HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-1988 City Council Staff ReportsSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1q y
MEETING DATE: 8 -17 -88
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Dept.
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Award contract for "Slurry Seal, Cape Seal and Chip Seal on
various city streets" to California Maintenance Company Inc.
Recommended Motion:
Award contract for Slurry Seal, Cape Seal Ave Chip Seal on various
city streets to California Maintenance Company, Inc.
Report Summary:
The City received three bids on August 10, 1988 for above project.
The lowest bid for this project was California Maintenance Company,
Inc. located in Sacramento with total bid $246,049.26. This project
is part of the street management program. The engineers estimate
for this work was $289,000.00.
Fiscal Impacts:
$246,049.26 General fund. This project was approved in the 1988 -89
capital budget and is part of street management program.
Attachments:
1. Bid summary
Motion and VntP-
1
City of Saratoga ..Sheat of -
-C6minunity Development Denartnient
- --PROJECT
pAT-Mr Augt,G ul-Ijgg 8 SLURRY SPAT, TT1 CAPE SEAL & CHIT
-+ S U M MA RY-- TY STREETS
�IM�= 2 S 00 P_� B.ID
' SEAT: ON �VA'RT;OiiS T
Description
titY
=841 382
98 495
.29,549
l 389
7,790-50
,000,458
7455
4004
t
S. F.
S.Y.
al
ton
al
S.F.
L.F.
L.E.
it
o•S
i 0e
1 -o
p4
o.
Amount
q9 6Z
5¢ 1"7Z,Z59
ZrJ 549 0
55 S6 0.0
Z of 0-
12 00S -50
2 4�a. 15
20 92
o. 4W
1 .7
o.00
0.63
0•41
Amount
O 10p. 2
3$-905.53
14 626.76
36 114.oa
4 Ge 633.8
gag3.6(,
1733.93
1685.68
it
0.
Aim
m
77 S. o4
t
ount
It
Amoun t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Install Slurry Seal II
Ins't'all Fabric Mat
Install Binder A.-R. 4000
Install 3/8" rocksr seal
2p
CRS -2 mulsion for seal
Power Sweeping
Cente
Paint Double Yellow. lin
o.o
03.57
:63
v-4-s-
u.b
6Z o /.8S
►3 297.05
o 559. OT
o 4D
.0-77
67 -ZD
39 39$.
Z3 34
43 34.0.80
1 • 0
47 •o
0.57
15 ,d4D-
p
.job
0
10 00.4.5 B
4771 •28
1764 -7.6
v Z6
0.63
Z
4 69-6-45
1671.b8
-
9
L
Paint Pavement Markin s
Install T eYgl�bDou Geer
Install 1
19
L.S.
460,.
ea.
S.
ace
each
o•0
S o•
6r o
1 goo-
o . b
b a - o .
I D a - o .
157.64
Z6•
Z
O��D
4- Z . va
51L 6 . as
175
9Son•
3.36
33Z5'.pfl
z qyz•
919 1 •2?o
1511?.. dD
qZ,q
I
g � -,�
oa
.p
600. o-p
�•
o? . av
7o Z-
289 2
X46 ts4q.
60.968•
3oZ 1 3.4'1
-
i
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: 8 -17 -88
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for Tract 7928
and Release of Cash Bond
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
Recommended Motion:
"Grant Construction Acceptance & Release of Cash Bond" for Tract 7928, Miljevich
Drive and Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road.
Report Summary:
The work has been satisfactorily completed. This Construction Acceptance will
begin the one (1) year maintenance period.
Fiscal Impacts:
Unknown.
Attachments:
Memo describing bond.
f
c
Uuuw @2 O&M&MMO&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438 .
TO: City Manager DATE: 8 -4 -88
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for Tract 7928
Name' & Location:- Miljevich Drive & Saratoga /Sunnyvale Rd.
Public Improvements required for Tract 7928, Miljevich Drive'
have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the
City Council accept the improvements for construction only.
This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year. maintenance
period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and
improvement security will remain in full force.
The following information is included for your use:
1. Developer: DON COFFEY
Address: 5131 Moorpark W303
San Jose, Ca. 95.129
2. Improvement Security:
Type: Security Bond and Assignment Certificate
Amount: $8,000.00 &V2,000.00
Issuing Company: Pacific Valley Bank
Address 333 W. Santa Clara Street
xRecpty, xUt0x Certificate No. 30892
3. Special Remarks:
. • Please release $8,000.00 Assignment Certificate.
1-
RSS /dsin Rober S. Shook.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM i
MEETING DATE: August 17, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Modification of zoning standards through subdivision approval and use
permits
Recommended Motion:
Approval of Negative Declaration and introduction of ordinance.
Report Summary:
The original draf t of this ordinance was intened to repeal all sections now
contained in the City Code which authorize the Planning Commission to modify zoning
standards (in the absence of a variance) as part of the granting of building site or
subdivision approval or the granting of a use permit. The original ordinance is
described in the Memorandum from the City Attorney to the Planning Commission
dated April 27, 1988, a copy of which is submitted herewith.
Following a discussion of the proposed ordinance, the Commission agreed to
repeal the authority to modify standards as part of a building site or subdivision
approval, but decided to retain such authority with respect to the granting of use
permits for main and accessory structures. The Commission felt that such authority
provided needed flexibility in dealing with use permit applications.
As now revised, the ordinance amends Section 14- 35.010 of the Subdivision
regulations so as to require a variance if a building site or subdivision proposal does
not comply with the zoning standards pertaining to lot area, frontage, width or depth.
Fiscal Impacts:
None
Attachments:
(a) Proposed ordinance
(b) Memorandum from City Attorney to Planning Commission dated 4/27/88.
(c) Minutes of Planning Commission meetings.
(d) Negative Declaration.
(e) Commission Minutes Excerpts
(f) City Manager Memorandum
Motion and Vote:
/,' 4 9j7
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING
SECTION 14- 35.010 RELATING TO EXCEPTIONS FROM
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 14- 35.010 in Article 14 -35 of the City Code is amended to
read as follows:
" §14- 35.010 Power to grant exceptions
(a) The advisory agency shall have power to grant exceptions to any of the
design requirements set forth in Article 14 -25 of this Chapter; provided, however,
that a variance must be granted pursuant. to Article 15 -70 of the Zoning Ordinance
for any exception from the requirement contained in Subsection 14- 25.040(a)
concerning minimum standards for lot area, frontage, width and depth.
(b) The advisory agency shall have power to grant exceptions from any of
the improvement requirements set forth in Article 14 -30 of this Chapter.
(c) The granting of an exception is not a matter of right and in no event may
such exception be granted unless the advisory agency is able to make the findings
prescribed in Section 14- 35.020."
SECTION 2: 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 or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
-1-
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
, 1988, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
-2-
MAYOR
PAUL B. SMITH
ERIC L. FARASYN
LEONARD J. SIEGAL
HAROLD S. TOPPEL
ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR.
STEVEN G. BAI,RD
NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR.
HENRY D. CRUZ
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
ATKINSON - FARASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
660 WEST DANA STREET
P.O. BOX 279
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
(41'5) 967 -6941
MEMORANDUM
Saratoga Planning Commission
Hal Toppel, City Attorney :T
J. M. ATKIN'SON 11892 -)982)
L. M. FARASYN (1915-1979)
Modification of Zoning Standards Through Subdivision Approval and
Use Permits
February 29, 1988
This ordinance is short, but extremely significant in terms of its impact.
The ordinance would repeal existing provisions in the City Code which allow
modification of zoning standards to be granted as part of a subdivision or building site
approval, and modification of zoning standards in connection with the issuance of a use
permit. These provisions are now contained in Sections 14- 35.010 of the Subdivision
Ordinance and Sections 15- 5.5.030 and 15- 80.030(k) of the Zoning Ordinance, copies of
which are attached: hereto. -
The ordinance raises the basic philosophical question as to why these
provisions should exist at all. -- Presumably, they were intended to = incorporate some
degree of flexibility into the subdivision and use permit process. However, with
respect to subdivisions and building sites, the City has also attempted to follow a
policy of denying subdivision and building site approval where it results in the creation
of no lots. This policy is incompatible with Section 14- 35.010 of the
Subdivision Ordinance, which allows the approval of lots having a nonconforming area,
frontage, width or depth. The proposed ordinance would require that a variance be
granted in all such cases.
The power to modify standards through issuance of a use permit is perhaps
even more of an anomaly. A conditional use, by definition, is a use requiring special
regulation. Yet for these uses only, the normal zoning standards can be modified
without the necessity of granting a variance. There does not appear to be any logical
reason why the standards applied to a structure housing a conditional use should be
more liberal than the standards applied to a structure housing a permitted use.
The same power to modify standards is contained in the special regulations
for accessory structures, as set forth in Section 15- 80.030 of the Zoning Ordinance.
However, the special regulations themselves constitute a relaxation of the normal
standards applied to structures located within a setback area. The proposed ordinance
basically states that if the standards are going to be further relaxed, then
extraordinary circumstances must exist so as to justify the granting of a variance. If
the standards. themselves are not operating as intended, then the standards should be
changee through the legislative process instead of being indirectly modified through
issuance of a use permit.
The difference between a use permit and a variance of course lies in the
different findings which must be made for each approval. The use permit findings, as
set forth in Section 1.5- 55.070, are fairly simple to make. There have been several use
permit applications (typically involving accessory structures) where the Commission
has stated its ability to make the use permi'. findings but inability to make the
variance findings if a variance had been required. The ordinance would now require a
variance in all of these situations. _ I A
cc: Saratoga City Council
-2-
Saratoga City Attorney
SLAJMSiOYI g)rjjv4aiACe
514- 35.01.0 , Power to grant exceptions
The advisory agency shall have power to grant exceptions to any of the design
requirements set forth in Article 14 -25 of this Chapter and any of the improvement
requirements set forth in Article 14 -30 of this Chapter. The granting of an
exception is not a matter of right and in no event may such exception be granted
unless the advisory agency is able to „lake the findings prescribed in Section. 14-
35.020:
Z0)4iAl OvkJiviavice
515- 55.030 Variation from standards
A conditional use may be permitted by a use permit to have different site
area, density, structure height, distances between structures, site coverage, front,
side and rear yard minimums and off- street parking and loading requirements, other
than as listed under the specific regulations for unconditional permitted uses in the
zoning district in which it lies; provided, however, no modification of such
regulations shall be made in the case of a use permit for a second unit except as
specifically provided in Article 15 -56 of this Chapter.
515- 80.030
Zoning Regulations
Special rules for accessory uses and structures
in residential districts
515- 60.030
The following special rules. shall apply to certain accessory uses and structures
in any A, R -1, HC -RD, NHR or R -M district:
(a) Stables and corrals. No stable or corral, whether private or community,
shall be located closer than fifty feet from any property line of the site, or closer
than fifty feet from any dwelling unit or swimming pool on the site. In the NHR
district, no stable or corral shall be located closer than fifty feet from any stream
and the natural grade of a corral shall not exceed an average slope of fifteen
percent.
(b) Swimming pools. No swimming pool or accessory mechanical equipment
shall be located in a required front yard or any required side yard. A swimming pool
and accessory mechanical equipment may be located within a required rear yard, but
no closer than six feet from any property line.
(c) Recreational courts. Recreational courts shall comply with all of the
following restrictions, standards and requirements:
(1) The recreational court shall not exceed 7,200 square feet in area.
(2) The recreational court shall not be illuminated by exterior lighting.
(3) No direct opaque screening shall be utilized around any portion of
the recreational court.
(4) .. No fencing for a recreational court shall exceed ten feet in height.
{5) No recreational court shall be located in a required front yard or
any required side yard. Such courts may be located within a
required rear yard, but no closer than fifteen feet from any
property line.
(6) The natural grade of the area to be covered by the recreational
court shall not exceed an average slope of ten percent, unless a
variance is granted pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter.
(7) The recreational court stall be landscaped, in accordance with a.
landscape plan approved by the Planning Director, so as to create a
complete landscaping buffer from adjoining properties within two
years from installation. In addition, a bond, letter of credit or
other security, in such amount as determined by the Planning
Director, shall be furnished to the City to guaranty the installation
of the landscaping improvements in accordance with the approved
landscaping plan.
(8) The recreational court shall be designed and located to minimize
adverse impacts upon trees, natural vegetation and topographical
features and to avoid damage as a result of drainage, erosion or
earth movement.
Suop. #6. 3/87 Pate 15 -1.75
Zoning Regulations 515- 80.030
.�- (9) The recreational court shall be designed to preserve the open space .
qualities of hillsides, creeks, public paths, trails and rights -of -way
on or in the vicinity 'o` the site.
(d) Enclosed accessory structures. No enclosed accessory structures shall be
located in any required yard of any lot, except as follows:.
(1) Upon the granting of a use permit by the Planning Cc.mmission
pursuant to Article 15 -55, cabanas, garages, carports, recreation
rooms, hobby shops and other similar structures may be located no
closer than six feet from the rear property line and shall not
exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for
each three feet of setback from the rear property line in excess of
six feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still
located within the required rear yard.
(2) Subject to approval by the - Planning Director and the provisions of
Paragraph (i) of this Section, garden sheds, structures for housing
swimming pool equipment and other enclosed structures of a
similar nature, not exceeding two hundred fifty square feet in gross
floor area, may be located no closer than six feet from the rear
property line and shall not exceed six feet in height, plus one
additional foot in height for each additional foot of setback from
the rear property line in excess of six feet, up to a maximum
height of ten feet if the structure is still located within the
required rear yard. This Paragraph shall not apply to any structure
intended or used for the keeping of animals.
(e) Unenclosed garden structures. Subject to approval by the Planning
Director and the provisions of Paragraph (i) of this Section, unenclosed garden,
ornamental and decorative structures such as gazebos, lattice work, arbors and
fountains may be located no closer than six feet from a side or rear property line
and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each
additional foot of setback from the side and rear property line in excess of six feet,
up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still located within a required
side or rear yard.
(f) Solar panels. Subject to approval by the Planning Director, solar panels
not exceeding six feet in height may be located within any portion of a rear yard.
(g) Barbeques. Permanent barbeques, such as those constructed out of brick
or masonry, may be located no closer than six feet, from the rear property line and
shall not exceed four feet in height.
(h) Accessory structures in R -M district. Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this Section, accessory structures not exceeding fourteen feet in height
may be located in a required rear yard in any R -M district, provided that not more
than fifteen percent of the rear yard area shall be covered by structures, and
provided further, that on a reversed corner lot, an accessory structure shall not be
located closer to the rear property line than the required side yard on the abutting
lot and not closer to the exterior side property line than the required front yard of
the abutting lot.
Supp. #7, 11/87 Page _15 -:171
Zoning Regulations
(i) Procedure for certain applications to Planning Director. The following
provisions shall be applied in the case of any application for approval by the
Planning Director of an accessory structure described in Subparagraph (d)(2) or
Paragraph (e) above:
(1) The application shall be accompanied by a list of the names and
addresses of all persons owning property immediately adjacent to
the site on which the proposed accessory structure will be located,
.as shown by the latest available assessment roll of the County or as
otherwise known to the applicant.
(2) The Planning Director shall mail a written notice of the application
to each of the adjacent property owners shown on the list furnished
by the applicant, indicating the type of accessory structure for
which approval is being requested and containing a general
description thereof, including its size, height and proposed location
on the applicant's site. The notice shall further advise the adjacent
property owners that a written protest or request for
administrative hearing, or both, may be filed with the Planning
Director within ten days from the date of the notice.
(3) If any written protests are filed by adjacent property owners within
the time prescribed in the notice but no request for hearing is
made, the Planning Director shall consider such protests in
determining whether to approve, conditionally approve or deny the
application and shall render his decision thereon without
conducting. an administrative hearing.
(4) If a request for an administrative hearing is received within the
time prescribed in the notice, the Planning Director shall fix a
time and place for the conduct of such hearing and shall give
written notice thereof to the applicant and the person or persons
requesting the hearing. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the
Director shall either approve, conditionally approve or deny the
application and shall furnish a copy of his decision to the applicant
and the person or persons who requested the hearing. The decision
by the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning
Commission in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article
15 -90 of this Chapter.
(j) Referral to Planning Commission. With respect to any accessory
structure requiring approval by the Planning Director, as described in Paragraphs
(d)(2), (e) and (f) above, the Director may refer the matter to the Planning
Commission for action thereon whenever the Director deems such referral to be
necessary or appropriate. If the application relates to an accessory structure
described in Paragraphs (d)(2) or (e), the Planning Commission shall follow the same
procedure as set forth in Paragraph (i) of this Section.
(k) Modification of standards. The Planning Commission shall have
b� authority to modify any of the regulations set forth in Paragraphs (d), (e), (f) or (g)
XD of this Section pertaining to the size, height or required setback of an. accessory
structure in a side or rear yard, through the granting of a use permit for such
^p accessory structure pursuant to Article 15 -55 of this Chapter.
Supp. V, 11/37 Page 157 178
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF S ARATOGA AMENDING
SECTION 1435.010 RELATING TO EXCEPTIONS FROM
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE AND REPEALING SECTION 15 -55.030 AND
SUBSECTION 15- 80.030(k) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
RELATING TO MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS THROUGH
ISSUANCE OF A USE PERMIT
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 14- 35.0.10 in Article 14 -35 of the City Code is amended to
read as follows:
" §14- 35.010 Power to grant exceptions
(a) The advisory agency shall have power to grant exceptions to any of the
design requirements set forth in Article 14 -25 of this Chapter; provided, however,
that a variance must be granted pursuant to Article 15 -70 of the Zoning Ordinance
for any exception, from the requirement contained in Subsection 14- 25.040(a)
concerning minimum standards for lot area, frontage, width and depth.
(b) The advisory agency shall have power to grant exceptions from any of
the improvement requirements set forth in Article 14 -30 of this Chapter.
(c) The granting of an exception is not a matter of right and in no event may
such- exception be granted unless the advisory agency is able to make the findings
prescribed in Section 14- 35.020."
SECTION 2: Section 15- 55.030 in Article 15 -55 of the City Code is repealed.
SECTION 3: Subsection 15- 80.030(k) in Article 15 -80 of the City Code is
repealed.
SECTION 4: 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 or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption. _
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of, the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
, 1988, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR
ATTEST:.
CITY CLERK
RES -ND
Saratoga
C
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
File No.. AZO -88 -00.2
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 app.li.cable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through
15065 and Section 1.5070 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
An ordinance repealing and amending various. sections of the subdivision and
zoning ordinances concerning the authority to modify or grant exceptions from
regulations and standards.
NAME AND ADORESS OF APPLICANT
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The amendment strengthens the existing regulations by requiring stricter
adherence to the standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinances.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 13th day. of July , 190.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DIRECTOR'S AUTHOR.IZ-ED STAFF MEMBER
PLANNING COMMISJJJJ�MEETING
�• JULY 13, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Page 7'�
1
Mr. Emil Kissel, 21154 Sullivan Way, Saratoga, called attention to his letter of July 1, 1988.
He added his concern regarding potential liability of the City for the mud slides in the area;
such would be increased by further cuts into the hillside. Pictures were presented.
Mr. W. R. Swain, 20915 Sullivan Way, Saratoga, called attention to his letter of July 9, 1988,
and presented pictures showing erosion in the area.
Mr. Gordon R. Norris, 20880 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, was concerned about slippage/
mud slides on the hill.
