events. The procedures, standards and requirements
for issuance of a permit are the same as recommended by the Director of Community Services
in his memo to the Council dated 3/6/85. It should also be noted that our existing Code now
requires a permit to engage in public discourse or debate and such perihit can be denied if
the applicant does not have "a reputation for peace and quiet in the neighborhood in which
he resides.` These provisions have been deleted as being facially unconstitutional.
ReGcm endation Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance.
Fiscal Impacts The existing-Code does not require either a fee or a security deposit for
issuance of a permit. To the extent that such fees are collected, or
security deposits used for clean-up costs incurred by the City, the
Ordinance may result in a minimal increase in revenues. The new OrdinancQ ,
also provides for payment of law enforcement costs.by the permittee. `
E: %hi.bits /Attuctu'r_.n is
(a) Proposed ordinance
(b) Report to.the City Council by Director of Community Services
Council Action
4/3: Introduced-ordinance 5 -0.
4/17: Adopted Ordinance 38.133, 5 -0.
CITY Or SARI\ICX' N
AGE2,TDA BILL M. j q3 Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: March 6, 1985
C. Atty.
DI:PArZnIENT: Community Services
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Permit Procedures for Parades and Footraces
Issue Sunmary
On.January 16, 1985, staff presented Council with an outline for a new
parade permit ordinance; and Council directed staff to make certain
changes and return with the revisions at.a future date. The changes
which were requested are identified in the attached report. In summary,
i they move permit approval authority to'the City Council and increase
filing f*ee charges.
Recomrendation
1.
Approve
staff recommendations
outlined
in report.
2.
Direct
City Attorney's office
to draft
actual ordinance. _
Fiscal Imcacts
An estimated 12 events per year would generate $600 annually.
c.:'.h ihi is /Attachments
Report to Council from Community Services Director.
Ccuncil Action
.3.%:6 -.85: Approved in ' concept 5 -0.
•� 3000 Z
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 3/6/85
COUNCIL MEETING: 3/6/85
SUBJECT: Permit Procedures for Parades and Footraces
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
PURPOSE
Conceptual approval of a permit procedure for parades and
footraces requiring alterations in traffic flow and /or road
closures is requested.
ANALYSIS
In response to Council direction, staff outlined a parade and
footrace permitting procedure for the City of Saratoga on January
16, 1985. In response to Council direction, that procedure has
been modified. The new procedure is outlined below.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Filing of Application for Permit
1. Requests for special event permits will be required 90
days before the proposed scheduled date of the
activity.
2. The Community Services Department will coordinate the
processing of the.permit requests within the City.
*3. The City Council can waive the 90 day processing
requirement if it finds the nature of the activity
would significantly benefit the public interest in the
community, and that such waiver would not in any way
compromise public safety considerations associated with
the event.
Report to Mayor and City Council Page 2
Subject: Permit Procedures for Parades and Footraces
B. Fees and Deposits
*1. A non - refundable $50 filing fee will be required with
each application.
*2. A refundable $250 cleanup deposit will be required.
3. An insurance certificate for $300,000 naming the City
of Saratoga as additionally insured will be required.
4. Permit applicants will be responsible for security at
their events. Security and traffic control expenses
incurred by the City will be billed to the event
sponsors.
C. Approvals /Denials
*1. The City Council must approve all permit applications.
*2. Only the City Council can waive any fee and deposit
requirements associated with parades and footraces.
*3. The decision to either grant or deny approval of a
special event by the City Council shall be final.
D. Intergovernmental Coordination
1. The Community Services Department will be responsible
for coordinating permit requests with the following
other public agencies:
(a) Santa Clara County Sheriff
(b) Saratoga Fire District
(c) County Central Fire District
(d) County Transit Agency
(e) California Highway Patrol
(f) California Department of Transportation
2. Each of the above public agencies will be given twenty
(20) days upon which to comment on a permit application
and will be notified of the final action taken on the
permit request.
E. Legality
1. Each of the above items may be automatically waived
when a special event or parade constitutes an
expression of free speech which is Constitutionally
protected.
*Items changed since last report per direction.
Report to Mayor and City Council Page 3
Subject: Permit Procedures for Parades and Footraces
Changes
Since the outline of the ordinance for parades and footraces was
last presented to the Council, the following changes were made in
response to Council direction:
A -3. The authority to waive the 90 -day permit processing
requirement was changed from the City Manager to the City
Council.
B -1. The non - refundable filing fee was doubled, increasing from
$25 to $50 per application.
B -2. The cleanup deposit was reduced from $500 to $250, a 50%
redution.
C -1. The authority to grant approval for a special event was
changed from the City Manager to the City Council.
C -2. The authority to waive any fee and deposit requirement was
changed from the City Manager to the City Council.
C -3. The above changes made it necessary to delete an
applicant's right to appeal the decision of the, City
Manager to the City Council. The City Council's decision
with regard to any application for a parade permit will be
the first and final action in the matter.
Other Issues
Council requested that staff explore the use of a split fee
schedule for profit and non - profit organizations. Research
revealed that no profit making organization had sponsored any
events for profit making purposes. On the rare occasions when a
profit making organization did sponsor an event, the proceeds
went to benefit a charity, so the event was still public- interest
oriented. Since parades and footraces in Saratoga have not been
held for profit making purposes, staff is not recommending a
split fee schedule at this time. The City's new parade permit
ordinance can be adopted for public interest events, and profit
making endeavors can, be handled on a case by case basis should
they occur (e.g. a road closure for the purposes of shooting a
scene for a movie).
Another issue Council directed staff to explore concerns the cost
to event sponsors for liability insurance coverage. The findings
resulting from the research reveal a lot of variation in
insurance costs. For most event sponsors, however, existing
insurance coverage, which they already carry, allows for special
Report to Mayor and City Council Page 4
Subjet: Permit Procedures for Parades and Footraces
"rider" policies to be issued for little or no additional cost.
For example, the Saratoga Rotary Club pays approximately $250 per
year which covers their art show and any special events they wish
to sponsor. Rider policies for specific events like a parade
naming the City of Saratoga as additionally i insured are issued at
no additional cost.
Groups which have no existing insurance coverage can expect to
pay between $250 and $500 for a special policy which would cover
them for one day. None of the previous sponsors of any parade or
footrace in Saratoga in the past have fallen into this category,
however. Therefore, staff recommends that the liability
insurance coverage required by the City be no less than $300,000
as originally recommended.
CONCLUSION
Once the City Council approves in concept the changes outlined
above, staff will draft the actual ordinance reflecting those
changes for final Council action. Groups which have sponsored a
parade or footrace within the City for the past three years will
also be notified about the adoption of the new permit procedure.
Todd W. Argow