HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-2001 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL
LAND USE AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001
3:00 P.M.
SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS
ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR
MAY 16, 2001 ,-
ROLL CALL :
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA KEEP ONE YEAR
AGENDA
1. DR-00-036
SAN FILIPPO
-SobeY ROad-
2. DR-00-054 & V-01-002
MARTIN/ROSE Kittridge Road
The City Council conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the
City Council agenda. The site xdsits are held on Tuesday preceding the
Wednesday heating between 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Site visits only Occur
when there is an appeal scheduled before the City Council.
It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the
Council at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits
are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any
presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the
public heating. Please contact staff Tuesday' morning for an estimated time of
the site visit.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MAY 16, 2001
CALL MEETING TO ORDER-6:00 P.M.
~NOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 P.M.
Conference with Legal Counsel re: Existing Litigation (Gov't Code 54956.9(a)).
Name of Case: CiD' of Saratoga v. West Valley College
Santa Clara County Superior Court No. Doc. CIV756340.
Conference With Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(Government Code section 54956.9(a)):
Name of case: CiD' of Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court
Doc. No. CV-784560)
Conference With Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(Government Code section 54956.9(a)):
Name of case: CiD, of Saratoga v. Bunch (Santa Clara County Superibr Court
Doc. No. AS-92021676)
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b):
(1 potential case.)
REGUL.~R MEETING - 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE.
MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
May 11, 2001)
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non-AgendLzed Items
A~Lv member of the public will be allowed to address the CiO, Council for up to three (3)
minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from
discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff
accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff
Communications from Boards and Commissions;
None
Written Communications
None
Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
IA.
Presentation by Government Finance Officers Association to Mary Jo Walker,
Director of Administrative Services and Ray Galindo, Accounting Supervisor for
"Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting".
Recommended action:
Accept certificate.
lB.
Proclamation - Declaring June 2, 2001 "YMCA DAY"
Recommended action:
Read proclamation.
lC.
Commendation for Venise Taaffe, On Your Toes
Recommended action:
Present commendation.
1D.
Commendation for Chuck Page, Planning Commission
Recommended action:
Present commendation.
1E.
Commendation for Mary-Lynne Bemald, Planning Commission
Recommended action:
Present commendation.
1F.
Commendation for Margaret Patrick, Planning Commission
Recommended action:
Present commendation.
2
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be
acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of
the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the
Mayor remove an item.from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are
limited to three (3fi minutes.
2A.
Review of Check Register
Recommended action:
Approve check register.
2B.
APril Financial Statements
Recommended action:
Note and file.
2C.
Review Planning Commission Action Minutes -
April 25, 2001
Recommended action:
Note and file.
2D.
Final Map Approval for Five Lots located at 20251 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road,
SD-00-002; Howell & McNeil Development, LLC
Recommended action:
Approve Final Map.
2E.
2F.
Accept Notice of Completion for the Park Restoration Improvement Project,
CIP No 0001
Recommended action:
Accept Notice.
Resolution Supporting the Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan
Recommended action:
Adopt resolution.
2G.
Authorization to City Manager to execute a~eement with Caporicci, Cropper &
Larson, LLP to provide auditing services for FY 2001-2005
Recommended action:
Authorize City Manager to execute a~eement.
2H.
Purchase of Property Adjacent to Hakone Park
Recommended action:
Adopt resolution and approve a~eement with County of Santa Clara.
PUBLIC HEAR/NGS (Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of
ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public ma3' comment on
any item for up to three minutes. Applicant~Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance
are subject to Council's approval at the Council meeting)
Appeal of Planning Commission denial of DR-00-054 & V-01-002 (517-14-087) -
Martin/Rose, Kittridge Road
Recommended action:
Continue Public Heating at the request of the Appellant.
Appeal of Planning Commission denial of DR-00-036 (397-05-091) - San Filippo,
Sobey Road
Recommended action:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Conunission's decision.
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
Fiscal Years 2001/02 and 2002/03 Draft Budget Presentation
Recommended action:
Continue the budget study sessions.
Authorization to City. Manager to execute agreement ora Professional Sen:ices
Agreement for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Improvement Project
Recommended action:
Authorize City Manager to execute agreement.
AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Government Agency
Assoc. of Bay Area Gov't.(ABAG)
Chamber of Commerce Board
County Cities Assn. Leg. Task Force
County HCD Policy Committee
Emergency Planning Council
Hakone Foundation Liaison
KSAR Community Access TV Board
Library Joint Powers Authohty Board
No. Cent. Flood Cont. Zone Adv. Committee
Peninsula Div., League of Calif. Cities
Santa Clara Valley Water Commission
Santa Clara County Cities Assn.
SASCC Liaison
Saratoga Business Development Council
Sister City Liaison
Representative
Alternate
Mehaffey Baker
Waltonsmith Streit
Streit Bogosian
Baker Waltonsmith
Baker Waltonsmith
Mehaffey/Streit
Baker Mehaffey
Bogosian Streit
Bogosian Waltonsmith
Mehaffey Streit
Streit Baker
Mehaffey Baker
Waltonsmith Bogosian
Mehaffey Waltonsmith
Waltonsmith Mehaffey
4
West Valley Solid Waste JPA
Valley Transportation Authority PAC
West Valley Sanitation District
Silicon Valley Animal Control JPA
Streit Baker
Waltonsmith Mehaffey
Baker Mehaffey
Bogosian
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
OTHER
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
:XDJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the CiO' Clerk at (408) 868-1269.
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Cio, to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibiliO, to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title
lO
SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
May 22, 2001 Adjourned Meeting/Joint Session 7:00 p.m.
Saratoga Union School District
Adult Care Center
19655 Allendale avenue
Saratoga, Califomia
June 6, 2001 Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 7:00 p.m.
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 7:00 p.m.
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
Julv 4, 2001
Regular Meeting/Cancelled
Legal Holiday
July 18, 2001 Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 7:00 p.m.
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
August 1, 2001
Regular Meeting/Cancelled
Summer Recess
August 15, 2001
Regular Meeting/Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
7:00 p.m.
5
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001
ORIGINATING I}E, PTDCitn? Manager
PRE P.M~E I~'d~'~.. ~
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HE.aD:
SUBJECT: Presentation by Government Finance Officers Association
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept certificate.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The City's comprehensive annual financing report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 20001
qualified for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The certificate
of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial
reporting.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A ~-
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Letter from Government Finance Officers Association
GOVERNMENT FINANCE
OFFICERS ASSOCIatION
180 No~h Michigan Avenue, Sure 800, Chicago, ~llinois 60601
312/977-9700 · Fax: 312/9774806
April 19, 2001
For information contact:
NEWS RELEASE Stephen Gauthier (312) 977-9700
(Chicago)--The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Finan-
cial Reporting has been awarded to: City of Saratoga, CA
by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States
and Canada (GFOA) for its comprehensive annual financial report
(CAFR). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of
recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial
reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplish-
ment by a government and its management.
An Award of Financial Reporting Achievement has been awarded
to the individual(s), department or agency designated by the
government as primarily responsible for preparing the award-
winning CAFR. This has been presented to:
Mary Jo Walker, Administrative Services Director
The CAFR has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the
high standards of the program including demonstrating a construc-
tive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its
financial story and motivate potential users and user groups
to read the CAFR.
The GFOA is a nonprofit professional association serving
approximately 14,000 government finance professionals with offices
in Chicago, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.
- 30
W. ASHINGTON OFF!CE
1750 K Street, N.W., Suite 650, Washington, DC 20008
202/429-2750 · Fax: 202/429-2755
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: CiD' Manager
PREP.M~ED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Proclamation - Declaring June 2, 2001 "YMCA DAY"
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Read proclamation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The Southwest YMCA has requested the City of Saratoga recognize June 2, 2001 as "YMCA
DAY".
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N.:A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Letter from Southwest YMCA
Attachment B - Proclamation
VWe build strong kids. strong families.
· strong communities.
March 13,2001
Ci~, of Saratoga Council
c/o John Mehaffey, Mayor of Saratoga
13777 Fruitdale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor Mehaffey:
On behalf of the Southwest YMCA, I am v~xiting to ask that you help us mark a momentous
occasion. This year the YMCA movement is celebrating 150 years of communiD, sen'ice in
America. The Southwest YMCA is proud to be part of a movement with such an extraordinaD,
histoD' and is planning celebrations throughout the year to mark both YMCA's collective histoD,
and our own YMCA's 40 years of service in Saratoga.
It would be a tremendous honor for the Southwest ~xq~lCA if you were to issue a proclamation
recognizing our 5qVlCA's and the YIvlCA movement's achievements in building strong kids,
strong families and strong communities.