Ms. Ann Worobey, 20895 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, called attention to her letter in which
she contended that the property in question was too unstable and too steep to build on.
Ms. Suzanne Armbruster, 21169 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows:
- Reviewed the zoning history of the Canyon View Drive area; residents of unzoned lots
insisted on an R- 1- 40,000 zoning designation to prevent further subdivision of the area
- The proposed two-story structure would obstruct views of existing residences
- Asked that restrictions on size and height be imposed on homes in the area
Mr. Edwin Law, 20867 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, concurred that slippage /mud slides
occurred in the area and presented pictures of resulting damage to property.
Ms. Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, questioned City restrictions on slope
development; the City Attorney provided information requested.
Mr. Pruitt assured residents that the Applicant would take whatever steps recommended by
engineers to insure the stability of this site.
Mr. Krueger commented as follows:
- The City Geologist stated that the site was satisfactory for building
Recommended construction techniques would be followed
- Questioned how the proposed home would affect the quality of life of adjacent residents
- Landscaping would substantially improve the area and stabilize the site
- Concern about the contractor building this house had no bearing on the Application
Mr. Swain noted that pictures showed that the above contractor destabilized the entire hillside.
BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10:55 P.M. Passed 6-0
Commissioner Burger commented as follows:
- When the City Geologist pointed out problems in the hillside, he also recommended
mitigating measures to stabilize the site
- Was not concerned about view impacts since adjacent homes were at a higher elevation
- Asked that the square footage of the home conform to Ordinance requirements
Commissioner Kolstad noted that the City Geologist was asking for a detailed study; he wished
to see the home conform to Ordinance requirements and was not concerned about view impacts
Commissioner Tappan concurred with Commissioners Burger and Kolstad; he noted that the
Geologic Report indicated that the proposed structure may provide stability for the hillside.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF V -88 -010 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 6 -0.
HARRISITUCKER MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE APPLICATION TO EXCEED
THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA. Passed 6-0.
HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR -88 -035. Passed 6 -0.
18. AZO -88 -002 City of Saratoga, an ordinance repealing and amending various sections
of the subdivision and zoning ordinance concerning the authority to
modify or grant exception from regulations and standards. A Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
JULY 13, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ---------�
The City Attorney reviewed the Ordinance Amendments to Section 14- 35_.010.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:15 P.M.
The City Manager discussed the Ordinance Amendment and cited problems experienced by the
public in the absence of standards governing the granting of exceptions; examples were cited.
BURGERMARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 11:25 P.M. Passed 6-0.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AZO -88-
002. Passed 6 -0.
HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14- 35.010 RELATING TO EXCEPTIONS FROM
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. Passed 6 -0.
Wff§- .AN .O 1S:
1. Village Design Task Force
Consensus reached that Commissioner Harris be appointed to the Village Task Force.
2. Resolution of Appreciation
Chairwoman Guch presented a Resolution of Appreciation for former Planning Director Hsia
and a Resolution of Appreciation to Commissioner Harris as Chair of the Commission 1987 -88
COMMUNWATIONSe
Written:
1. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of June 15,1988, - Noted and filed.
2. Committee -of- the -Whole Report of June 14, 1988, - Noted and filed.
3. Letter from the League of California Cities Re: 1989 Planning Commissioner's Institute -
Noted and filed.
4. Memo from City Manager Re: Interim Management of Planning Department - Noted and
filed.
Oral by Commission:
Commissioner Kolstad reported on the Meeting of the City Council of July 6, 1988.
The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:45 P.M.
Res pectfully st}brn-itted,
Carol A. Probst- Caughey
aWritten Comm. #2
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
DATE: Tuesday, June 14, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave.
TYPE: Committee -of- the -Whole
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Guch, Burger, Tucker, Kolstad,
Siegfried
Absent: Commissioner Harris
Staff: Planners Caldwell and Adar
------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
A. DR -88 -006 Campbell, 12693 Star Ridge Ct.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the issues of concern expressed by
the Commission regarding bulk, privacy, and the underfloor
area.
Kurt Anderson, architect for the project, presented new plans,
eliminating the 7 ft. underfloor area, increasing the front
setback to 44 ft. and the left side setback to 24 ft. The
number of side windows were reduced and the deck was shown only
the rear elevation. The height was 26 ft., the size is reduced
by 30 sq. ft.
Generally, the Committee agreed that the bulk and privacy
issues were addressed with the revised plans.
Staff reminded the applicant that revised plans were due by
Friday for the July 13, 1988 meeting.
B. AZO -88 -002 City of Saratoga
Staff reviewed the proposed changes to the City Code. After
discussing the amendment, the Committee generally agreed upon
the following:
1. Section 14- 35.010. Repeal the section from the subdivision
ordinance. The Planning Commission is usually conservative
and would deny a subdivision that varied from the
standards. The variance procedure is an appropriate
vehicle for granting exceptions to the standards.
2. Section 15- 55.030. Leave the section as is. If problems
arise in the future, the Commission will reconsider the
amendment. At this time the Commission would like to
retain the same flexibility they had with the church on the
corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues. Planner Adar commented
that architecturally the Commission may wish to allow
institutions or community facilities to have greater
heights than allowed by the Code, if the building is
especially large or has a unique purpose. Variance
1
J
0
Ai
I
findings are more difficult to make.
I 3. Section 15- 80.030 (accessory structures). The Committee
was uncertain that this was a problem. The Code was
recently changed to allow the usual and customary heights
and sizes of gazebos proposed in rear yards. The Committee
couldn't recall many exceptions that had been requested per
this section. Staff will research the number of use
permits acted upon by the Commission within the last two
(2) years and report back to the C.O.W.
The Committee felt that there was no urgency to this
proposed ordinance change and continued it to a future
study session.
C. A- 801.1, V -88 -014 Sky Properties
The applicant requested clarification regarding the
Commission's decision on 6/8/88. He presented photographs of
the office building at 14375 Saratoga Avenye. The Committee
showed him where the proposed sign could be placed along the
interior of the building.
II. ADJOURNMENT
2
1.
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
DATE: Tuesday, May 17, 1988 - 7 :30 p.m.
PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave.
TYPE: Committee -of- the -Whole
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Guch, Burger, Tucker, Kolstad,
Harris
Absent: Commissioner Siegfried
Staff: Planners Caldwell, Calkins
------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
A. Discussion of Legislative Decisions
City Attorney Toppel distributed a chart entitled
"Standards of Review" and explained the difference between
a "legislative action" and an "administrative action." He
stated that the primary difference between the two actions
is that an item under legislative action does not require
the Planning Commission to make formal "findings." Instead
the Planning Commission is asked to determine whether or not
a "project" is rational, reasonable, and logical public
policy. On the other hand, the City Attorney explained that
under an administrative action, the Planning Commission must
make findings and their decision must be supported by the
findings.
B. AZO -88 -002
The City Attorney explained the proposed revisions to City
Code Sections 14- 35.010 and 15- 80.030(k). He stated that
the proposed revisions would repeal existing provisions in
the City Code which allow modifications of zoning standards
to be granted as part of a subdivision or building site
approval, and a use permit. The revisions would require the
Planning Commission make the variance findings to support
the requested modifications under City Code Sections 14-
35.010 and 15- 80.030(k).
The consensus of the Commission was that this item needed
further study and analysis. Several Commissioners felt that
the Code was working well now and that this amendment may
lead to more confusion on the behalf of Saratoga property
owners. This item was continued to the 6/14/88 study
session.
C., D., and E, - DR -87 -019, DR -87 -123, DR -87 -124, UP -87 -147, -
Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga - Sunnyvale - (Continued
from 4/13/88).
Planner Caldwell reviewed the issues of concern expressed by
1
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARA"I'OGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
August 12, 1988
To: City Council
From: City Manager
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
Subject: AZO -88 -002 - Modification of Zoning Standards
Removing Grants of Exception and Requiring Variance
Application
As you can see from the City Attorney's memorandum, several key
provisions of his original draft ordinance (which would have
prohibited zoning standard exception grants to be approved for
conditional uses of main structures and for development of
accessory structures in a side or rear yard) are not in the
proposed ordinance.
One of the powers and duties of the City Manager set forth in the
Municipal Code is to: "...recommend to the City Council for
adoption such measures and ordinances as he deems necessary
(Section 2- 20.050(f))." While I support the ordinance being
recommended by the Commission, I also support the draft ordinance
submitted to the Commission by the City Attorney. His memorandum
sets forth all the reasons why the ordinance should be adopted as
presented, not in its abridged form.
I respectfully disagree with the reasoning set forth by the
Commission in the very brief minutes of their various review
sessions, and I shared my concerns and reasons with them at the
public hearing on July 13, 1988.
In my view, this ordinance will correct a MAJOR flaw in our
zoning and provide better regulation to protect the existing
community from facing substandard proposals which are not
defensible under the showing for a variance, but are none the
less granted under a lesser standard of finding under the use
permit regulations.
To: City Council page 2
Subject: AZO -88 -002 - Modification of Zoning 8/12/88
Standards Removing Grants by Exception
and Requiring Variance Application
As the City Attorney has so aptly put it: "The power to modify
standards through issuance of a use permit is perhaps even more
an anomaly. There does not appear to be any logical reason why
the standards applied to a structure housing a conditional use
should be more liberal than the standards applied to a structure
housing a permitted use."
For these reasons, it is recommended that Council:
1. Direct the City Attorney to amend the ordinance to its
original version.
2. Set the revised ordinance for hearing on September 7, 1988.
"Harry Peacock
3m
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. ''l' AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 8/17/88
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVA
SUBJECT: ZC -87 -005 Nelson /Chamberlain, 21350/21290 Blue Hills Road
A -87 -003 Prezoning and annexation of 2.68 acres
Recommended Motion: Introduce Ordinance ZC -87 -005, prezoning the property
NHR. Approve Resolution A -87 -003, annexing the property into Saratoga.
Report Summary: In January, 1987, the Council denied the applicant's
request to waive the annexation and instructed Mr. Nelson to apply for
annexation into Saratoga. The Council wanted to control the development
because the subject site and the 15 acres to the west was very visible from
Saratoga. The prezoning is a necessary legal requirement prior to
annexation. On July 27, 1988, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of the prezoning.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Motion and Vote
A:agenbill
Memo to City Council
Ordinance ZC -87 -005
Resolution A -87 -003
Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated 7/27/88
Planning Commission minutes dated 7/27/88
Memorandum to Council Committee -of- the -Whole 1/13/87
City Council Minutes 12/17/86, 1/21/87
OMEW (02
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: 8/17/88
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: ZC -87 -005, A -87 -003, Nelson /Chamberlain Prezoning and
and Annexation of .Properties at 21350 and 21290 Blue Hills Rd.
BACKGROUND: Mr. Nelson, applicant, wishes to expand his existing
residence. His property is located approximately 600 ft. west of Prospect
Road on Blue Hills, outside the City limits but within the urban. service
boundary of Saratoga.
As required by County /City policy, Mr. Nelson must obtain a waiver of
annexation or annex to the City in order to construct. In January, 1987,
the Council denied the waiver and instructed the applicant to apply for
annexation. In March, 1988, Ms. Chamberlain (21290 Blue Hills Road) joined
the request for annexation. Her property is also developed.
DISCUSSION: Prezoning of the property is a legal requirement and
establishes the zone classification which will regulate development of the
properties when they are annexed. The Planning Commission has recommended
prezoning to NHR (northwestern hillside residential) which is consistent
with the General Plan designation, RHC, residential hillside conservation.
Once the property is annexed, the NHR zoning regulations will apply.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the prezoning by introducing Ordinance ZC -87 -005.
Approve the annexation by adopting Resolution A -87 -003.
ORDINANCE NO.. ZC -87 -005
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
PREZONING CERTAIN TERRITORY OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA AND AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP, APN 366- 06 -26, 366 -06 -04
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1: Parcels 366- 06 -2.6 and 366 -06 -04 located at 2135.0 and 2.129.0
Blue Hills Road, depicted as a cross hatched area on the zoning map
attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", is hereby reclassified from county hillside
to NHR zoning district.
Section 2: This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from and
after the date of its passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing-ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the
City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 17th day of August, 1988,
and adopted at a meeting held on the day of , 19,88, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved:
Mayor
ZC, 97-005'
7- D D 5'
C �
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Kathryn Caldwell
DATE: 7/27/88 PLNG. DIR. APPRV.
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: ZC -87 -005; 21350/21290 Blue Hills Road
APPLICANT /OWNER: Nelson /Chamberlain _
APN: 366 -06- 26/366 -06 -04 Q
N
File No.� - %���
PLANNER'S WORKSHEET
VTrails and pathways map checked
V Vicinity /locator map included
V1 Dimensions shown on.plot plan
Adjacent structures
V Directinnal arrow
/✓Trees labelled
,f7 Plans reflect field conditions
Heights shown on cross sections
Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans
Natural and finished grade on cross sections
1/tlm Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations
N/ Roof pitch shown
�V All sheets included in submittal with required reductions
Colors - submitted
Staff Reports
Nf Conditions from other agencies /department correct
V /a Consistent fiaures throuahout report
/History files examined
G/ Correct address & application number on all pages of the report
Description consistent with advertisement
Plans labelled
[/ Order of attachment consistent with list
".11 attachments included
Typographical errors corrected
Dates on the resolutions correct
Applicant notified of recommendation
Applicant notified that staff report available Fri. 3 -4 :00 p.m.
A:checklist 6/88
c �
File No. ZC -87 -005; 21350/21290 Blue Hills Road.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY•
Application filed: 10/2/87, revised 3/17/88
Application complete: 6/23/88
Notice published: 7/13/88
Mailing completed: 7 /14/88
Posting completed: 7/7/88
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to government code, applicants are
requesting prezoning of two adjacent lots developed with single
family homes to NHR, in order to facilitate-annexation into the City
of Saratoga. The sites are located on Blue Hills Road off Prospect.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The prezoning is a legal requirement precedent
to annexation. Since both parcels are developed with single family
homes, there will be no effect on density with the change in zoning.
City regulations for the NHR district will control all future
development of the two parcels, once they are annexed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution, recommending
that the City Council prezone the property to NHR.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution ZC -87 -005
3. Map, Exhibit A
KC /dsc
1
ZC -87 -005; 2.1350/21290 Blue Hills Rd.
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - Hillside
Conservation
PARCEL SIZE: 2.68 acres total (1.25 + 1.42 acres)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 20%
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to government code Section 56826,
applicants are requesting annexation of two developed parcels of
land into the City of Saratoga. Both properties are within the
urban service boundary of the City. One of the applicants wishes to
expand his home and in January, 1987, the Council instructed him to
apply for annexation. The prezoning establishes the zone
classification (NHR) which will regulate any further development of
the properties and is a legal requirement prior to annexation.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution ZC -87 -005, recommending that the
Council zone the properties NHR.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2
JULY 27, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
4. DR -88 -039 Lohr, 14659 Chester Avenue, request for design review approval for a
new 5,822 sq. ft. one -story single family home in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
-------------------------------------------------------
5. DR -88 -041 Lohr, 14622 Chester Avenue, request for design review approval for a
new 5,595 sq. ft. two -story single family home in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
6. DR -88 -026 Waldron, 19826 Merribrook Drive, request for design review approval
for a 780 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one -story single
family home in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City
Code. The total proposed area is 3,368 sq. ft.
7. SD -88 -009 Pierce, 15295 Sobey Road, request for tentative building site approval for
V -88 -013 a 501% expansion to an existing home in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district
per Chapter 14 of the-City Code. Also consider granting a variance to
allow alteration and expansion of an existing detached garage with
nonconforming setback of 18.25 ft. in lieu of 20 ft. minimum
requirements per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
8. DR -88 -049 Alff, 14185 Teerlink Way, request.for design review approval of plans to
construct a new 5,1.15. sq. ft. two -story home in the NHR zoning district
per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
9. DR -88 -032 Moore, 18691 Vessing Court„ request for design review approval of a
new 5,832 sq. ft. two -story home on a 1.507 acre parcel in the
R -1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
10. DR -88 -038 McNeish, 14124 Dorene Court, request.for design review approval of a
new 4,898 sq. ft. two -story single family home on.a 1.455 acre parcel in
the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- -------- - - - --- --
11. UP -88 -009 Herring, 14563 Big Basin Way, request for a conditional use permit
allowing a professional office use to be located in the C -C zoning district
per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Dora Grens requested removal of.Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 3.
Commissioner Kolstad requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 8.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,
10, -AND 11. Passed 6.0. _
3. ZC -87 -039 Nelson /Chamberlain, 21350 & 21290 Blue Hills Road, request for
pre - zoning to NHR (northwestern hillside residential) two adjacent lots,
developed with single-family homes. The parcels total 2.68 acres and.are
located approximately 600 ft. west of Prospect Road in the RHC
(residential, hillside conservation) general plan designation. Pre - zoning is
required prior to annexation of the parcels into the City of Saratoga.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Dora Grens questioned the exact location of the property and why the City was encour-
aging such requests. Commissioner Burger responded that Staff had not initiated this Item.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission of July 27, 1988; a Site
Map was made available to Ms. Grens.
The Public Hearing Was opened at 7:50'P.M. There were no speakers.
HARRIS /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 7:50 P.M. Passed 6 -0.
SIEG FRI ED/B URGER MOVED APPROVAL OF ZC -87 -005 PER THE MODEL RESOLU-
TION. Passed 6 -0.
uTgq,le @,I O 00
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Committee -of- the -Whole DATE: 1/13/87
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Annexation Policy /Blue Hills Road
At the City Council Meeting of 12/17/86, the Council.requested
information on past annexation.decisions to compare the policy
with the current proposal. Since the adoption of the General
Plan in 1983, there have been two annexation requests - one on
Prospect Rd. and one one Bainter Avenue. The Prospect site, over
1,000 ft. from the City - maintained portion of Prospect Road at
the north, was deemed to be inappropriate for annexation due to
the cost of improving and maintaining Prospect Rd. The Bainter
Avenue site had limited access but was annexed due to its
visibility. These decisions were consistent with the General
Plan policy (LU1.1) "to annex properties where public services
can be provided without unrecoverable cost to the City and dilu-
tion of services to existing residents.." (Details of these
actions are attached as-exhibits #1 -4).
The Council will be consistent with its past policy if it
approves the annexation of the Blue Hills Road area. The 15 acre
site to the west of the Nelson property will be developing. It
is a highly visible site and should be controlled through
Saratoga's.review process, similar to the Bainter Ave. sate. In
addition, the costs for services will be essentially offset by
increased revenues and will improve rather than dilute services
to existing residents. As outlined on the following page, the
cost for services are to develop the public infrastructure and
improve public safe >ty; costs which are not recoverable through
developmental fees. The projected revenues are based upon FY
'86 -'87 budget on a percapita or per household basis (3.1 persons
per household; 10,000 households in Saratoga). The two exhibits
show costs /revenues for the Nelson site and the entire Blue Hills
Road area:
600in,
1
CELSON ANNEXATION - EXHIBIC,
U
Cost for Services - Nelson
Proposed Cost Nelson
Law enforcement - contract w /County Sheriff $47 /psn. x 3.1 psns. = $146 /yr.
per household
($1.4 million contract)
30,000 pop.
Street maintenance- eventual maintenance
of Prospect Rd.
General
Administration - City of Saratoga
REVENUES
$8:60 /yr. /trip x 11.3 $ 97 /yr.
trips /day
(FY '82'83
+20% inflation)
10.3% of cost
$ 24
$267 yr.
Utility tax (3�% on P.G.& E. x $120 /mo. x 12 mo. x 1 SFD) _ $ 50 /yr.
Property tax ($250,000 assessed valuation *) = 87 /vr.
Franchise taxes ($430,000 : 10,000 households) = 43 /yr.
Fines and forfeitures ($110,000 10,000 households) = 11 /yr.
Gas tax ($414,000 30,000) = 14 /yr.
Motor vehicle in -lieu ($909,000 30,000) = 30 /yr.
$235
*Existing property taxes will be respread. A conservative estimate is that
that the City's General Fund will increase by 3.5% of the 1% /$1,000 of
assessed valuation of the property and improvements.
BLUE HILLS ROAD 'ANNEXATION -*EXHIBIT B
(Projected 5 new homes on 15 vacant acres, 7 existing homes on Blue
Hills Road, 37 persons)
Cost for services
Law enforcement - $47 x 37 persons = $ 1,739
Street maintenance - $8.60 x 136 TE = 1,170
General administration - $2,429 x 10.3% = 300
$ 3,209
REVENUES
Utility users tax (P.G.& E.) - $50 x 12 SFD = $ 600_
Property taxes ($500,000 assessed val.) 175 x 12 SFD = 2,100
Franchise taxes ($43 /yr..' /household x 12) = 516
Fines and-forfeitures ($11 /yr. x 12 households) = 132
Gas tax ($14 /yr. x 37 persons) = 518
Motor vehicle in -lieu ($30 /yr. x 37 persons) = 1,110
Swine.Road assessment ($5,000 x 5 homes) = 25,000
$29,976 U 6 0
Memorandum to City Council COW 1/13/87
Re: Annexation Policy /Blue Hills Rd. Page 3
Attachments:
1. Memorandum to City Council dated April 2, 1985, outlining
General Plan policies on annexation and describing two sites
proposed for annexation - Baint.er Avenue and Prospect Road.
2. Agenda Bill to City Council dated 9/4/85 and City Council
minutes dated 9./18/85, ordering annexation of the Bainter
Avenue site in order to retain control of development for the
protection of both the City and the neighbors.
3. Memorandum to City Council dated 12/30/85 indicating that by
unwritten City policy the Prospect Road site would normally
be annexed into the City but that.on April 9, 1985, the
Council Committee -of- the -Whole decided it did not wish to
annex the site..
4. City Council minutes dated January 7, 1986, waiving
annexation rights for 21601 Prospect Road because the County
road did not meet City standards.
KC /dsc
B:Annex
2
11 0 J
/ 98e,
MEMORANDUM April 2, �_W4
To: City Council
From: Senior Planner
Re: Requests for Annexation for
-Site on Private Road off of Bainter Ave.
-Site on Pro'sp.ect Road
Staff has received one application for annexation of a 3.39 acre site off of
Bainter Road in the Southeastern Urban Service Area and the Council received a
letter requesting waiver of annexation for a site off of Prospect Road. Both
sites are contiguous to the City boundaries and, by unwritten City policy,
would normally be annexed into the City. However our written annexation
policies have changed with the General Plan adopted in May, 1983.
The sites are presently in the County and the owners or potential owners wish
to develop them. County policies requ.ire that in order for a contiguous parcel
located in an Urban Service Area to be developed under County jurisdiction, the
right to annexation must first be waived by the City. It is staff's
understanding that this waiver is not forever, but would allow development
within the County per their standards. At this time the owners are requesting
a decision on annexation in order that they can proceed, either with the County
or the City, to develop the lots.
Since 1983 the annexations that the City has approved involved land which has
received tentative maps in the City prior to annexation, or were annexed prior
to receiving building site approval, but were non - hillside lots. Because of
these circumstances staff felt that the General Plan policies were met:
However, these requests involve hillside lots, and may potentially be of more
concern to the City. Therefore we have scheduled them for your review at this
City Council Study Session and possible determination as to whether or not we
wish to annex one or both of these parcels. This May act.as precedent for
future annexation requests.
The General Plan, adopted in 1983, sets the following policy on annexations:
LU 1.1 Lands shall not be annexed t.o Saratoga unless they are contig-
uous to the existing City limits and it is determined by the
City that public services can be provided without unrecoverable
cost to the City and dilution of services 'to existing residents.
LU.1.1 (Imp) Annexation p.ropo.sa15 shall be care.fully'studied
to determine their economic and urban service
impacts on the City.
LU 1.2 The City shall evaluate its designated unincorporated Urban
Service Areas to determine if the areas are compatible w -ith the
County's Local Agency Format.ion Commission (LAFCO) Policies
and are appropriate for annexation and urban development.
�Z�4.
LU.1.2 (Imp) All four urban service areas to be studied to
to determine if further retraction of urban service
area boundarie's is required. These studies should
be coordinated with LAFCO with public hearings
before the Commission and Council.
The sites that are proposed for annexation can be briefly described with
respect to their development concerns and potential costs to the City as
follows:
The applicant for the 3+ acre site on Bainter intends to construct a large
residence and tennis court on the sloping hillside lot. This will requi.re some
substantial grading although the applicant is proposing to contour his project.
to the site. The major concern for the initial development o.f the Baint:er site
is the access. The access is via a 15 wide grant of easement, at one point
very close to an accessory structure on an adjacent lot. This roadway would
provide the main access for the proposed home (replacing two existing smaller
homes) and secondary or back access for three homes on Redberry. Driveways are
required to be 14' plus one foot shoulders or 16' wide; minimum access roads
are required to be 18' plus one foot shoulders or 20' wide. This access would
remain a private minimum access road if it we're to develop in Saratoga and
would not be the responsibility of the City. After a site review, the Director
of Community Development felt that the access for the site could be worked out,
but the final decision would be made by the Planning Commission, or the City
Council on appeal. The applicant is concerned that if he cannot develop the
site in Saratoga because of our standard conditions that he find this'out as
soon as possible, and that if this is so, that he be allowed to develop in the
County. Sewer and water as we-require appear to be available to the site. As
for City services, initially the City would receive its costs from the
developer,.but in the long run, the costs of additional homes will not
(according to the economic section of the Owens EIR on a flat site) be _
fiscally beneficial to the City because their costs (police, street
maintenance, general administrative, service, and recreation functions) are
higher than revenues (property, sales, motor vehicle and cigarette taxes and
revenue Sharing). However,.the costs to the City for annexing this site,
appear to be the long term standard service costs rather than potential costs
related to hillside development.
The major concern for the initial development of the site on-Prospect. would be
the setting of a precedent for annexation in that Urban Service Area. The
geology is the unknown factor. A few years ago a large slide closed Prospect
Road, and this site is near that area. The site is across Prospect Road and
would cause the City to annex a portion of that roadway, setting the precedent
for further annexation, and thus maintenance of the road. It also lacks the
water the City requires (1000 gallons per minute for 2 hours) and sewer is not
available nearby. The County may allow development on the current water
system, and without sewer. It is staff's understanding that the owner intends
to modify the large accessory structure on the site into a residence. The
topography is hillside, but it is.less than 20% in the building area, and not
the steep hillside of the lots nearby. Again, residential development, in the
long run,.will not be fiscally beneficial to the City under the current revenue
system, even without the potential road maintenance concerns for this site.
UL a
r
With this description of the sites' and areas' problems and potential fiscal
impacts, staff is looking for direction from the Council to 1) respond to these
specific annexation requests, 2) develop further information needed to respond
to these annexations or 3) create a more specific annexation policy for future
requests. We have notified the potential developers of the sites of this
meeting and anticipate that they will be available for any questions you may
have.
Kat y Ker us
Senior Planner
Annex
w 1a
City of Saratoga
Planning Department
Gentlemen,
We hand you herewith a "Petition for the Annexation of Territory to the City
of Saratoga."
This property, APN 510 -24 -006, is located in unincorporated territory immedi-
ately adjacent to the City of Saratoga.
Through informal discussions with Saratoga Planning Staff, it has been deter-
mined that access to the subject property, while conforming with Santa Clara
County requirements, does not conform with Saratoga requirements.
Further, informal discussions'with Santa Clara County Planning Staff indicate
that no County processing can be undertaken until the LAFCO process estab-
lishes jurisdiction.
Therefore, this Petition is being submitted in order to clarify status and to
facilitate processing in either the City of Saratoga, or the County of Santa
Clara. .
If in fact the property is to be annexed to the City of Saratoga., it is ^
requested that preapproval of the existing access be granted prior to formal
annexation.
If, in fact, the City of Saratoga does not wish to approve the exist.ing
access, it is requested that all processing of this si.ngle family homesite be
released, without conditions, to the County of Santa Clara.
Sincerely,
C4 �ro3
i� 0. 0
I +�
R -1 -2
,4
1 /
r/
I
T
`0
♦
♦ � o
♦ r r e °
;0
�r
s
e e
o•
1
°
e
� 7
7 1
• I
� ab
0 0
/
`c.GGCf.O. � ,��Fr'.� c� 1��.} -���r /� G-� h� 5�����i!/,•S /oil
7 �G. it
72
-��� �,.JC.�GI ' ` < < " /U,C� loC��l- Ui�j'������ ��� ���C? Q- •� %��G�
cf✓(� ���1' �'7`"� � �JC,�! ���� Cam; `C�� /CyL•�f?T`S` ��- 11 �L- kXJ�!/ iGr C'
S ► {: c
�� a
J f2
I
� �� f�/
/`LJ�% /_� � • c:7 ACC° ♦
r
t/
-•
aez %. LC
` / �Gf ✓.'nom %
; Z�
(,{f%
]Li.Di�
r
•-
/
`c.GGCf.O. � ,��Fr'.� c� 1��.} -���r /� G-� h� 5�����i!/,•S /oil
7 �G. it
72
-��� �,.JC.�GI ' ` < < " /U,C� loC��l- Ui�j'������ ��� ���C? Q- •� %��G�
cf✓(� ���1' �'7`"� � �JC,�! ���� Cam; `C�� /CyL•�f?T`S` ��- 11 �L- kXJ�!/ iGr C'
S ► {: c
�� a
MMMF
ji 2. WE W�
AM
WEEMS"
to 0.03) age
t� �
S2'.. lr- rrj7o— 2 6'
�
. -
119.31 50-95
/Lands of David Hand Carol J.Persing
As fruste.e,s Per Deed of Gift Recorded ih Bk.H.
645 O.R.] . 07 LOT ONE
GROSS AREA=2-293 ACRES
1.
C,�rjificate of COMPliance
E-/:/ Ell
,�4, PG. 48,SANFA C,LAHA
SCALE I"= 50' 1 APRIL 198
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORN JA
ye\
S 0*03 28
2,13 67
L of. DaviS H. And Carol,J PCIS1111.1
I
LOT N 0
O H E I
a N
co
ry to C)
q
(
)0. 2 ,
C'o
(N.6
6093•
'3
cf:
T
6o.rs')
-0-r
�--15 " ro *
�o
li5
I
Y
(ti.00 I)Uy
(" 31 U 12. '
�,
-55 3
PRO N N CORP
SZECT -
b
.
ROAD - I
It— cou N
l0(5
+..
. ........ .
S [ -r�
CITY LIlMTS
N H R
iJ ti
V
MR-
AGEMA BILL NO.
DATE: 8/30/85 (9/4/85)
DEPARIMM: Community Development
CITY OF SARXIOGA —*
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUB=. Bainter 85 -1, Annexation of 3.39 Acre Site near Bainter Ave.
Issue Su mmary The applicant has petitioned the City for annexation for his site which is
adjacent and contiguous with the City boundary and is within the City's Southeastern Urban
Service Area. The City Council reviewed this site at a Committee of the Whole in April and
directed staff to begin the annexation process for this site because of its visibility. The
applicant has received Site and Design Review Approval for development of the site. These
approvals have been appealed and are set for public hearing at,the City Council Meeting on
September 8, 1985.
Recomiendation
Adopt Resolution No. , making the required findings.
Fiscal Impacts
Standard fiscal impacts associated with residential development.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution
2. .Petition for Annexation
3. Road Compliance Letter from County
dated August 20, 1985
4. Exhibit "B ", Map of Proposed Annexation,
Council Action
5. Memorandum to City Council dated 4/2/84
IJ
3- 9/18/85
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There was consensus. to consider the first two public hearings together.
A. Appeal of Negative Declaration, Building Site and Design Review Approvals
by Planning Commission, 19288 Bainter Ave_ (Appellant, S. Shankle;
applicant, G. Hwang) (SDR 1605, A -1102)
B. Consideration of Hwang Annexation ( Bainter 1985 -1)
Community Development Director pointed out locations of various features on the maps
and answered Councilmembers' questions. The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m.
Suzanne Shankle spoke as the appellant, saying that she represented a number of
neighbors. She presented a summary of their objections to the proposal and
documents concerning County policies, including a prohibition of urban development
on watershed lands generally above 15% slope. -
Wanda Alexander, 15879 Ravine Rd., objected to the project on the grounds that the
Negative Declaration did not reflect the environmental hazards; the project would
exceed Saratoga's standards for grading on hillsides; the size and bulk of the house
were excessive; the annexation is not appropriate because it was simply an
accommodation for the developer; some historical buildings would be down.
9�1 rtl 'v.1a- . S�: • ... ♦ . .. t T' . 4 ..2 )y,••y... 1 -�i.�. i'. H: J,�' .. � � -.� . -: ..M�: .
In answer to Councilmember Callon, Community Development Director explained the®
County standards, including prohibition of building on slopes over 30 %, but noted
that the prohibition did not apply to lots of record.
William Young then spoke as a design engineer representing the applicant. He stated
that the only reason they applied for annexation was that the County would not
process their project until they had done so. He stated that they had met all
requirements of staff and planned to plant a great deal of landscaping; he presented
photographs of another project which they had landscaped extensively and a model of
the current project. He also said that Ms. Shankle's house was higher than the
proposed house, and the project would not interfere with her view or anyone else's.
Councilmembers asked about the proposed road, which would not be counted as
impervious coverage because of its construction (unless the Planning Commission
changed the definition of impervious coverage, which they were considering); '
location of neighbors' homes; landslide danger; details of the plan; easements;
setbacks; and building on the slope. Mr. Young replied that the proposal did not
make use of the existing road because it did not lead to the building as sited. He
explained the proposed setbacks and stated that the easement was a previously -
existing easement for the old road. Bill Heiss, speaking as another engineer for
the project, stated that the average slope of the site was 27 %, and that the
geologist had pronounced the site satisfactory for building.
John Stannard, 19280 Bainter Avenue, Los Gatos, stated he had not been notified of
the project, although he had owned his nearby property since May. Community
Development Director replied that, in accordance with law, homeowners of record as
of the latest Assessor's Parcel List in March were notified of the project. Mr.
Stannard then stated his concern that an easement appeared to pass through one of.
his buildings. Community Development Director stated he believed that the building
had been allowed to remain in the development previously approved on the condition
that a kitchen be removed so that the building could not be used as a second unit.
Mr. Stannard requested a delay to resolve his concerns because he had not been
notified of the project. AUNk
Bob Lorinson opposed the project, saying that the roof would appear very high fron
his adjacent property. .
Diane Jefferson, 15895 Redberry, opposed the project, saying that she feared grading
would endanger her house and property.
Joyce Consoli, 19370 Redberry, opposed the project and the annexation, stating that
she had not been notified of the proposal and was concerned about the effect of the
very large house on the rural character of the area.
Mel Wright, 19400 Redberry, stated that the neighbors wish the property to remain as
it is. He was concerned about possible use of one building as a second unit,
arrangements for an easement, and the drainage from the project. Community
Development Director responded that the drainage must be dealt with to the
satisfaction of City staff.
Bill Robson, Ravine Road, objected to the project because of grading, bulk and size
of the building, slope of the site, and inappropriateness of the annexation.
Bruce Sogg, 19506 Redberry, opposed the project because he believed it could cause
landslide problems.
Georgia Nelson, 15821 Hidden Hill Rd., stated that she did not object to the
proposal and felt the owners were entitled to build on the site. She believed the
project would be an improvement.
Fran Lorinson, 19450 Redberry, objected to the proposal because it would block out
sun from her property. She felt that the house should be built on a flatter portion
of the site.
Chuck Shankle, 16303 Ravine Road, expressed concern that his house would be affected
by any landslide caused by the project. fie feared that the City would make
exceptions to allow unsafe building, and he believed that the proposed project would
be too visible.
William Young rose again to state that the proposal was technically satisfactory,
and the owner had a right to build on the lot. He said he had letters of support
�) a F.
C5- 9/19/85
from Mr. Hoag and Mr. Durkees, both residents of Bainter Dr.
No one further appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10.:04 p.m.
The majority of the Council felt the annexation was not inappropriate because it
would not start a chain of new development, being surrounded already by developed
land. Councilmember Fanelli stated that it has been the policy of the City to annex
land on City limits to retain control of development for the protection of both the
City and the neighbors. Councilmember.Moyles and Mayor Clevenger felt the
annexation should not be approved because there was no reason to annex, since there
was no further development which could be controlled by Saratoga. Mayor Clevenger
felt that if anything were to be annexed, the Council should study the matter and
consider annexing the whole area rather than one small part. ,
CALIAN /FANELLI MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2273 ORDERING THE ANNEXATION. Passed 3 -2
(Clevenger, Moyles opposed).
As to the appeal, Councilmembers agreed that the project was intrusive and
incompatible with the neighborhood because of its size and bulk; that the watershed
issue was a possible factor against the house.; the proposed house was not well
situated; the City had not followed its own HCRD ordinance prohibiting building, on a
30% slope. Councilmember Fanelli added that the City must provide for use of the
site at some time; she believed the easement should remain but more trees should be
provided with less grading so that the site would be intact. Councilmembers
discussed procedures by which the applicant could return with another plan without
the necessity for paying further application fees.
FANELLI/CALLDN MOVED TO REVERSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVALS OF SDR 1605 AND A-
1102 AND GRANT THE APPEAL, DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO RETURN TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION WITH A NEW APPLICATION, BUT WITH THE APPLICATION FEES 14AIVED FOR A PERIOD
OF 6. MONTHS. Passed 5 -0.
C There was consensus that the applicant would be required to pay out -of- pocket costs
such as noticing fees in connection with the "application.,
Mayor Clevenger then recessed the meeting from 10:29 to 10:40 p.m.
t -
.o
n
ce
C� o UQX5&S
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 12/30/85
COUNCIL MEETING: 1/7/86
SUBJECT:. Request for Annexation for Site on Prospect Road
------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
In April, 1985, the City Council considered whether or not the City should annex
a site off of Prospect Road. The site is contiguous to the City boundaries, and,
by unwritten City policy, would normally be annexed into the City. The major
concern staff expressed with the potential annexation was that it would set a
precedent for annexation in the Prospect Road Urban Service Area which could lead
to City maintenance of Prospect Road (see Memorandum dated April 2, 1985 attached).
The Council, at their Committee of the Whole on April 9, 1985 indicated that they
did not wish to annex the Prospect Road site. The applicant is now requesting a
formal letter be written to the County stating that the City waives its rights tc
the annexation of the site. Since this determination was made a Committee of the
Whole, a formal motion is needed at a regular meeting to insure the legality of
the determination.
Recommendation: Approve application for waiver of annexation rights for site
at 21601 Prospect Road (A.P.N. 366 -32 -009).