Specifically, we would like to have you proclaim June 2, 2001, "kWICA Day". I have enclosed a
fact sheet that highlights the Southwest YMCA's wide range of pro,ams and sen'ices, all
desired to meet our communiB"s needs. Upon review, I think you will understand why I am a
dedicated volunteer of this organization. Even' day we live our mission and sen'e people of all
ages, incomes and abilities.
I look fonvard to further discussing a proclamation for the Southwest xxqMCA and your
participation in the YMCA World's Largest Run at Shoreline Park on June 2, 2001.
Sincerely,
Susan Karo
Board Chair
Southwest 53dCA · 13500 Quito Road ,' Saratoga, CA 95070
408.370.1877 · Fax: 408.370.1333
CITY OF SARATOGA
PROCLA~MATION
DECLARING JUNE 2, 2001
"YMCA DAY"
WHEREAS, The year 2001 marks the 150th anniversary of the YMCA movement in the United States, and
marks the 40th anniversary of the Southwest YMCA; and
WHEREAS, the ~'ICA has touched the lives of virtually all Americans, from pioneering camping, public
libraries, night schools, group swimming lesions and lifesaving, and teaching English as a second language to
inventing basketball and volleyball; and
WHEREAS, the 'i~,~CA is dedicated to building strong kids, strong families and strong communities; and
WHEREAS, the YMCA sen:es people of all ages, incomes and abilities through a wide variety of programs and
services designed to meet changing communi~, needs; and
WHEREAS, the YMCA lives its mission ever), da3', "The YMCA of Santa Clara Valley, based upon Judeo
Christian principals, is committed to strengthening and enriching the development of individuals and families
through quality programs and sen-ices that build a healthy spirit, mind and body for all"; and
WHEREAS, the xt .'MCA movement in the United States sen:es nearly 18 million members and locally 60
thousand members per year as an organization that is volunteer-founded, volunteer-based and volunteer-led; and
rI-IEREAS, Southwest x~ ,LMCA programs provide a spirit of adventure that challenges members to learn new
'n~kills, tr)' new activities and explore other cultures while being good citizens in their community; and
WHEREAS, Southwest YMCA provides parents with high-quality, affordable child care; provides teen with a
safe place to go after school; provides families a fun, affordable place to spend time together; provides seniors
with social programs; and provides healthy programs and sen'ices for everyone in the community; and
Vv~-IEREAS, Southwest YMCA is part of a national movement that sen'es 9 million children per year, that is the
nation's largest child are provider; that currently serves one in ten teens; and that incorporates the values of
caring, honesty, respect and responsibility into all of its programs; and
'¢,q-IEREAS, the YMCA movement has along history of partnership with other community organizations, such
as schools, hospitals and police departments; and
x3,q-IEREAS, the 150th anniversary of YMCA movement and the 40h anniversary Southwest YMCA will draw
special public attention to the distinguished history of the organization and to benefits that the people of
Saratoga have enjoyed as a result of the proud tradition of this organization.
NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga takes great pleasure in
recognizing the Southwest YMCA on the celebration of its 40th anniversary and the 150th anniversary, of the
YMCA movement and in acknowledging with great pride the positive impact of the organization in this
community.
our hand and seal of the City of Saratoga on this 16t~ day of May 2001.
John Mehaffey, Mayor
City of Saratoga
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: CiD' Manager
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM: \C_~
CITY MANAGER: ~~~
DEPT HE.M):
SUBJECT: Commendation for Venise Taaffe
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present Commendation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is a commendation for Venise Taaffe, who has successfully been providing dance
programs to the Saratoga Recreation Department for the past fifteen years.
FISC.&L IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
NIA
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Copy of commendation.