Kathy Kerdus
Senior Planner
KK /dsc
Attachment
MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCII,
TIME: Tuesday, January 7, 1986 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting
I. ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL - Councilmembers Fanelli, Hlava, Moyles and Mayor Clevenger
present at 7:06 p.m.; Callon present at 7:15 p.m.
B. MINUTES - 12/18 -
MOYL.FS /FAN=I MDVED •TO APPROVE MINUTES AS SUBMIZRED. Passed 4 -0.
II. ORAL EDFRMNICATIONS
Jared ers of Safety Specialists reques'ted•payment for clean -up of haz dour materials
—� —_ on Tri roperty. Consensus to agendize when' :staff report on the ect i.,s ready,..
III. CON CALENDAR
— A. CONSID TION OF CLAIM - Salas
HLAVA /FANELLI D10 Zp DENY CLAIM. .Passed 3 -0 -1 ( Moyles taming because he is e�lo
by firm of lawyer r_ reIcing claimant).
B. OTHER ITEMS
1. Resolution Edward Panelli
RESOLUTION 2293
2. Resolution reappoin ' g Lewis Swanson to Public Safety Commission
RF.SOLUTICN 2294
�— 3. Resolution cOMW -nding Fir ghter of the Year
RESOLUTION 2295
4. ,Resolution Reversing lanning ssion Denial of SUP -13 (McJCanzie
Appeal heard 12/18 5)
—• RESOLUTION 2296
5. .City Ines t Reports -.October, NoVernber _-
- - 6. City Trea er's Report - October
7. Appro 1 of Warrant List
HLAVA /FANELLI VED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR B. Passed 4
IV. SCHED MATTERS
— A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
1. Reconsideration of Haydon Appeal (originally heard 12/4/85)
Consensus
to 'discuss after Item IV..-C. 1.
2. Request for Waiver of Annexation Rights for Site at 21601 Prospect
Road (APN 366 -32 -009)
FANELLI/HLAVA MOVED TO WAIVE ANNEXATICN RIGHTS BECAUSE SITE AND ENTIRE AREA AILING '
PROSPECT ROAD WHICH IS ]N niE COLNrY DOES NOT RAT CITY STANDARDS AND IS CURRE3My
DEVELOPED TO SUB -CITY STANDARDS. Passed 4 -0.
-- , -• -_- -- 3. Request Concerning 1986 City Managers' Department of League of —
California Cities Annual Meeting
FANELLI/FILAVA APPROVED CITY MANALIR'S ATITNnANCE AT MEETING WITH REASONABLE EXPENSES,
AS WELL AS ABSENCE 2/12 -2/17. Passed 4 -0.
c
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 5
DECEMBER 17, 1986
NEW BUSINESS Continued
Councilmember Moyles noted initially there would be enforcement problems and suggested
consideration of appointing a liaison between the College and the City. He noted the 1969 Use
Permit and questioned current enrollment figures of the college.
Mayor Hlava summarized the above discussion:
Concern on the part of the Council regarding overflow parking
- Inforrtuulrm on Cky parking axles be provided to students of Wcst Valley College
C rdlrurllon of f'rwle Vriforcrmrm prrw•rdurrs Irtwrrn drr Cify and the Collrgc
Recognilirm Iry thr ('nllrgt, or tia it uhligatiun u. I11r+vidr usr M' Ihrir riwililirs for thr
community and that parking needs be accomnxxlatctl.
D. Request for Waiver of Annexation Rights for Site located at 21350 Blue Hills Rd.,
APN 366 -06 -026, (Nelson)
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report.to Mayor and City Council, December 10, 1986;
Staff recommended denial of the application. In response to questions, the City Engineer
reviewed Site conditions and location of the Lange parcel and the Nelson parcel; the major
concerns of the Council regarding annexation of these parcels in question were the geotechnical
problems on one side of Prospect Rd. and a possible Code violation in that one of the sites
appeared to have an illegal structure on it. Councilmember Anderson questioned whether the
subject property might also have geotechnical problems.
Councilmember Peterson questioned the premise that if the property in question had problems
the City would not wish to annex it; he noted his concern regarding the setting of such a
precedent. Councilmember Moyles concurred with the question raised by Councilmember
Peterson regarding current City policy and requested information on decisions made in similar
circumstances. He asked that the Applicant address the Council before continuing the
Application for further review. Mayor Mava noted a previous agreement not to annex any
property across Prospect Rd. due to cost incurred, substandard [roads and geotechnical
problems The City Engineer confirmed the correctness of the statement and added that the
property within the urban service area is essentially developed.
Mayor Hlava noted the issue of "visible hillside " described in the Staff Report and stated that
annexing the area across Prospect Rd. would include substandard development which occurred
under the County. She believed that this is the issue. Councilmember Peterson was agreeable
to a continuance of the Application; however, he stated he had a fundamental problem with City
policy and questioned annexation of property on an individual basis.
Planner Caldwell noted the Geology Report of Mr. Cotton which said nothing specifically
different than what is seen throughout the City in hillside areas, namely, that geotechnical
issues must be addressed. She stated that.the benefits of annexation far outweigh cost to the
City; costs will be bome by the developers. She reviewed the specifics of annexation, public
utility improvements, required road improvements, costs, and service providers.
The City Attorney stated that Ordinance 3 -E -15, referred to in Mr. Cotton's letter, has since
been codified in the new Code as Article 16 -65.
Councilmember Moyles noted the exchange of information between the Council and the Staff;
he stated that it was not clear to him whether policy previously established was being changed.
He commented that:
- Changes in policy should be specifically noted in Staff Reports
- There was no proposal for initiating a new policy
- Significantly more information was necessary; this Application should be continued.
Planning Director Hsia stated that Staff was not recommending any new policy; any
recommendations made were based on established City policy and the General Plan.
Mayor Hlava noted the conflict between policy and practice. The practice of the former City
Council was that property on the other side of Prospect would not be annexed due to potential
costs to the city. Consensus reached to hear the Applicant speak and continue the Application.
pveY
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Page 6
C'
DECEMBER 17, 1986
NEW BUSINESS Continued
Mr. Jerome Nelson, Applicant, stated that property owners in the area would agree to
annexation assuming that development of a 15 acre parcel would occur. At present he is the
only property owner who wished to build.an addition on his house. Annexation to the City,
with the potential costs and required improvements, may not be to his best interest at this time.
He asked that he be allowed to initiate the project on his house; annexation to the City would
not be considered until development of the 15 acres occurred.
Application to be continued to a Study Session on January 13, 1987. Councilmember Moyles
asked that a history of annexation be prepared for review; information from the adoption of the
General Plan in 1982, would be provided to the Council.
E. Revision of Rental Fees for Community Center
The City Manager reviewed the Memorandum from the Community Services Department.
Mayor Hlava noted that the proposed schedule combined the facilities under one rental fee.
HLAVA/MOYLES MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 780.28 REVISION OF RENTAL
FEES FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER. Passed 5 -0.
F. Authorization of Additional Improvements to Congress Springs Park Parking Lot
Mr. George Rishell, 13710 Glen Brae Dr., Saratoga, noted three concerns: property values,
noise and security. He stated that property values were not appropriate for this discussion and
nothing could be done regarding noise; however, security was a two fold problem. The
parking lot affords access to adjacent properties, allowing potential intruders reason to be in the
area. He suggested two solutions: installation of a 6 -8 ft. high fence and proper fighting.
Mr. Rishell suggested that the driveway to the Park be relocated further from his property to
reduce noise. The Juniper Tree slated to be removed was on his property. Both Pine and
Juniper trees were planted years ago to provide landscaping screening; however due to
trimming this screening has been lost. -
Councilmember Clevenger stated that this proposal should be considered with other Capital.
Improvement Projects. Councilmember Peterson concurred with Mr. Rishell on his request for
a fence; however, he questioned relocation of the driveway as a way to mitigate noise. He
asked the purpose in lighting the lat, which was not used at night. He suggested use of a
barrier in front of the driveway. He was not favorable to an expenditure of $11,000 for
lighting a parking lot which is not used at night.
Councilmember Moyles was not favorable to relocation of the driveway; however, he was
favorable to landscaping if it provided the needed screening. Mayor Hlava was not favorable
to relocation of the driveway due to length of time in obtaining approval and the consideration
that it was an unwarranted expense. She noted valid concerns of property owners adjacent to
the Park and suggested that the installation of a fence be approved; other considerations subject
to the budgeting process.
Ms. Lois McPherson, 19449 Via Real Dr., Saratoga, noted the difficulty of selling homes on
Via Real Dr. due to the proposed Route M and the existence of the parking lot. She strongly
favored landscaping and felt that both a fence and landscaping were necessary.
.-Councilmember Clevenger favored use of a barrier at the parking lot entrance to determine
whether a barrier mitigated some problems. She objected to the expenditure of $20,000-
$30,000 without review of the Capital Improvements Budget; she favored a $10,000
expenditure to install the fence and barrier „submitting further proposals to the Capital
Improvement Budget; Mayor Hlava and Councilmember Peterson concurred. Councilmember
Clevenger suggested that Parks and Recreation Commission review any proposal beyond the
immediate mitigation of problems in this area.
HLAVA/PETERSON MOVED TO AUTI•IORIZE $10,000 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO
CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK PARKING LOT THROUGH INSTALLATION OF A
FENCE AND PLACEMENT OF A BARRIER AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE.
FURTHER REVIEW TO BE DONE BY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION.
Passed 5 -0.
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 21, 1987
CONSENT CALENDAR 11- OTHER ITEMS Continued
Page 2
E. Construction Acceptance, SDR 1462, 20015 Cox Avenue (McBride, developer)
F. Resolution 36-B -222 Final Acceptance of Tr. 6632, Montalvo Heights Dr.
(G. Butler, developer)
G. Resolution 2295 Renewing City Attorney Contract to June 30, 1988
H. Resolution 779.2 amending City Conflict of Interest Code
I. Acceptance of Resignation of Polly Hills from Finance Committee and
Authorization to Advertise Vacancy
J. Authorization for Staff Attendance at California Building Officials Confcrence -
San Diego, February 25 -28, 1987, with reasonable and necessary expenses not to
exceed $675.
K Ordinance 71.17 amending Section 10- 05.030 of the City Code concerning
obstructions to streets and sidewalks and amending Article 10 -20 concerning issuance
of encroachment permits (second reading and adoption)
L. Ordinance 71.18 adding Sections 9- 15.055 and 9- 20.035 to the City Code relating to
designation of no parking areas by the City Engineer (second reading and adoption)
M. Denial of Request for Waiver of Annexation, 21350 Blue Hills Road,
APN 366 -06 -26 (Nelson)
N. Acceptance and Acknowledgment of Donations to Hakone Garden
(Donors: Sunnyvale Garden Club; K. and,B. Voester)
MOYLES /CLEVENGER MOVED ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 5 -0. _
S. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC:
A. Oral Communications from the Public and Commissions _ -
- Ms. Gladys Armstrong, President, Friends of the Saratoga Libraries, thanked the City
Council for renewing the lease for the Book -a -Round
- Ms. Barbara Simner, 12791 Idlewood Ln., Saratoga, noted her concern at receiving an
advertisement for a speed reading class on official City stationery and commented that she
viewed such use of City stationery as inappropriate. (See further discussion on Page 9)
Mr. George Lee, 19744 Solano Dr., Saratoga, commented on the new proposal from
Caltrans regarding depression of Route 85; due to financial commitments, Caltrans
is now proposing that the majority of corridor development .would not be depressed in
Saratoga; he asked that the Council not change the commitments made to the voters of the
City.
B. Written Communications from the Public
Mayor Hlava noted letters regarding HCDA and CDBG funding; these will be discussed in
Item 8. B. of Public Hearings.
6. OLD BUSINESS
A. Resolution 2296 Rescinding Policy on Rotation of Office of Mayor
Col. E.T. Barco presented a prepared statement enddcd. "Me Saratoga Mayor -Go- Round"
favoring establishment of a committee to study rotation of the Mayor's position.
Mr. Frank Cage, President, Good Government Group, asked that the Good Government
Group be noted in the public record as opposed to any procedure which provided for automatic
rotation of the Office of Mayor, a letter to this effect was addressed to the City Council,
November 12, 1986.
a
4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: August 17, 1988
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning
AGENDA ITEM: '✓
CITY MGR. APPROVA
SUBJECT: GPA- 88 -04, Air Quality Section of Conservation Element
Recommended Motion:
Conduct public hearing, adopt Negative Declaration, approve
GPA- 88 -04.
Report Summary:
The proposed Air Quality Section of the Conservation Element
has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission. The Section has been prepared by Advance Planninq
staff, after direction from the City Council in September, 1986.
in response to a request from the Bay Area Air Quality Manage-
ment District. The Section evaluates air quality issues and
problems of special concern to Saratoga and recommends goals,
policies and implementation measures to address them.
Public Noticing: Legal and display ads in Saratoga News, mailing to
Saratoga Community Group Notification List.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments: 1) Report from Planning Department, with Resolution.
2) Planning Commission minutes from 7/27/88, 6/22/88, 5/3/88.
3) Negative Declaration.
4) Air Quality Section, Exhibit "A ".
5) Correspondence received.
Motion and Vote:
0TXW o9 0&MZ1X(n)0Z
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: 8/9/88
FROM: Valerie Young, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: GPA- 88 -04; Air Quality Section of Conservation Element
Background:
Attached for your review is the final draft of the Air Quality
Section of the Conservation Element of the General Plan, as
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The Commission
reviewed the Section at one Committee -of- the -Whole study session
and two public hearings, minutes of which are attached. This draft
incorporates all the suggestions made to date by the Commission.
In September, 1986, the City Council directed that this Air Quality
Section be prepared, in response to a request from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District ( BAAQMD). This Section was prepared by
Advance Planning staff with technical assistance from BAAQMD staff.
The Section contains a significant amount of technical information
on air quality in the Bay Area; it also discusses air quality issues
in Saratoga, and proposes goals, policies and implementation
measures consistent with the existing format of the City's General
Plan. Because there are not State regulations or guidelines for the
preparation of air quality elements to General Plans, staff has
worked closely with BAAQMD officials to ensure the Section meets the
intent of their original request as well as the needs of the City of
Saratoga.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council conduct the public hearings, make any
changes or corrections it deems appropriate, adopt the Negative
Declaration and approve GPA- 88 -04, per the attached resolution.
VY /dsc
Attachment
Valerie Yo'
ng
Associate
lanne
VY /dsc
Attachment
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
JULY 27, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Kurt Anderson, Architect, presented pictures of the site -and adjacent area and commented:
- Noted the difficulty of the site due to triangular shape and - topography of the lot, the open
space easement and the agricultural, area
Reviewed modifications made to the proposal
Premise that the siting of the house and the original layout of the Parker Ranch. project
conformed with the intent of the new Design Review Ordinance although the lot lines would
not be drawn as they were originally drawn
- If lot lines were redrawn, the same area would be available even though,the lot configur-
ation would be somewhat different and the Applicant could build the size of house requested
Mr. Sun, Applicant, asked that this Application be approved. .
BURG ER/S IEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10 :19 P.M. Passed
6 -0.
KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE V -88 -005 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 6 -0.
KOLSTAD /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR -88 -012. Passed
6 -0.
16. DR -88 -048 Frankel, 19123 Via Tesoro Court, request for design review approval for
V -88 -012 a new 6,010 sq. ft. two -story single family home in the R -1- 40,000
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Also consider granting a
variance from Ordinance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planner Caldwell confirmed that the,Applicant requested a Continuance to August 10, 1988.
She reviewed efforts of the Planning Department to inform the Applicant of their recommenda-
tion for denial; the Applicant wished to bring this Item to the Commission fora hearing.
17. GPA -88 -004 City of Saratoga, consider a proposal to amend the Conservation Element
of the General Plan, adding an Air Quality Section. The proposed section
identifies air quality issues in Saratoga and develops goals, policies, and
implementation measures to address them. A Negative Declaration has
been prepared. Continued from June 22, 1988.
Planner Welge reviewed the Memorandum of July 27, 1988.
The City Manager noted an amendment to the Section entitled West Valley Freeway, stating
that the projected time for construction of Highway 85 was 3 -5 years, not 5- 7-years as stated.
The Public Hearing,was opened at 10:35 P.M.
Ms. Cheriel.Jensen commented Mr. Will Kempton had stated tha an addendum or supplement
to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was being prepared r the Route 85 project since
the original report did not address the contingency of interchange in Saratoga; she asserted that
Cal Trans wrote the City a letter, the contents of which were a de -facto admission that the
contract signed was not in effect as far as Cal Trans was concerned. She asked that reference
to the 1987 EIR not be made in the Air Quality Element of the General Plan.
_ rCVi 44s
The City Manager confirmed that -a supplemental�on the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed Route-85 interchanges as -well as other design changes would be completed.h ef} TOA Ai S
The City Attorney added that Environmental Assessments did not necessarily invalidate docu-
ments already completed nor agreements reached with Cal Trans. Assessments and studies
were ongoing and therefore, statements in theGeneral_Plan should not be definitive.
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10:45 P.M. Passed
6 -0.
SIEGFRJED/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE GPA -88 -004. Passed 6 -0.
SIEGFRIEDBURGER MOVED TO GRANT A.NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6 -0.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
11. GPA -88 -004 City of Saratoga, consider a proposal to amend the Conservation Element
of the General Plan, adding an Air Quality Section. The proposed section
identifies air quality issues in Saratoga and develops goals, policies, and
implementation measures to address them. A Negative Declaration has
been prepared
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, June 22, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:40 P.M.
Ms. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows:
- Statement that the air quality would improve after the freeway was built was not true
- County traffic patterns would be rearranged by Route 85 as noted in the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); examples cited
- Noted the considerable air pollution that would result
- At the time the EIR was approved, there was no valid traffic study; the Barton - Aschman
Study was completed after the Transportation Commission had approved the EIR/EIS
- Cited efforts, including a lawsuit, to obtain the data and figures used; in addition, there
was no public hearing at which these issues could be addressed
- Figures used in EIR/EIS were false; cited examples of discrepancy in numbers presented
- Cited the impacts to the City of Saratoga from the increased traffic
- Urged the,Planning Commission not to approve the document under consideration
Mr. Robert Wilson, 18709 Miller Ct., Saratoga, commented as follows:
Air Quality Element under consideration gave the impression that air pollution was not a
problem; cited examples of respiratory disease and existing levels of air pollutants
Noted the lack of interest in more restrictive standards for the State of California
San Jose.Mercury News' view that there was no problem was short sighted
Cited efforts to obtain information on impacts of the freeway system and development
Reviewed data on violations of air quality standards in the area and impacts of Route 85
BURGER/IIARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 8:59 P.M. Passed 6 -0.
Commissioner Harris felt that an endorsement of Route 85 was suggested in the Air Quality
Element, specifically, West Valley Freeway: she wished the text to be as unbiased as possible.
Planner Welge stated that references were taken from the Environmental Impact Statement.
Commissioner Burger suggested that neutrality could only be maintained in the document by
avoiding the subject of Route 85; she cited the conflicting information surrounding this issue.
Vice Chairman Siegfried concurred that there were unanswered concerns regarding Route 85.
Commissioner Burger suggested that references from the EIS be noted in the text.
Commissioner Tucker, commented as follows:
- Barton - Aschman Traffic Study was somewhat unclear and subject to interpretation
- Asked that the Table 4 show State of California Standards, rather than federal standards,
such should be referenced throughout the entire document
- In the Section entitled West Valley Freeway, asked that final paragraph be documented
Commissioner Tappan noted that language used in the EIS was equivocal; he concurred with
the above recommendations of other Commissioners.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE GPA -88 -004 TO JULY 27, 1988. Passed 6 -0.
Planning Commission
Committee -of- the -Whole
5/3/88
E. Review of preliminary draft of Air Quality Section of
Conservation Element
Planning Director Hsia gave an introduction, stating that
the Air Quality Section had been prepared at the City
Council's•request. His intention was for the Commissioners
to go over the draft tonight, suggesting changes or
corrections if necessary.' Review of the revised document
would then be scheduled for the regular meeting on June -
22nd, and the May *.7th- study session as well if the
Commissioners felt it was necessary.
Planner Welge proceeded to go over the draft section by.
section. None of the Commissioners present had any concern
about the organization of the document, nor with the first
section outlining the purpose and goal of the Air Quality.
Section. The Commissioners also seemed to agree that the
section on "Atmosphere Air Pollution Potential" was:
adequate.; no changes were recommended.
With regard to the section on "Air Pollution Potential
Related to Emissions ", Commissioner Tucker noted -a
correction to be made to .Table 1 on pg. 6; the California
Standard for ozone has been changed from 0.10 ppm to 0.09_
ppm. Planner Welge agreed,to make.the.change.
Under the next section entitled "Monitoring .-'Air Quality,"
there was some discussion about Figure 4 which shows the
location of BAAQMD's ambient' air monitoring stations.
Commissioner Guch asked why the first two letters of each
place name were capitalized. Planner Welge* stated that they
were. abbreviations used by BAAQMD, and were not 'important
for our purposes. As such, the type will be changed*.
Commissioner Kolstad asked where exactly the. Los Gatos
station is located and expressed concern that the • location
relative to the freeway may• influence readings. Planner
Welge provided the information and explained that because
ozone is a regional pollutant dependent on .atmospheric
conditions, high concentrations are not. necessarily
associated with heavily travelled roadways. The high ozone
readings taken at the Los Gatos station are more likely due
to the topographical and atmospheric conditions there,.
rather than the station's proximity to the freeway.
With regard'. to Table 3 on pg. 11, Commissioner Tucker
suggested that, if available, 1987 data should be included.
Information on peak levels would also be useful. For Table
4 on pg. 112, Commissioner Kolstad suggested that a chart
showing the decline in peak levels would help illustrate the
trends. The other Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Guch
suggested that a sentence or two be added to clarify that
thQ station in Saratoga was temporary and is no longer in
Ll
Committee -of- the - Whole
5/3/88
existence. Concensus was reached that a footnote, to the
table would be appropriate. Also, Commissionier' Tucker
requested that the most recent data available be- included,*
up to 1987 if possible. Planner Welge agreed to add more
recent data.
Planner Welge summarized the "Air Quality Planning and
Regulation" section, stating that it is uncertain at this
time whether or not EPA will impose sanctions on non -
attainment areas. The Bay Area is one such area that could
be penalized if the sanctions authorized under the 1977
amendments to the Clean Air Act are enforced. . Commissioner
Tucker understood that some action was to be taken -by
August, 1988. Planner Welge agreed to update the
information as it becomes available for the final draft of
the document.
The next section of the report covers "Air Quality Issues in
Saratoga.' With regard to the future West Valley Freeway,.
Commissioner Tucker felt that the .language was somewhat
misleading in that the studies she had seen did not show
that CO levels would actually decrease. She asked if staff
had consulted a document on air quality impacts of the
proposed freeway that was prepared by Caltrans. Planner
Welge stated that she was unfamiliar-with that particular
document but would check into it to see if it contained more
specific air quality information than what was contained in
the Final EIR for the freeway. She also indicated that the
section would be reworded to reflect that CO levels will not
decrease in the future per se, but rather will -be relatively
less in some areas than what they otherwise would be if the
freeway were not built. Overall, CO levels will increase as
traffic levels increase in the future. Commissioner Guch
also pointed out that the reference to the Barton- Aschman,
study should be rephrased, since the study did not address
air quality directly, but rather assumptions about air
quality were being made based on traffic volume data.'
With regard to the "Goal, Policies, and Implementation
Measures" section, Commissioner- Burger asked for
clarification 'on the relationship of this new document to
the existing General Plan. Planning Director Hsia explained
that the new Air Quality Section would replace the old text,
and the new goal and-policies would be added to the end of
the existing Conservation Goals section. The Commissioners
agreed that this would be fine. With regard to CO.8.4-
(Imp), Commissioner Guch suggested that the words "continue
to" be deleted since they were somewhat misleading, implying
that the City had been aggressively enforcing existing air
quality regulations, which was not the case. The other.
Commissioners agreed.
5
,
Committee -of- the -Whole
5/3/88
The concensus of the Commissioners present was that another
study session on this item was not necessary, since. the
changes to be made are relatively minor. Overall, they were*
satisfied with the document and agreed it should be
scheduled for public hearing at the regular meeting on June
22, 1988.
II. ADJOURNMENT
N.
RES -NO
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
'(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
File No.GPA -88 -04
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., Section IS063 through
15060 and Section IS070 of the California Administrative Code, and
Resolution 653- of the City.of Saratoga, that the following descri °bed
project will have no significant • effect (no substantial adv -erse impact) on
the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
General Plan Amendment revising the existing Conservation Element
to add an Air Quality Section.
NAME AND ADDRESS..OF APPLTCANT
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA. 95070
REASON FOR NEr,.ATTVE DECLARATION
It is determined that the project establishes goals, policies
and implementation measures to either preserve'or further enhance
the City's air quality and to promote public health,.saf ety and
welfare by protecting the natural environment.
Executed at Saratoga, Califorriia this ?-S day of AV"'* 1988.
YUCHUEK HSIA
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
A
DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
CA H't81T A
AIR QUALITY SECTION
Table of Contents
Paqe
Purpose and Goal of Air Quality Section 1
Atmospheric Air Pollution Potential 1
Topography
Regional and Local Wind Patterns
Atmospheric Stability _
Solar Radiation
Air Pollution Potential Related to Emissions 5
Criteria Pollutants
Toxic Pollutants
Air Pollutant Sources
Monitoring Air Quality 9
Air Quality Planning and Regulation 14
National, State and Regional Efforts
Existing Policies and Programs in Saratoga
Air Quality Issues in Saratoga 16
Goals, Policies, Implementation Programs 19
Glossary 21
References 24
PURPOSE AND GOAL OF AIR QUALITY SECTION
Clean air is a natural resource of vital importance, and although
its protection is often considered to be a matter of regional
concern, the City of Saratoga recognizes that there are policies
and programs local governments can undertake to help preserve air
quality. As such, this document has been prepared for inclusion
in the City's General Plan as a Section of the Conservation
Element. It is consistent with, and is to be used in conjunction
with, the other elements of the City's General Plan in directing
future development in Saratoga.
The purpose of the Air Quality Section is to preserve the quality
of Saratoga's air resources and to protect citizens from the
potentially harmful effects of air pollution. The Air Quality
Section evaluates both existing and projected air quality, which
is largely dependent upon pollutant emission levels and climatic
factors.- Major sources of air pollution are identified, as are
the facilities used by those population groups considered to- be
particularly -at risk from exposure to air contaminants. Also
discussed are air quality issues and problems of special concern
to Saratoga, and the goals, policies, and implementation measures
developed to address them. These policies will direct the City's
actions toward the preservation of air quality in the future.
ATMOSPHERIC AIR POLLUTION POTENTIAL
Air pollution potential can be defined as the tendency for high
pollutant concentrations to develop at a given location. This
potential is dependent upon the amount of pollutant emitted into
the air and the local atmosphere's ability to transport and
dilute the pollutant. Discussed in this section are the major
topographical and meteorological factors that determine the
local atmosphere's potential for pollution dispersion. These
factors include the topography of the area, regional and local
wind patterns (horizontal airflow), atmospheric stability
(vertical airflow), and solar radiation.
Topography
The San Francisco Bay Area is a large shallow basin ringed by
hills, which tapers into a series of sheltered valleys. The
Santa Clara Valley is one of these protected valleys, and is
surrounded by the Santa Cruz Mountains to the south and west and
the Diablo Range- to the east. The mountains act as natural
barriers that prevent the free flow of air and dispersion of
contaminants. There is a tendency, therefore, for pollutants to
concentrate within the Santa Clara Valley air basin.
Regional and Local Wind Patterns
Horizontal air flow, or wind, is a major factor that influences
pollutant dispersion. On days when wind speeds are low, as is
typically the case in the Santa Clara Valley, the potential for
1
pollution concentration is high. For example, all other factors
being equal, a 15 mph wind provides roughly three times as much
pollutant dilution as a 5 mph wind.
In the Bay Area, the physical terrain directly influences
regional surface wind patterns (Figure 1). Generally, surface
winds flow around rather than over the higher mountains and
hills, which appear as areas of darker shading on Figure 1. Due
to the persistence of a semipermanent high pressure system off
the California coast in the summer, the prevailing wind pattern
at that time of year is northwesterly. Under these conditions,
the wind generally flows through the Golden Gate and into the
Santa Clara Valley from the north, carrying with it pollutants
from the San Francisco and Oakland metropolitan areas. In the
winter, periods of calm weather are characterized by light winds
that flow out of the Central Valley and into the Bay Area through
the Carquinez Strait. An example of this is the northeasterly
airflow pattern, which often brings pollutants emitted from the
north to Saratoga (also shown on Figure 1). Because of the
prevailing regional wind pattern, air quality in the Santa Clara
Valley is adversely affected not only by pollutants emitted
locally, but also by those transported to the valley from the
urban areas to the north.
Topography also influences wind patterns at a more localized
'level. During periods of atmospheric stagnation when regional
winds are weak, a diurnal wind pattern develops in sheltered
valleys; airflow commonly drains down - valley at night and
reverses to flow up- valley by day. This daily recirculation
compounds the pollution problem, since pollutants drift back and
forth, constrained laterally by the valley walls. This wind
pattern generally develops from the differential heating of the
mountain slopes or hillsides vis -a -vis the valley floor and tends
to be more pronounced adjacent to south and west- facing slopes,
since these receive the most direct sunlight. As such, Saratoga
may not be as susceptible to this phenomenon as the communities
on the other side of the valley, but it still comes into play
here particularly in the summer when the hours of sunlight are
long.
Atmospheric Stability
Atmospheric stability refers to the atmosphere's tendency to
either suppress or promote vertical airflow or "mixing ". When
atmospheric conditions are stable, as is often the case along the
California coast, vertical mixing of air is limited. The limit
on vertical airflow is particularly severe when a layer of warmer
air lies above a layer of cooler air. This situation is called
an "inversion" because it is a reversal of the atmosphere's
normal state where the temperature of the air decreases with
altitude. A temperature inversion prevents pollutants from being
diluted vertically, trapping them in the lower layer of air near
the earth's surface (see Figure 2).
The strong inversions typical of California summers are caused by
2
REGIONAL WIND SURFACE PATTERNS
SAN 'FRANCISCO BAY AREA
Northwesterly
Note: Shaded'areas.denote*h.ills & mountains
Source: BAAQMD
FIGURE 1
INVERSION LAYER
Northeasterly
ai
Lid
ZZ
Inversion
layer
Temperature
Source:
Strahler, 1979
downward vertical motion, called subsidence, which compresses and
heats the air. Surface inversions also occur locally in
winter, when they are caused by air cooling as it comes into
contact with the earth's cold surface at night. Summer
subsidence inversions usually persist throughout the day and
occur on more than 90% of the summer days. Winter radiation
inversions take place on over 70% of the nights, but usually
dissipate by afternoon. When both types of inversions occur
simultaneously, which is most likely to happen in the fall, air
pollution can be particularly severe.
Solar Radiation
In the presence of direct solar radiation and warm temperatures,
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere react to form
"photochemical" pollutants, including ozone. For example, on
foggy or cloudy summer days, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are
often trapped below the inversion layer, but are not exposed to
sufficient ultra violet energy to cause the reaction that forms
photochemical smog (see Figure 3a). However, on days when there
is no fog or cloud cover, the reaction can take place and smog
will form beneath the inversion layer (Figure 3b). The high
frequency of clear, cloudless days in the Santa Clara Valley and
in Saratoga makes these areas susceptible to the formation of
photochemical pollutants.
Source: BAAQMD
EAST
BAY
HYDRO,' -NITROGEN R
6 CARBONS OXIDES:- LI
SAN
FRANCISCO .. 6
BAY C?^
Figure 3a
EAST
HYDRO- + SUN + NITROGEN c SMOG RBAY
CARBONS OXIDES U
6SAN U L�
FRANCISCO F1
BAYJ
n
Figure 3b
AIR POLLUTION POTENTIAL RELATED TO EMISSIONS
In addition to atmospheric conditions, air pollution potential at
a given location also depends upon the emission density in the
surrounding air. Pollutant concentrations are measured according
to federal and State standards established to protect human
health. These pollutants, their primary sources and associated
effects are described in this section.
There are two general categories of air pollutants: These are
commonly referred to as "criteria" pollutants and "toxic"
pollutants.
Criteria Pollutants
Pollutants that are subject to national ambient standards are
often referred to as "criteria pollutants" because the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established acceptable
concentration levels for these pollutants according to certain
human health and welfare criteria. National ambient air quality
standards were first established by EPA pursuant to the 1,970
Clean Air Act Amendments and are divided into two categories:
primary standards designed to protect human health, and more
stringent secondary standards to protect property and aesthetics.
The primary standards were to be attained by the end of 1987 and
maintained thereafter. In 1969, the State of California also
established separate ambient air quality standards for the State,
but these do not have a specific attainment date. Table 1 lists
both the federal and State standards for the major criteria
pollutants which include carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
suspended particulates, lead and ozone.
Carbon Monoxide - Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless
gas that is highly toxic. It is formed by the incomplete
combustion of fuels, and its main source is automobiles. Carbon
monoxide binds to hemoglobin, the oxygen - carrying protein in
blood, and thus reduces the amount of oxygen reaching the heart
and lungs. At high concentrations, this can cause heart
difficulties in people with chronic diseases, reduced lung
capacity and impaired mental abilities.
Nitrogen Dioxide - Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a reddish -brown
gas, toxic at high concentrations, that results primarily from
the combustion of fossil fuels under high temperature and
pressure. Automobiles and industrial operations are the major
sources of nitrogen oxides. The health effect associated with
this pollutant is an increase in the incidence of chronic
bronchitis and lung irritation.
Sulfur Dioxide - Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless gas with a
pungent, irritating odor that is created by the combustion of
fuel containing sulfur. It is also known to oxidize and form
sulfur trioxide, which combines with moisture in the atmosphere
to form a sulfuric acid mist. Sulfur dioxide damages and
irritates lung tissue and accelerates the corrosion of materials.
TABLE 1
FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
(see Explanation below)
Pollutant Averaging Time National California
Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone 1 -Hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8 -Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
1 -Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.05 ppm - - - --
1 -Hour - - -- 0.25 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 ppm - - --
24 -Hour 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm
1 -Hour - - -- .0.50 ppm
Total Suspended Annual Mean 75 ug /m3 - - --
Particulates* 24 -Hour 250 ug /m3 - - --
Suspended Particulate Annual Mean 50 ug /m3 30 ug /m3
Matter (PM 10) 24 -Hour 150 ug /m3 50 ug /m3
Lead 24 -Hour 1 ug /m3 - - --
*Former standard now substituted for by PM10
EXPLANATION: All of the standards are measured in terms of the
concentration of the pollutant in a volume of air.
Ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur
dioxide are measured in parts per million (ppm).
Total Suspended Particulates and Suspended
Particulate Matter (PM - particulate matter
less than 10 microns inl8iameter) are measured in
micrograms per cubic meter (ug /m3). The standard
figures reflect an average of readings taken over a
specific period of time.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; California Air
Resources Board; Bay Area Air Quality Management
District.
Suspended Particulates - Total suspended particulates (TSP) are
solid and liquid particles of dust, soot, aerosols and other
matter which are small enough to remain suspended in the air for
a long period of time. A portion of the total particulate matter
in the air comes from natural sources, such as wind -blown dust
and pollen. Man -made particulate sources include combustion,
Outomobiles, field burning, factories, unpaved roads, and grading
and construction activities. The effects of high concentrations
on human health include the aggravation of chronic diseases and
heart /lung disease symptoms. Non - health effects include reduced
visibility and soiling of surfaces. New standards for suspended
particulates that are 10 microns or less in size (PM 0) recently
have been adopted at both the State and fed1ral levels.
Particles of this size are extremely small, easily inhaled and
are more directly associated with adverse health effects in
humans. For this reason, the PM 10 standard has replaced the TSP
standard.
Lead - Atmospheric lead occurs in the form of airborne lead
particles. The dominant source of lead in the urban atmosphere
is the lead compounds contained in gasoline, although lead is now
being phased out as a gas additive. Lead accumulates in body
tissues and impairs blood function and nerve construction.
Ozone - Ozone (03) is the most prevalent of the various oxidants
found in the atmosphere. It is a colorless gas formed by the
complex chemical reactions between hydrocarbons and oxides of
nitrogen in the presence of sunshine. Unlike other pollutants,
ozone is not emitted into the atmosphere from any source; rather,
it is created from "ozone precursors ", which are nitrogen oxides
and hydrocarbons that emanate from combustion in factories and
automobiles, and from the evaporation of solvents and fuels. The
health effects of ozone are eye irritation and damage to lung
tissue. Ozone also damages some materials, such as rubber, and
may damage plants and crops.
Toxic Pollutants
In addition to criteria pollutants for which there are ambient
air quality standards, there is a second class of regulated
pollutants known as toxic, or hazardous pollutants. These
pollutants are known to be injurious to humans even in small
quantities, but are relatively uncommon. There are emission
limitations for these pollutants rather than ambient air quality
standards. To date, the toxic pollutants regulated by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) are asbestos,
beryllium, mercury, vinyl chloride, benzene and lead, which is
considered to be both a criteria and toxic pollutant. The
emission limits for these pollutants are listed in Table 2. The
recently enacted Tanner Bill (AB2948, 1986) requires that BAAQMD,
together with the State Air Resources Board and the Department of
Health Services, develop regulations controlling other toxic
airborne contaminants as additional information becomes
available.
7
TABLE 2
EMISSION.LIMITS FOR HAZARDOUS POLLUTANTS
Substance BAAQMD Emissions Limitations
Lead 15 lbs /day*
Asbestos No visible emissions
Beryllium 10 grams /24 hours*
Vinyl Chloride 10 parts per million
in gas stream*
Benzene No detectable emissions
from pumps, valves or
compressors
*Other limits may apply depending on the process used and
materials involved.
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Rules and
Regulations Volume II, Regulation 11 as amended to May,
1988.
Air Pollutant Sources-
In general, there are two types of air pollutant sources,
stationary and mobile. Stationary sources (e.g. factories and
refineries) are regulated by BAAQMD. As might be expected in a
residential community such as Saratoga, there are no major
stationary sources of air.pollutants located within the City, nor
is it likely that any will be located here in the future given
the General Plan land use policy that limits the expansion of
non - residential zoning districts. According to BAAQMD records,
the nearest major industrial sources of air pollutants are the
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation and Kaiser Cement and
Gypsum Corporation in Cupertino. However, there are a plethora
of smaller scale pollution- causing activities that take place
continuously in Saratoga, including the combustion of fuel for
space and water heating, the use of fuels and solvents in
commercial operations (e.g. gas stations and dry cleaners),
fires, agricultural tilling and pesticide use; and construction
activities.
9
Mobile sources (vehicles) constitute the single most significant
source of air pollutants in the region. In Santa Clara County,
vehicles are responsible for 85% of the emitted carbon monoxide,.
75% of the emitted nitrogen oxides, 47% of the reactive organic
gases (ozone precursors), 55% of the emitted sulfur dioxide, and
70 of the emitted particulates.
MONITORING AIR QUALITY
Ambient air quality in a given location is discerned through
routine monitoring of pollutant concentration levels. A
discussion of the most recent air quality data available for the
west Santa Clara Valley area is provided in this section along
with a discussion of specific problem pollutants and probable
trends for the future.
The concentration of pollutants -in the ambient air is monitored
by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD) through
a network of permanent air quality monitoring sites (Figure 4).
There are no monitoring sites in Saratoga_ The closest full
monitoring stations to Saratoga are in downtown San Jose and
Redwood City. Partial monitoring sites, where ozone levels only
are measured, are located in Los Gatos and Mountain View. In
addition, from time to time special projects (e.g. Highway 85)
require extensive environmental review which includes the
monitoring of air quality. This data can be used to supplement
BAAQMD's data when available.
Air quality data from BAAQMD's south bay and peninsula monitoring
stations is provided in Table 3. The table lists the number of
days per year that the standards were exceeded from 1983 through
1986 for each of the five major criteria pollutants. Statistics
on exceedances of the state standards for ozone and carbon
monoxide are not available because BAAQMD and ARB concentrate on
compliance with federal standards for those two pollutants. With
only a few exceptions, the southern Santa Clara Valley stations
closest to Saratoga (San Jose and Los Gatos) recorded more
frequent exceedences of the standards than did the stations
located further north at Redwood City and Mountain View. This is
not surprising since, as discussed previously, regional wind
patterns are such that air pollutants are often carried into the
Valley from other-parts of the Bay Area and are trapped,by the
surrounding mountain ranges. The result is a general degradation
in air quality as one moves south down the San Francisco
peninsula.
0
eSanta Rosa (OCNSP,)
Sonoma •(0) ®
*Napa (OCNSP)
m Fairfield (O.)
0 Valle '
C rocke`Et (S)
Sa Hafael�(OCNSP) Pittsburg (OCNSP)
0 Richmond (OCNSP)
r `~ 0Concord (OCNSP) .
Q
Q 00akland (OC)
San 'Francisco C)0
...ter. ._...�„
Potrero SF ( NSP)O
O San Leandro (0)
®Hayward (0) •Livermore (OCNSP)
G Fremont (OCNSP)
Redwood C ty (OCNSP )0
M untain View (0)s
. O Alum Rock Si (0)
*San Jose (OCNSP)
• Los Gatos (0)
0 10 20 MILES
0 16 31 KM ®Gilroy (OC)
POLLUTANTS MONITORED
O = OZONE
C = CARBON MONOXIDE
N = NITROGEN DIOXIDE
S = SULFUR DIOXIDE
P = PARTICULATE
FIGURE 4: BAAQMD Ambient Air Monitoring
Stations in the Bay Area
Source: BAAQMD
10
oxides are largely produced by vehicles and high temperature
industrial operations; although San Jose often has the highest
concentrations in the Bay Area, this has yet to pose a serious
11
TABLE 3
NUMBER OF DAYS PER
YEAR STANDARDS
EXCEEDED (1983 -87)
Pollutant Year S.J.
R.C. L.G. M.V.
*
Max. /Days
Max. /Days Max. /Days Max. /Days
Ozone
1983 -
9
-
2 - 12 - 5
(National Standard,
1984 .15
4
.11
0 .17 13 .12 0
0.12 ppm)
1985 .14
2
.13
1 .16 4 .12 0-._
1986 .14
1
.1b
0 .12 0 .13 1
1987 .14
1
.12
0 .13 4 .14 4
Carbon Monoxide
1983 -
2
-
1 - - - -
(National Standard,
1984 11.4
5
5.6
0 - - - -
9.0 ppm)
1985 15.6
16
6.4
0 - - - -
1986 11.0
4
6.4
0 - - - -
1987 7.4
0
5.5
0 - - - -
Nitrogen Dioxide
1983 -
0
-
0 - - - -
(Calif. Standard,
1984 .18
0
.9
0 - - - -
0.25 ppm)
1985 .19
0
.13
0 - - - -
1986 .16
4
.13
4 - - - -
1987 .17
0
.12
0 - - - -
Sulfur Dioxide
1983 -
0
-
0 - - - -
(Calif. Standard,
1984 .4
0
.2
0 - - - -
0.50 ppm)
1985 .4
0
.2
0 - - - -
1986 .7
0
.3
0 - - - -
1987 .4
0
.3
0 - - - -
Suspended Particulates
1983 -
2
-
0 - - - -
(National Secondary * **
1984 76
2
44
0 - - - -
Standard, 150 ug /m3)
1985 **
**
44
0 - - - -
1986 **
**
44
0 - - - -
1987 **
**
52
0 - - - -
*Max= Maximum concentration
levels
* *Data invalid due to heavy
construction
activity
'in progress near
the monitoring site.
** *The concentration levels
for
suspended
particulates is not a
maximum but rather the annual
geometric
mean.
Source: BAAQMD
With regard to specific
pollutants,
Table 3
also shows that the
standards for nitrogen
dioxide, sulfur
dioxide
and suspended
particulates are rarely
exceeded, while
violations of the ozone
and carbon monoxide standards
are
much
more
frequent. Sulfur
dioxide is primarily
associated
with
chemical
and refining
industries, and strict
controls
on
these
processes are
instrumental in keeping
emission
levels
in
check. Nitrogen
oxides are largely produced by vehicles and high temperature
industrial operations; although San Jose often has the highest
concentrations in the Bay Area, this has yet to pose a serious
11
problem. The federal secondary standard for suspended
particulates is exceeded from time to time at the San Jose
monitoring site, but intensive construction activity currently in
progress near the site makes recent data suspect. As such, it is
difficult to make any definitive statement about suspended
particulate levels in the South Bay at this time. The two
"problem" pollutants, ozone and carbon monoxide are discussed in
greater detail below.
Ozone - The federal ozone standard is 0.12 parts per million
(ppm). Compliance with this standard is determined by a three
year average of exceedances known as the Expected Annual
Exceedance (EAE). A three year average- is used because
concentrations are heavily dependent upon weather patterns and
may vary substantially from year to year-. An EAE of 1.0 is
considered to be in compliance with the standard. Table 4 shows
the number of days with maximum hourly concentrations exceeding
the federal standard for BAAQMD's permanent south bay and
peninsula monitoring sites and for selected other sites where
data was available. As the Table shows, BAAQMD was able to
obtain data from a temporary monitoring station located in
Saratoga during the years 1976 to 1981. The readings indicate
that Saratoga's EAE for ozone was somewhat lower than the
readings for San. Jose and Los Gatos, but still exceeded the
federal standard. As previously mentioned, figures for
exceedances of the state ozone standard are not available.
The Expected Annual Exceedances for the south bay stations have
generally decreased since the late 19701s. For the Bay Area in
general, annual exceedances of the federal ozone standard have
decreased as shown in Figure 5. This downward trend may be due
in part to new controls placed on both stationary and mobile
sources of ozone precursors. Whether or not this trend continues
depends on future rates of population and traffic growth. In
some areas, including the Santa Clara Valley, fast and extensive
growth may continue to counterbalance the effect of increased
controls. Current projections of emissions in the Bay Area show
that ozone precursors will, in the absence of stricter controls,
reach a low point around 1987 to 1990 and then begin to climb
again. Ozone levels also may be assumed to begin increasing
after this point as traffic and population growth continues.
67 68 69 70
>.08
>12
72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
YEARS
Figure 5: Trend in Ozone*Standard Exceedences
Source: BAAQMD
12
> oa
120
100—,
10
80
{
60
Ln
40
20
• �_
67 68 69 70
>.08
>12
72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
YEARS
Figure 5: Trend in Ozone*Standard Exceedences
Source: BAAQMD
12
TABLE 4
OZONE - NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING FEDERAL STANDARD
Expected (Average) Annual Exceedances(EAE)*
Station Dates
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
to to to to to to to to to to
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 19.87
Redwood City
1.0
.7
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.3
Mt. View
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.1
0.8
2.5
1.7
1.7
0.3
Sunnyvale **
2.5
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
San Jose
7.4
6.4
6.4
2.7
1.3
3.3
5.3
6.0
3.3
Saratoga **
7.3
4.9
4.9
2.4
-
-
-
-
-
Los Gatos
9.0
11.9
16.9
9.9
6.7
4.7
8.4
9.7
5.7
*Number of
days with
maximum
hourly
concentration
more
than
12
pphm (parts
per hundred
million).
* *Temporary
stations
no
longer in
existence.
Source: BAAQMD
Carbon Monoxide - A second potential air quality problem related
to growth is carbon monoxide emissions. Unlike ozone, carbon
monoxide is a "localized pollutant "; high concentrations of the
pollutant are found only near the source, although there can be a
widespread "cloud" providing high background levels. The major
source of carbon monoxide is automobiles, so higher
concentrations are generally found near heavily travelled
roadways. The emission rate of carbon monoxide is also highly
dependent on traffic speed, with emission levels increasing
significantly as traffic slows and idling increases. Carbon
monoxide emissions are, therefore, greatest under congested
traffic conditions.
Some of the highest concentrations of carbon monoxide in the Bay
Area are recorded at BAAQMD's monitoring site in San Jose, which
is the permanent station closest to Saratoga. However, since
carbon monoxide levels vary widely from one location to another,
readings from downtown San Jose are not necessarily a good
measure of carbon monoxide levels in Saratoga. Ambient carbon
monoxide sampling conducted by Caltrans from November 1983 to
February 1984 for selected sites along the proposed West Valley
Freeway corridor confirms this situation. The maximum 8 hour
concentration recorded at the sampling sites in Saratoga was 4.5
ppm, while in downtown San Jose it ranged from 6.0 to 13.5 ppm.
The lack of air quality monitoring information makes it difficult
to make definitive statements about carbon monoxide levels in
Saratoga. For the Bay Area in general, however, carbon monoxide
levels have been decreasing since the late 1970's as newer autos
have met increasingly stringent emission control requirements.
13
0.3
1.7
1.3
2.7
In San Jose, for example, the number of days on which the federal
8 hour standard (9ppm) was exceeded has decreased- dramatically
from 61 days in 1976 to 0 days in .1987. However, as with ozone,
this trend could be reversed; an increase in both traffic volumes
and congestion levels could potentially exacerbate carbon
monoxide problems.
AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND REGULATION
In the previous section, the nature and magnitude of the air =-
pollution problem in the Santa Clara Valley was defined. This
section discusses the regulatory framework that has been
established to address this problem.
National, State and Regional Efforts
Under the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, each state is
required to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for meeting
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The SIP is a
compilation of all local Air Quality Plans in the state, along
with any additional state measures required to attain clean air
standards. The Bay Area Air Quality Management Disrict (BAAQMD),
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the
Association of Bay Area Governments. (ABAG) have jointly prepared
an Air Quality Plan for the Bay Area which contains a number of
strategies designed to improve air quality. The Plan focuses on
the reduction of ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate
levels, since the national standards for these pollutants are
exceeded in the Bay Area.
The strategies proposed include stationary source controls which
are implemented by BAAQMD, and mobile source controls generally
enforced by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Among the
more important strategies now 'being employed is the automobile .
inspections and maintenance program (smog check) which requires
automobile owners to have their cars checked for emissions as a
condition of registration.
While all of these control measures have resulted in a
significant reduction in emissions and improvement in Bay Area
air quality, they have not been sufficient to bring about
attainment of the national standards by the statutory deadline of
December 31, 1987. The region's inability to meet the standards
could result in sanctions imposed by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on construction of major new sources of pollution,
such as power plants and industrial dry cleaners, and a cutback
of. federal funds for highway construction and sewage treatment
plants. The Bay Area is only one of about 70 other regions that
may be subject to'these sanctions.
At this time it is uncertain if EPA will impose the sanctions as
authorized by the 1977 Clean Air Act. EPA is reluctant to impose
sanctions on those metropolitan areas (including the Bay Area)
that have produced acceptable attainment plans and have made good
14.
faith efforts toward implementation. With the passage of a new
Clean Air Act not in sight, the EPA has attempted to provide
guidance to nonattainment areas in its proposed post -1987 policy.
The policy outlines a process whereby local air quality plans are
to be _updated and subsequently reviewed by EPA. Only after a
plan has been formally disapproved by EPA can sanctions be
imposed. Meanwhile, congress included an extension of the
deadline until August•31 1988 in their December 1987 budget
resolution, allowing more time to work on revisions to the Act.
In the interim, the Bay Area's co -Lead agencies for air quality
planning (BAAQMD, ABAG, and MTC) are making preparations for a
new round of planning in the hope that new federal legislation
will provide timely statutory guidance.
Existing Policies and Programs in Saratoga
While most air quality planning is done at the state and regional
levels, local agencies can and do adopt policies and programs
that address air quality issues. The City of Saratoga currently
has a few General Plan policies and ordinances designed to
prevent the degradation of air quality. Specifically, Goal 3.0
and Policy 3.2 of the Conservation Element of the General Plan
state the following:
"Preserve the quality of the natural environment and the
character of the City through appropriate regulation of site
development." (Goal 3.0)
"The impact on air quality shall be evaluated in connection
with development and highway construction." (Policy 3.2)
In addition, the City Code contains the following ordinances
relating to air quality:
1. Hazardous Materials (Chapter 8) - This ordinance indirectly
addresses air pollution through the regulation of storage
and handling of hazardous materials, which have the potential
to emit toxic fumes into the air;
2. General Restrictions on Us"
Industrial Districts (Sections
sections prohibit uses which
dangerous emissions or noxious
comply with current Air
regulations;
as in Commercial and Limited
15- 19.060 & 15.2.0.040) - These
emit air pollutants, smoke,
odors, and require all uses to
Pollution Control District
3. Dust and Dirt Control during Grading (Section 16- 55.160(k))
- This section requires that graded surfaces be wetted or
otherwise suitably contained to prevent excessive dust
conditions;
4. Regulation of Smoking in Certain Places (Article 7 -35) - This
ordinance was adopted to protect non- smoker's rights to
breathe smoke -free air in enclosed areas that are accessible
to the general public during normal business hours..
15
AIR QUALITY ISSUES IN SARATOGA
Residential Wood Combustion
Recent research indicates that smoke from wood - burning fireplaces
and stoves may constitute a significant threat to air quality and
public health. This is particularly true for communities located
in sheltered.valleys where circulation is poor, surface -based
temperature inversions occur frequently in the winter, and wood
is used as a residential heating fuel.
To some extent, these circumstances exist in Saratoga. Although
wood is not extensively used here as a home heating fuel, most
homes have at least one fireplace, and in the larger, newer
homes, multiple fireplaces are common. Saratoga is located in a
sheltered valley that is subject to frequent temperature
inversions. Although no monitoring has been done, it is likely
that wood smoke from residential fireplaces and stoves adds
significantly to local pollution levels in the winter. In fact,
BAAQMD tentatively estimates that wood burning could contribute
as much as 15 -25% of the carbon monoxide in the Bay Area's
ambient air.
In addition to carbon monoxide, other pollutants present in wood
smoke include organic gases, arsenic and particulates consisting
of soot and condensed organic matter. Some of this organic
material is chemically changed during the combustion process to
form a class of chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). Some of these chemicals are toxic, some are cancer -
causing, and some are capable of causing biological mutations.
For example, benzo -a- pyrene, a known carcinogen found in
cigarette smoke, has also been found in wood stove emissions.
A 1987 study of toxics in the Santa Clara Valley conducted by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in conjunction with local
industry and government officials, tentatively identifies PAHs as
one of the larger known categories of toxic risk in the valley
and estimates that residential wood combustion contributes 87% of
the PAHs emitted into the local atmosphere.
Regional and local agencies are encouraged by EPA to increase
their efforts to further study and address the residential wood
combustion issue. This can be accomplished by supporting
continued research which could eventually lead to the development
of appropriate regulations. Through education, the public can be
informed of the dangers of wood smoke and of "clean ". burning
practices aimed at minimizing the harmful emissions from wood
combustion. For example, certain design features make some wood
stoves operate more efficiently; these features include internal
baffle plates to regulate the flow of air within the stove and
proper firebox insulation which increases the burning
temperature, thereby reducing emissions. Also, some fuels are
more desireable than others; air -dried hardwoods are
preferred over freshly cut wood because the higher moisture
content hinders hot, clean burning. Kindling, cardboard and
16
loose paper should only be used to start a fire, while household
rubbish and treated wood should be avoided altogether. Finally,
wood burning in fireplaces and stoves should be curtailed when
exceedances of air quality standards are expected.
West Valley Freeway
The West Valley Freeway will be constructed as an extension of
Highway 85 through Saratoga within the next 3 -5 years. Specific
data on the air'quality impacts of the freeway is found in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the freeway, prepared
and adopted by Caltrans in 1987. In general, the FEIS research
indicates that the net air quality result of the new freeway will
be less total pollution than would be produced if the same
projected number of vehicles used the existing road network. The
EIS predicts that the freeway will enable motorists to travel
more directly and quickly to their destinations; this improvement
in traffic flow on local streets and other freeways is predicted
to reduce overall congestion, which will in turn result in a
reduction in vehicle - related pollution levels.
For the specific pollutants of ozone and carbon monoxide (CO),
it is obvious that the construction of a roadway where only a
vacant right -of -way currently exists will mean an increase in
pollutant levels in the immediate vicinity of the freeway
corridor. However, the EIS predicts that attainment of the
federal standards for these pollutants is not expected to be
adversely' impacted. Although ozone and CO levels are predicted
to increase somewhat, the EIS indicates that there would be an
even greater increase in these pollutant levels if the freeway
were not built, because of the projected increase in traffic
congestion.. In spite of the information provided in the EIS,
there still remains significant local concern about the
freeway's impact on Saratoga's air quality.
The design of the freeway is dictated by a Performance Agreement
between the City, Caltrans and the Traffic Authority which was
adopted by the City Council on March 2, 1988. There is an air
quality relationship to two aspects of this freeway design, the
depressed profile and the elimination of interchanges in
Saratoga. A depressed freeway profile results in somewhat higher
pollutant concentrations along the freeway locally, because air
circulates less freely and pollutant dispersal is less efficient
in the narrow v- shaped valley formed by the lowered roadway.
However, a depressed profile provides significant benefits in
terms of noise attenuation and aesthetic values, which outweigh
the slight increase in CO levels. The no- interchange design
eliminates potential CO problems associated with idling cars at
freeway interchange locations and the additional traffic
congestion along arterials serving the interchanges. However,
since the interchange issue will be the subject of a ballot
measure to be voted on by Saratoga citizens in November, 1988,
the air quality impacts associated with interchanges will not be
known until that issue is resolved. Also, since ongoing
negotiations between Caltrans, the Traffic Authority and cities
17
along the corridor may result in other such design alternatives
that were not specifically evaluated in the FEIR, supplemental
environmental studies will continue to be made.
Sensitive Receptors
While everyone is exposed to and affected by air pollutants to
some degree, it is recognized that some people are more
susceptible to the harmful effects of air pollutants than others.
BAAQMD defines "sensitive receptors" as those facilities most
likely to be used by the elderly, children, infirm or persons
with particular sensitivity to air pollutants. Examples are
hospitals, schools, and convalescent homes. Figure 5 shows the
location of such sensitive receptors in Saratoga. Other
sensitive receptors that may be constructed in the future include
senior housing and health care facilities at two prospective
sites on Saratoga Avenue, the Paul Masson Winery, and the vacant
property across the street, adjacent to the medical office
buildings on the corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues. These two
sites were identified as appropriate for such uses in the 1987
report on senior housing that was adopted by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Particulates
In developing strategies for attaining national air quality
standards, most regional efforts are directed toward the
reduction of ozone and carbon monoxide levels. Violations of the
new PM federal particulate standard are not common; only 2
exceed ances of the 24 hour standard were recorded in San Jose in
1985, and there have been none since then. However, there is
increasing concern about this pollutant in the South Bay. The
Santa Clara Valley Integrated Environmental Management Project
(IEMP) sponsored by EPA and completed in September, 1987,
revealed that exposure to particulates even at current levels
results in significant health and welfare effects. The study
attempted to quantify the benefits that might be realized by
further reducing particulate levels to meet the stricter
California State standard. For example, it was estimated that
over $65 million in materials damages could be avoided if the
California PM 0 standard was reached. In comparison, the damages
caused by o one that could be avoided by meeting the stricter
state ozone standard amounted to less than $100,000. For this
reason, the study recommends that state and regional agencies
concerned with air quality (ARB and BAAQMD) increase the priority
of controlling particulate emissions.
Local agencies can help control particulate emissions from local
sources. The Santa Clara Valley IEMP suggests that cities and
counties work with BAAQMD to develop, adopt, and implement local
street sweeping programs and other dust abatement measures.
Other recommendations include further regulation and enforcement
of construction - related particulate control programs and the
encouragement of voluntary emission reductions through education
and actions such as carpooling, reduced use of aerosols and other
W.
consumer solvents, and reduced use of power tools (e.g. leaf
blowers, power mowers, etc.). Together these small efforts would
help significantly to reduce particulate emissions.
GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
As previously mentioned, the City's General Plan currently has
only one policy and implementation measure relating to air
quality. This is located in the Conservation Element as CO.3.2.
Since this Air Quality document will be a section of the
Conservation Element, it is recommended that the existing Air
Resources section on pages 3 -39 and 3 -40 of the General Plan be
deleted and replaced with this new text. It is further
recommended that the new goal, policies, and` implementation
measures for air quality be added to the end of the existing goal
section of the Conservation Element (pages 2 -16 through 2 -19 of
the General Plan). The existing policy 3.2 will be reworded and
relocated to this new section, which will be given the number
8.0.
The overall goal for air quality in Saratoga is to preserve
Saratoga's air resources and protect citizens from the potential
harmful effects of air pollution. There are four policies and
implementation measures for the achievement of this goal.- The
first policy relates to.assessing air quality impacts during the
development review process. The second policy relates to
coordinating the City's air quality planning efforts with other
agencies and jurisdictions. The third relates to monitoring air
quality in Saratoga, and the fourth relates to efforts to reduce
local sources of air pollution.
CO.8.0(Goal) Preserve the quality of Saratoga's air resources and
protect the citizens from the potentially harmful effects of
air pollution.
CO.8.1(Policy) Impacts on air quality shall be evaluated in
connection. with development proposals and highway
construction.
CO.8.1(Imp) Appropriate mitigation measures for air
quality impacts shall be identified and implemented
through the City's environmental review and permit -
issuing procedures.
CO.8.2(Policy) Coordinate air quality planning efforts with
other jurisdictions and with local, regional and state air
quality agencies.
CO.8.2(Imp) The City shall maintain and provide to
BAAQMD and other agencies data regarding land use and
potential development, public transit needs, sensitive
receptors, and other issues related to air quality in
Saratoga.
19
CO.8.3(Policy) Encourage.the monitoring of air pollutants in
Saratoga on a continuous basis.
CO.8.3(Imp) The City shall ask BAAQMD, Caltrans and
private developers, if appropriate, to assist in the
financing, installation and operation of an air quality
monitoring station in Saratoga.
CO.8.4(Policy) Encourage the reduction of local sources of
air pollution such as dust, smoke and vehicle emissions.
CO.8.4(Imp) The City shall enforce existing
regulations relating to air quality and promote public
education and awareness of air quality issues.
20
GLOSSARY
Air Basins - divisions of California established by the Air
Resources Board, based on meteorological and geographical
conditions.-
Air Monitoring - sampling for and measuring of pollutants
present in the atmosphere.
Air Pollution - the presence of man -made gases and suspended
particles in the atmosphere in excess of air quality
standards.
Air Pollution Potential - the tendency for high pollutant
concentrations to develop at a given location.
Air Quality Criteria - the varying amounts of pollution and
lengths of exposure at which specific adverse effects to
health and comfort take place-
Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
charged with controlling pollutants
atmosphere from stationary sources. The
Management District (BAAQMD) is the
for Saratoga; it includes all seven
(Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa,
Mateo, and Santa Clara) and the.southern
Sonoma counties.
- a regional agency
3ischarged into the
Bay Area Air Quality
regional district
Bay Area counties
San Francisco, San
halves of Solano and
Air Quality Standard (AQS) - the prescribed level of a
pollutant in the outside.air that connot be exceeded during a
specific time 'in a specified geographical area.
Air Resources.Board (ARB) - the State of California's agency
responsible for air pollution control.
Ambient Air - any portion of the atmosphere not confined by
four walls and a roof; outside air.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - regional
planning agency for the San Francisco Bay Area..
Atmospheric Stability - the atmosphere's tendency to suppress
or promote vertical airflow. The vertical movement of air is
often referred to as "mixing ". Under- stable conditions, warm
air's tendency to rise is suppressed. When atmospheric
conditions are unstable, warm air rises freely, mixing with
cooler air aloft.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) - a colorless, odorless, toxic gas
produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon - containing
substances. One of the major air pollutants, it is emitted
21
in large quantities by exhaust of gasoline- powered vehicles.
Clean Air Act (CAA) - the federal legislation that provides
the legal basis for the national clean air program.
Combustion - burning, that is, the production of heat and
light energy through chemical change; usually oxidation of
hydrocarbon fuel.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - the federal agency
responsible for air quality.
Fossil Fuels - coal, oil, and natural gas; so- called because
they are the remains of ancient plant and animal life.
Hydrocarbon - any of a vast family of compounds containing
carbon and hydrogen in various combinations; found especially
in fossil fuels. Some of the hydrocarbon compounds are major
air pollutants; they may be active participants in the
photochemical process or affect health.
Inversion - the phenomenon of a.layer of warm air over cooler
air below. A special problem in polluted areas because the
contaminating substances cannot be dispersed vertically
through the layer of warm air.
Micron - a unit of length equal to one thousandth of a
millimeter (1 millionth of a meter) or about 1/25,000 of an
inch.
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) - an air
quality standard promulgated by the EPA.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) - gases formed in great part from
atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place
under conditions "of high temperature and high pressure;
considered a major air pollutant.
Ozone (03) - a pungent, colorless gas, toxic in high
concentrations. A product of the photochemical process, it
is a major air pollutant.
Particulate - a particle of solid or liquid matter; soot,
dust, aerosols, fumes and mists..
PM 10 - particulate matter less than 10 microns in size.
Parts Per Million (PPM) - the number of parts of a given
pollutant in a million,parts of air. One PPM equals .00010..
Photochemical Process - the chemical changes brought about by
the radiant energy of the sun acting upon various polluting
substances. The product is known as photochemical smog.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) - class of chemicals
22
that may be formed during the combustion of wood or other
organic matter. Some of these chemicals may be toxic and /or
carcinogenic.
Precursor - a number of compounds that physically change in
composition after being emitted into the air and eventually
turn into air pollutants. 'Organic compounds and nitrogen
oxides are precursors for ozone.
Sensitive Receptor - a facility that is often used by a
segment of the population (e.g. the elderly, young children
and persons with respiratory problems) that tends to be
particularly susceptible to the harmful health effects
associated with air pollutants.
Smog - a term used to describe many air pollution problems,
it is a contraction of smoke and .fog; in California, it is
usually used to describe ozone and /or the irritating haze
resulting from the sun's effect on pollutants in the air,
including those from automobile exhaust.
State Implementation Plan (SIP) - state plan for attaining
national air quality standards.
Subsidence - the downward movement of air. Subsidence
typically occurs on the eastern edges of subtropical high
pressure cells, such as the Pacific High situated off the
coast of California. Subsiding air results in clear, stable
weather conditions.
Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSP) - a statistical
measurement of particulate air pollution.
23
REFERENCES
AGENCY PUBLICATIONS
1. "Air Quality and Urban Development: Guidelines for
Assessing Impacts of Projects and Plans "; Bay Area Air
Quality Management District; Nov. 1985.
2. Air Quality Element, -City of Campbell General Plan; City
of Campbell Planning Dept.; Jun 8, 1987.
3. "Air Quality Impact and Mitigation • Measures "; City of
Cupertino General Plan Amendment 1- GPA -80, Technical Appendix
D; May 23, 1983.
4. "Air Quality in Palo Alto "; Donald Ballanti, prepared for
City of Palo Alto; May 1986.
5. Air Quality Goals and Policies, City of San Jose General
Plan, Horizon 2000; 1984.
6. "Air Quality Handbook "; Bay Area Air Quality Management
District; 1985 -86.
7. Circulation Element, City of Mountain View General Plan;
1982.
8. "Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study: Traffic and
Air Quality Impacts of Six Alternative Development
Scenarios "; City of Palo Alto Planning Dept.; Nov. 1986.
9. "CO Microscale Screening Procedure "; Caltrans, Dec. 1982.
10. Conservation and Historic Preservation Element, Town of
Los Gatos General Plan; 1985.
11. "Contra Costa County Model Transportation Systems
Management Ordinance "; Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee; Feb. 1987.
12. "Environmental Constraints Analysis of Monterey County,
Part III, Air'and Water Quality "; Monterey County Planning
Dept.; Apr 1981.
13. "Final EIS, Route 85 Transportation Corridor Project ";
Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration; Vol. 1, July 1987.
14. Monterey County General Plan; Monterey County Planning
Dept.; Sept. 1982.
15. "Route -85 Corridor Study "; Barton - Aschman Associates,
24
Inc.; Nov. 1987
16. Santa Clara County General Plan; Santa Clara. County
Planning Dept.; Mar.. 1982.
17. "Santa Clara Valley Integrated Environmental Management
Project, Stage II Report" U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; Sept. 1987.
18. "Ozone Measurements and Trends in the San Francisco Bay
Area, 1965 -8411; Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
1985.
19. "Wood Stove Features and Operation Guideline for Cleaner
Air "; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Sept. 1983..
ARTICLES
1. "Acid Rain: Acid Deposition in the Atmosphere "; Bay Area
Monitor; Sept.- Oct. 1987.
2. . "Air Quality Elements in General Plans: Some Comments
Focusing on Transportation and Land Use Options "; Elizabeth.
Deakin; May 1987.
3. "Air Quality Elements in Local Plans "; Bay Area Monitor;
Sept.- Oct. 1986.
4. "Air Quality Update "; David L. Calkins, as presented at
the League of California Cities 1988 Planning Commissioners
Institute in Anaheim, CA.; Mar. 10, 1988.
5. "Clean Air Deadline "; Bay Area Monitor; Jan.- Feb. 198'8.
6. "Clearing the Air "; Planning; Sept. 1987. .
7. "Ozone: A Califormia Problem" and "Quest for Solutions ";
Bay Area Monitor; Special Edition, Fall 1986.
8. "Santa Clara County Integrated Environmental Management
Project Revisited "; Bay Area Monitor; Nov.- Dec. 1987.
9. "Santa Clara County's Killing Air "; San Jose Mercury; May.
29, 1987.
10. "Smog Check - How is it Working "; Bay Area Monitor; July
- Aug. 1987.
11. "Status of Bay Area Air Quality Planning "; Bay Area
Monitor; Mar.- Apr. 1988.
12. "Study Shows Santa Clara
Tribune; Jun. 11 1987.
25
County Air Deadly "; Times
13. "The Clean Air Act's Impending Construction Ban "; Urban
Land; Nov. 1987.
14. "To Breathe or Not to Breathe, That is the Question "; San
Jose Mercury; Nov. 10, 1987.
15. "Toxic Chemicals Widespread in Air Throughout State "; San
Jose Mercury; Oct. 22, 1987.
M
10�'\ . . . . . . s��AxEA Giza QUALITY
M)VqAGEMENT DISTRICT
ALAr.tFUA COUNTY
Simi, Campbell
Cluck CONC3
Frank H Oggwa
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Paul .L Cooper
Sunne Wnghl b(CPeak
MARIN COUNTY
Al Aramburu
(Cnairpersonl
NAPA COUNTY
Harold 1. Moskowile
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
Harry G. Brili
Jim Gonzalez
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Gus J. Nrcolopulos
Anna Eshoo
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Roo Dmoon
Ralpn P Doeiscn. Sr.
(v.ck;•Cn;, ipersonI
Roberla H Hugnan
Susanne'wilson
(Si Crelary(
SOLANO COUNTY
Osoy Davis
SONOr' A COUNTY
Hehen B Rudee
June 8, 1988
Susan Guch, Chairperson
Saratoga Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Ms. Guch:
R
ili.jil pZ q a 1940
�N /N��FpT
I wish to compliment your Commission and its staff on the excellent Air
Quality Section drafted for inclusion in Saratoga's General Plan. It complies
very well with the recommendation made by the Board of Directors of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District in Resolution #1666.
On May 19, our Senior Planner, Irwin Mussen, phoned in minor correc-
tions to the draft sent him by Assistant Planner Welge on May 6. When the
final version is published, we would like to have your permission to circulate it,
upon request by cities that are preparing such elements or sections. - We value
it as a model for possible adaptation by suburban cities that have limited
employment but are still susceptible to air pollution problems.
We recognize that cities -must address many issues, including State -
mandated elements, in their general plans, and that staff and consultant
resources are often limited. Therefore we especially appreciate the fine
efforts by Mr. Hsia and Ms. Welge, under the policy guidance of the City
Council and your Commission, to include an air quality section even though it
is not required by the State. We think this approach will help local
government - -as well as this regional agency- -make every effort to protect the
quality of our air.
Sincerely,
Milton Feldstein
Air Pollution Control Officer
MF:IM :mt
cc: K. Anderson, Council Member
v'Y. Hsia, Planning Director
L A. %Vei-,,e, /%Ssistant Planner
939 ELLIS STREET • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 • (415) 771 -6040
SARAT//OGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECTIVE SUMMARY NO. !Y C7 2
MEETING DATE: 8/17/88
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVA
SUBJECT: Appeal from Planning Commission's denial of fencing in the
hillside zone, 19288 Bainter Avenue
Recommended Motion: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning
Commission.
Report Summary: On July 27, 1988, the Planning Commission considered
an appeal from the Coalition for Hillside Protection and overturned the
Planning Director's decision to allow fencing of approximately 2.9 acres of
hillside land where 4,000 square feet is the maximum allowed. The Planning
Commission's decision is memorialized in the attached resolution, adopted
on August 10, 1988.
The owner of the property, Mr. Hwang, has filed an appeal on the grounds
that "it is unreasonable to ask the appellant to take down the fence that
is already installed with the building permit."
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments: 1. Memorandum to City Council
2. Resolution of Planning Commission
3. Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated 7/27/88
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 7/27/88
5. Plans
Motion and Vote
Y/ 7 kAA&&
G%a
A:agenbill
uguw @Eq 0&MZ1YQXE&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council DATE: 8/17/88
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Hwang Fence Appeal, 19288 Bainter Avenue
DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located approximately 800 feet southwest of Bainter
Avenue at the end of a private road. The site has an average lot slope of
270, is located in the hillside zone district, and is about 3.4 acres in
size. Orchard and evergreen trees proliferate throughout the site and a
new home has just been constructed on the property.
In July, the appellant began erecting a 6 foot chain link fence along the
property lines of the site. No building permit was required. However,
Zoning Code Section 15- 29.020(c) limits the area enclosed by a fence to
41000 sq. ft.; the ultimate enclosure would encompass 2.9 acres. The City
was notified of the action and the work was halted.
On July 6, 1988, the Planning Director approved plans to fence more than
4,000 feet of the property, making the finding that the visibility of the
fence from the public streets and adjacent properties would be
substantially reduced by the topography and landscaping of the site. The
plans showed wire and wrought iron fencing material rather than chain
link.
On July 8, 1988, the decision was appealed to the Planning Commission and
on July 27, 1988, the Planning Commission overturned the Planning
Director's decision.
MERITS OF THE APPROVAL: In his application, the appellant has stated that
"it is unreasonable to ask (him) to take down the fence that is already
installed with the building permit."
Response: No building permit was required or issued for the fence.
Structures erected in the City, however, must comply with all City Codes.
In this case the fence violated the zoning ordinance. The area of the
enclosure, 2.9 acres (126,324 sq. ft.) in lieu of 4,000 sq. ft., must be
approved by the City prior to construction. Since the Planning Commission
Memorandum to City Council - $/17/88
Hwang Fence Appeal, 19288 Bainter Avenue
denied the request, no fencing, of any kind., can enclose more than 4,000
sq. ft. of the property in question. The fence violates the City Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and deny
the appeal
� c
RESOLUTION NO.:
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REVERSING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR
WHEREAS, GEORGE HWANG, the applicant, has applied to the City of
Saratoga for approval to construct a fence enclosing more than 4,000 square feet of a
hillside lot located at 19,288 Bainter Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director considered the application and, pursuant
to Subsection 15- 29.020 (c) of the City Code, granted the requested approval by
administrative decision; and
WHEREAS, the Coalition for Hillside Protection has appealed the decision
of the Planning Director to the Planning Commission;
WHEREAS, on July 27, 1988, the Planning Commission conducted a de novo
hearing on the appeal, at which time any person interested in the matter was given an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the staff
report relating to said application, and the written and oral evidence presented to the
Commission in support of and in opposition to the appeal, and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, at
its meeting on July 27, 1988, by a vote of 6 -0, did resolve as follows:
1. The appeal from the administrative decision of the Planning Director
was upheld and the decision of the Planning Director was reversed..
2. The Planning Commission determined that insufficient evidence was
presented to demonstrate a need for the fence based upon safety
reasons. In addition, the Commission found and determined that the
fence was substantially. visible from adjacent .properties and such
visibility would not be sufficiently mitigated by existing landscaping
or topography.
* s
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga held on the 10th day of
August 1988, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Guch, Harris,- Burger, Tappan, Kolstad, Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tucker
Chair of the Planning Comm ion
ATT ST;
�.J
ecretar of the
PlanningLCom mission
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Kathryn Caldwell
DATE: 7/27/88 PLNG. DIR. APPRV.--- --
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: Appeal, 19288 Bainter Ave.
APPLICANT /OWNER: Coalition for Hillside Protection /Hwang
APN: 510 -24 -006
HIODEN
ASST
SITE
VICINITY MAP_
i
1,000'
'Mile No.
PLANNER'S WORKSHEET
Trails and pathways map checked
Vicinity /locator map included
V/ Dimensions shown on plot plan
kAdjacent structures
V/ Directional arrow
Trees labelled
Plans reflect field conditions
Heights shown on cross sections
N Consistency between elevations, cross sections & floor plans
N Natural and finished grade on cross sections
Height of underfloor & attic areas included in floor area calculations
�)IIT Roof pitch shown
IIALAll sheets included in submittal
4,Lcolors submitted
with required reductions
Staff Reports
N R Conditions from other agencies /department correct
Consistent figures throughout report
V/ History files examined
V Correct address & application number on all pages of the report
N )O Description consistent with advertisement
Plans labelled
Order of attachment consistent with list
All attachments included
V Typographical errors corrected
Dates on the resolutions correct
Applicant notified.of recommendation
V Applicant notified that staff report available Fri. 3 -4:00 p.m.
A:checklist 6/88_
C
File No. Appeal, 19288 Bainter-Ave.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 7/8/88
Application complete: 7/8/88
Notice published: 7/20/88
Mailing completed: 7/11/88
Posting completed: N/A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 90.010, the
Coalition for Hillside Protection is appealing the decision of the
Planning Director to enclose 2.9 acres of property with a fence.
Section 15- 29.020(c) limits the area to 4,000 square feet unless,
(1) the visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent
properties will be substantially reduced by the topography,
landscaping or other features of the site; or (2) the fence is
required for safety .reasons.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The property is not visible from a public
street- and the proposed fence is screened from adjacent properties
by existing vegetation. Vines are to be planted along the fence at
the top of the hill.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and affirm the decision of
the Planning Director.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Letter of appeal
3. Correspondence
4. Plans, Exhibit A
KC /dsc
1
� c
Appeal, 192 8,8 Bainter Ave.
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential- Hillside
Conservation .
PARCEL SIZE: 3.39 acres (2.9 acres proposed to be fenced)
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 29.73%
SITE /PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject property has a newly
constructed home located approximately 800' west of Bainter Avenue.
Orchard trees are interspersed behind the home towards the ridge at
the southwest. The northeastern portion of the property has an
oleander hedge along the property line; orchard and evergreen trees
proliferate throughout .this lower portion of the site. The
northwest corner of the site is covered with dense brush and several
large orchard trees..
The proposal is to erect a 6' wire fence along the southerly
property line at the top of the hill, the west property line, and
about half of the northerly property line. A six foot wire fence is
also proposed 30' from the front (easterly) property line. A
proposed five foot (51) wrought.iron fence meandering 20' -70' in the
northerly_ portion of the property would be visible on approach to
the home. `A total of 2.9 acres would be fenced.
Section 15- 29.020(c) prohibits fencing of a single site in the
hillside zone in.excess of 4,000 sq. ft.., unless approved by the
Planning Director. An exception can be granted if the visibility
from public streets and adjacent properties will be substantially
reduced by topography or landscaping or if the fence is required for
safety reasons. Staff assessed the visibility of the fencing. In
addition to the many trees that proliferate on the property, the
adjacent sites have dense vegetation on the property lines. The
vegetation combined with the hillside topography, obscures the
proposed fencing from the adjacent lots. The fence cannot be seen
from any public street. The portion of the fence that might be
visible, along the southern property line, will be planted with
vines and ivy.
Merits of the Appeal
Two of the appellants grounds for appealing the decision is that 6'
fencing is inapproprite on hillsides and the fence would cause
injury to wildlife and disrupt the wildlife access to water.
Response: The City Code recognizes that fencing on hillides
should be limited to avoid a visual impact on the
neighborhood; therefore, the code gives strict parameters
for approval. The.existing dense landscaping and proposed
2
C �
Appeal; 19288 Bainter Ave.
additional screening on site, and the topography of the area
and dense vegetation on the adjacent properties, screens the
fence from view.
With regard to wildlife, the code is silent. There is no
information on record establishing this lot as a primary
access for wildlife to water. In addition, one of the
immediate neighbors prefers to'have the fencing in order to
keep out the dogs and deer. (See attached letter).
The third ground for appeal of the decision is "planning staff
failure to notify concerned residents /neighbors of Planning
Commission hearing."
Response: No hearing has been conducted. The decision to
allow the fencing was made by the staff per City Code. The
Planning Commission hearing on July 27, 1988, is a formal
appeal of the administrative decision. While it is not a
public hearing, staff mailed notices to twelve residents who
spoke at the Planning Commission or City Council on the
original home in 1986.
The final ground for appeal is 113 residential water lines crossing
upper orchard area."
Response: There are no recorded easements for these water
lines. The issue is a civil matter over which the City has
no jurisdiction. _
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and approve.the requested fencing.
The visibility of the fence from the public streets and adjacent
properties is substantially reduced by the topography and
landscaping of the area.
3
ji
Date Received:
a te R,
Hearing nj
earing Date.-
Fee JUL 8 1988 LFee
C3
CITY OF SARATOGA'
CITY USE C
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
A nnT' A T
klVLLer may be attS_c_hed)�
L.
17
6t.
ppellant S1 azure
*P ease do notrignd�4this applic a 'on until it is presented
City Offices. If you wish specific people at the
appeal please list them on.-a separate sheetto be notified .- Of this
7 ri "S PPP!,TC,%Tr0N ►41.!_`'T 91- S1,QMTT7*E_r) ',,.ITT'ITN TF-.'
'E- "ll: 01, TN E DE!_1S1_0_1q_,_,1
(10) CALCND/1R DRYS Or
xx ,ti l�
XA
' 7
{ CfICIAL RECEIPT
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
PHONE:-(408) 867 -3438
19
` APPLICATION NO. OR
ADDRESS OF PROJECT: � L;� TOTAL: $'� v
�. -_. ;. 5469
RECEIVED BY i:11 DEPT.
(Dm
WANDA BROADIE ALEXANDER
P. O. BOX IE 39
--L;G,S GATOS, C 950
PAY TO T E
ORDER
SAW CLAM COUNTY FEDERAL C% IUIN �
2 N. FIRST STREET. SAN JOSE. 95112 -6370
PAYABLE THROUPR Sauriry Pxifit.HaY d Bnk �
-n- 0 ice C.U.S. 03.32. Los A4
MEM
2 M000 31: 5 7 2 111 1069000 3 2 L9411'
,572
16-4
�y1220
W�
-1
D O L L A R 5
BUS TICKETS
0001 1012
DATE
TRANSIT ASSIST
RECEIVED FROM (f� %'i s'- ' i{✓
.' % �:
,/ L✓
LL Eye,,.
,
ADDRESS — {��,�t!. ✓ J!; ii /�%
��F�; _>;�- i!':u'�%
r)-
19
` APPLICATION NO. OR
ADDRESS OF PROJECT: � L;� TOTAL: $'� v
�. -_. ;. 5469
RECEIVED BY i:11 DEPT.
(Dm
WANDA BROADIE ALEXANDER
P. O. BOX IE 39
--L;G,S GATOS, C 950
PAY TO T E
ORDER
SAW CLAM COUNTY FEDERAL C% IUIN �
2 N. FIRST STREET. SAN JOSE. 95112 -6370
PAYABLE THROUPR Sauriry Pxifit.HaY d Bnk �
-n- 0 ice C.U.S. 03.32. Los A4
MEM
2 M000 31: 5 7 2 111 1069000 3 2 L9411'
,572
16-4
�y1220
W�
-1
D O L L A R 5
BUS TICKETS
0001 1012
TRANSIT ASSIST
0001 1013
REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS
0001 1045
1% �.
L G RENTALS
K RENTAL FEES
4041 9812
4041 9813
r)-
HAKONE DONATIONS
4437 9833
SECURED PROPERTY TAX
9000 7010
SALES TAX
9000 7510
'I
DOCUMENT TRANSFER TAX
9000 7520
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
9000 7550
(jam
��
ZONING APPLICATIONS FEES
9000 9510
INTEREST
9000 9810
FINES R FORFEITURES
9000 9860
SALE OF MAPS 8. PUBL
9000 9890
MAPPING REIMB
9000 9890
XEROXING
9000 9890
RAT BAIT
9000 9890
FALSE ALARM FEES
9000 9890
VEHICLE CODE FINES
9130 9865
19
` APPLICATION NO. OR
ADDRESS OF PROJECT: � L;� TOTAL: $'� v
�. -_. ;. 5469
RECEIVED BY i:11 DEPT.
(Dm
WANDA BROADIE ALEXANDER
P. O. BOX IE 39
--L;G,S GATOS, C 950
PAY TO T E
ORDER
SAW CLAM COUNTY FEDERAL C% IUIN �
2 N. FIRST STREET. SAN JOSE. 95112 -6370
PAYABLE THROUPR Sauriry Pxifit.HaY d Bnk �
-n- 0 ice C.U.S. 03.32. Los A4
MEM
2 M000 31: 5 7 2 111 1069000 3 2 L9411'
,572
16-4
�y1220
W�
-1
D O L L A R 5
July 5, 1988
To: Saratoga City Planning Commission
Re: Fencing Along Our North Boundary
Our property borders that of Mr. George Hwang for a length
of 255 feet. We are desirous of having a fence along that
section of our property to keep out the many dogs and deer
that constantly are passing through.
We are requesting that Mr. Hwang be permitted to have a
fence along our boundary with his property.
Yours truly,
Betty -Jane Haggland
15835 Hidden Hill Road
Los Gatos, CA, 95030
�= M.-M �
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3
JULY 27, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
8. DR -88 -049 Alff, 14185 Teerlink Way, request'for design review approval of plans to
construct a new 5,115 sq. ft. two -story home in the NHR zoning district
per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Commissioner Kolstad noted the bulk and the grading proposed; in addition, he questioned
whether the siting proposed for the house was the most suitable on the lot.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, July 27, 1988
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:06 P.M.
Applicant's Architect not present;. the City Attorney noted that it was the responsibility of the
Applicant to be present; it was left to the discretion of the Commission whether to delay °hearing
the Item. Consensus reached by the Commission to hear the Item later in the agenda.
12. Discussion of zoning ordinance amendment to restrict hours of operation .in the
commercial zone district.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Burger presented slides of the Argonaut Shopping Center to demonstrate the
Commission's concerns surrounding commercial shopping centers, namely, property
maintenance, safety, conformity with Health and Fire Safety Codes.
The Chair recognized the following speakers:
Mr. Jerry Kocir; 1255 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, stated that violations/hazards result-
ed from a 24 hour operation; Safeway was the only store operating on this basis in the City.
The City Attorney advised that of the concerns listed, requiring landscape, maintenance without
a pre- existing condition, was difficult to enforce from a.legal point of view; however, it was
within the prerogative of die City'to adopt Ordinances addressing this concern. With respect to
trash /garbage brought to commercial sites and disposed of, there were specific Code prohi-
bitions; however, enforcement-of such was difficult since the violation was incurred by those
dumping, the trash /garbage, not the property owner.
Mr. Paul Bowland attested to Commissioner Burger's and Mr. Kocir's statements.
Mr. Adrian straga, President of the Chamber of Commerce; commented as follows:
- 'The issue under discussion was the responsibility of merchants, landlords and citizens
- Cited the unsolved burglaries at Argonaut Center, noted that the area was,unsupervised
- The Merchant's Association intended to assess itself in order to clean the area up
- Asked what the Chamber could do in conjunction with the City to remedy this situation
Commissioner Burger felt that merchants were entitled to run their businesses in an area free of
Health. Code violations. _
13. Hwang, 19288 Bainter Ave. - Appeal of Planning Director's decision to allow fencing of
approximately 2.9 acres of property located in the NHR zone per Section 15- 29.020 (c)
of the City Code.
Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, dated July 27, 1988.
The Chair recognized the-following speakers.
Ms. Wanda Alexander, Coalition for Hillside Protection, commented as follows:
Questioned Staffs action recommending denial of the appeal
Reviewed the character of the hillside area and experiences with deer on her property
Fence was very objectionable and was disruptive to the orchard and injurious to the deer
Cited repeated efforts to obtain �in formation from the City on the fence in question
Concluded that any fencing system which blocked territorial rights of the animals was
hostile; insensitive and irresponsible
Noted the many exceptions granted to this property and objected to further exceptions
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
JULY 27, 1988
MISCELLANEOUS Continued
Mr. William Young, Representing the Hwangs, stated that the Staff Report accurately reflected
the situation; adjacent, property owners on the east wished the fence to prevent trespassing.
Ms. Dora Grens, 13450 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, commented as follows:
- Was very familiar with the property in question; she reviewed the history of the site
- Questioned whether trespassing was the sole.reason for safety concerns
- Stated that deer could not jump 6ft. fences going uphill
Mr. Bill Rosen, Main Road, commented as follows:
- 200 ft. chain link,fence was unattractive and endangered wildlife and thew traditional trails
- Only water available in the area at this time was from San Thomas Creek
Cited instances of deer entrapped by this chain link fence
- Questioned whose safety /security was as stake; saw only two other such fences in 21 years
- Was concerned how :the fence addressed the concerns intended
Mr. Rosen continued as follows:
- Cited the prohibition of chain link fencing in Zoning Ordinance 15.29.12 d;
- Zoning Ordinance 15.29.12 c; asked•for documentation on the required Findings
- Cited the differing responses received from the City and conflicting information on the issue
Mr. Bill Jefferson stated that there were no security problems warranting a 6 ft. fence.
Mr. Russ Crowther strongly opposed the,fence; such would set a precedent.
Ms. Robin Sing stated that she could see this fence every day; while she did not - object to the
fence, she questioned why if others did not have such, this Applicant was allowed a fence.
Chairwoman Guch commented as follows:
Did not want the property fenced,, noting the amount of land that would be fenced
- Did not see a safety issue for this property; neighbors indicated that there was none
- The fact that ivy was required on the fence showed that it was not hidden by the topography
Agreed that allowing this fence would be precedent setting
Commissioner Harris commented as follows:
-.-Recalled that the Commission's feeling in general, was that there would not be
fencing in the over R -1- 40,000 zoning district; anyone can claim more fencing
was needed for safety. If the "Commission were going to make acceptions, they should .
do away with the Ordinance.
Voted against every application for fencing in the hillside area; this fencing was
not in conformity ith the intent of the Ordinance
Commissioner Siegfried concurred that a safety issue was not involved; the issue of the fence's
impact on wildlife raised by the public was a point well taken.
..—impact
Tucker stated that she had expressed her concerns regarding the deer at the
Study Session; such remained unchanged. Granting this request would set precedent.
Chairwoman Guch suggested that the impact on wildlife in the hillside districts be.reviewed;
Commissioner Siegfried concurred, adding that a second issue was the allowance of fences for
areas under 4,000 sq. ft.
Commissioner Kolstad commented as follows:
- Noted that his impression:from the Study Session was that the fence was not visible; since
that discussion, he had made a.site visit and found that the fence was visible
- If fencing were required, he questioned whether the entire area needed to be enclosed
- Safety concerns could be addressed with fencing a smaller area
- Open space feeling would be destroyed`by fencing the entire site; such would set precedent
- Asked that guidelines for fencing in the hillside districts beset
Commissioner Burger commented as follows:
- Concurred that the 4,000 sq..ft. allowance for fencing was an arbitrary number
- Felt that the fence in question could not be seen from neighboring properties
- The .Commission had not previously considered nor discussed impacts to wildlife
- Suggested consideration of enclosing a smaller area,,adjacent to the home
- Noted that the Applicant felt,there were safety issues involved
- Suggested consideration of alternative security measures, not interfering with the wildlife
Commissioner Harris continued:
- Could not find any argument for safety and would not vote in favor of this application
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JOLY 27, 1988
Page 5
MISCELLANEOUS Continued.
SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO UPHOLD. THE APPEAL, DENYING THE APPLICA-
TION. Passed 6 -0.
The City Attorney advised the Commission and the Public that this decision would be pre-
sented in a Resolution at the Planning Commission- Meeting of August 10; T988I furthermore,
an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would be'considered.at the Commission's request.
The City Manager noted for the record that no Permits had been issued in this case.
Ms. Wanda Alexander presented the °Commission with copies of "Chief Seattle Speaks, 1854"
The Commission returned to Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 8.
8. DR -88 -049 Alff, 14185 Teerlink Way, request.for design review approval of plans to
construct'a new 5,115 sq. ft, two -story home in the ivHR zoning district
per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, July 27, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 P.M.
Mr. Fred Stratsdee, Architect, noted the efforts to design this structure and cited the
Applicant's desire for privacy; the proposed siting of the house was a better location.
Commissioner Kolstad reviewed his concerns on the boxy appearance, excessive bulk, lack of
architectural relief and the amount of grading proposed.
Mr. Stratsdee responded that the lower area of the structure was for the owners hobby of
restoring cars; the intent was conceal the six car garage and work area from the street scape.
Furthermore, the site was considerably lower than either Teerlink Wy. and Pierce Rd.
Chairwoman Guch was concerned about the proposed. 2300 cu. yds. of cut and stated that a
Finding-for preservation of the natural landscape could not be made.
Mr. Stratsdee commented as follows:
Responded that the Applicants felt thata garage /workshop area was an absolute necessity
Applicants did not wish the garage doors to be visible from the street and planned to dig the
garage /work shop into the hillside
They had determined that the resiting the house was desirable
About 25 -30 % of the grading was for the house with an equal percentage for the driveway,
in order to bring the driveway in off the slope
Reviewed the limited view of the house from various angles and added that reasonable
amounts of landscaping would screen the house on-either the original or theresited area
The. house was below street level; the street itself would hide the.house
Commissioner Burger also was:concemed about the amount of grading proposed; the original
pad would probably require a.redesign of the home. She noted that the site may not be able to
accommodate the proposed design and stated that she preferred that the original pad be used.
Mr. Stratsdee stated that the Applicants strongly favored the resiting of the house; traffic on
Pierce Rd. would'impact the original site.
BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 9 :25 RM.
Commissioner Burger reiterated.her request that the house be sited on the original pad.
Commissioner Kolstad stated that the requested siting was a forced location. He remained
concerned about the excessive bulk which would be visible from adjacent homes and the storm
drain easement; furthermore, there was no architectural relief to diminish a perception of bulk.
Commissioner Harris noted while she shared the Applicant's concern on traffic impacts from
Pierce Rd., the approved pad was known to the Applicants when purchasing the property.
Sufficient evidence had not been presented to warrant the excessive grading required.
Commissioner Siegfried suggested a Study Session to further review this proposal.
Commissioners Harris; Burger were willing to Continue the Item and hold a Study Session.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. l 1 �
MEETING DATE: Aug. 17, 1988
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT #6, BIG BASIN WAY
FIFTH STREET TO HADONE GARDENS
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resoution establishing Underground Utility District No. 6
Report Summar
Resolution 399 -7 was adopted August 3, setting a public hearing for
August 17th to determine whether public necessity, health, safety, or
welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated
structures and the underground installation of wires.
Project will be funded by the utility companies with the property owners
being responsible for the conversion of services at their building. Cost
of street lighting to be born by, City. Cost estimate for street lighting
will be forth coming as design progresses. On July 28th a community
information meeting was held with utility company representation present.
Five of the nineteen properties were represented. All property owners
have been notified of this public hearing.
Fiscal Impacts:
- Cost of street lighting yet to be determined
- All other costs to be born,by utilities and property owners.
Attachments:
- Resolution
- Map -of- District
MoLion and Vote:
establishing Underground Utility District #6