CITY OF SARATOGA
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
COMMENDING
WHEREAS, Venise Taaffe brought On Your Toes dance pro.am to the
Saratoga Recreation Department in April of 1986; and
WHEREAS, On Your Toes dance pro~arn immediately ~ew from 6 children to
175 and now has over 250 students; and
WHEREAS, On Your Toes has ~own to offer over 30 classes (nearly 25 hours
weekly) and numerous summer camps annually; and
'~VHEREAS, dance encourages ~owth of self confidence, coordination,
flexibility, endurance and strength in participants; a~nd
WHEREAS, On Your Toes won a First Place ribbon in the Saratoga Parade; and
WHEREAS, On Your Toes has helped parents purchase, well below retail and
without si~maificant markup, high quality shoes, tutus, leotards, dance gifts, flowers,
pictures, videos and more; and
WHEREAS, On Your Toes won a Silver Medal from Bay Area Parent Magazine
for the "Best of the Best" Children's Dance Pro~an~ in Silicon Valley; and
¥¥'HEREAS, Venise and her staff produce an annual dance recital for her
students, their family and friends; and
WHEREAS, Venise has coordinated the dance routines, costumes, music,
securing of venue, pro.am, decorations, parking, staffing and much more for over 3,500
students participating in said recitals;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga recognizes that On Your Toes, with Venise Taaffe as director, has, for 15 years,
consistently maintained a HIGH QUALITY dance pro.am for the residents of the City
of Saratoga. Be it further proclaimed that On Your Ioes exemplifies the Recreation
Department's commitment to "Creating Community Through Quality Recreation
Pro.ams." -:
John M2ehaffey, Mayor
City of Saratoga
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001
ORIGINATING ~D' Manager
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY 5L&NAGER:
\D
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Commendation for Chuck Page
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present Commendation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is a commendation for Chuck Page, outgoing Planning Commissioner.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
NA
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N-A
ALTEILNATIVE ACTION:
N.A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
NA
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AN'D PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Copy of commendation.
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMENDING CHUCK PAGE
FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Chuck Page has served on the Planning Commission
from July 1998 to April 2001; and
WHEREAS, Chuck actively participated in a number of important
land use matters considered by the Commission during those years,
particularly the review of several major development proposals, including
the expansion and renovation of the Odd Fellows Senior Care and Living
Facility and the Argonaut Shopping Center, Sobrato Development, as well
as many other sig-nificant projects that have been reviewed by the Planning
Commission to ensure their integration into the environment and
community character; and
WHEREAS, Chuck also setwed as Planning Commission Chairman
and participated in the Planning Commission's consideration and
completion of the Circulation Element; and
WHEREAS, Chuck participated in the review of two Julia Morgan
houses proposed for renovation and the enhancement of the Old Grandview
Estate; and
WHEREAS, since it is apparent to all who worked with him that
Chuck has been a dedicated and hard working Planning Commissioner, his
many years of service are greatly appreciated by the Planning Commission,
the CiD' Council, and the staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Chuck Page is
hereby commended and thanked for his hard work and dedication on the
Planning Commission; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we wish him well in the future.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF
SA1L4,TOGA on this 16th day of May 2001.
John Mehaffey, Mayor
City of Saratoga
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001
ORIGINATING ' .~
PREPARED BY:~
SUBJECT: Commendatio~nne Bernald
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY .~L~NAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present Commendation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is a commendation for Mary-L~vnne Bemald, outgoing PlanningCommissioner.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda.
ATIACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Copy of commendation.
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMENI)ING MARY-LYNNE BERNALD
FOR HER SERVICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Mary-Lynne Bemald has sen:ed on the Planning
Commission from November 1996 to April 2001; and
WHEREAS, Mary-Lynne actively participated in a number of
important land use matters considered by the Commission during that time,
particularly the careful review and completion of the Circulation Element,
and the Sobrato Development, Argonaut Sihopping Center, Azule Crossing
as well as many other significant projects that have been reviewed by the
Planning Commission to ensure their integration into the environment and
community character; and
WHEREAS, Mary-Lynne participated in the Planning Commission's
review of the of two Julia Morgan houses and the enhancement of the Old
Grandview Estate; and
WHEREAS, Mary-Lynne's concern for residents and design skills
resulted in decisions that considered the needs of existing neighbors when
considering applications ranging from major development proposals to
minor home additions; and
WHEREAS, since it is apparent to all who worked with her that
Mary-Lynne has been a dedicated and hard working Planning
Commissioner, her years of sen'ice are ~eatly appreciated by the Planning
Commission, the City Council and the staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Mary-Lynne
Bernald is hereby commended and thanked for her hard work and
dedication on the Planning Commission; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we wish her well in the future.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA on this 16th day of May 2001.
John Mehaffey, Mayor
City of Saratoga
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001
AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DSPT~D? Manager
PRE P:M~,ED BY:~/~~
SUBJECT: Commendation for Margaret Patrick
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present Commendation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is a commendation for Margaret Patrick, outgoing Planning Commissioner.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N.'A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N.'A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N~A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING .~ND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Copy of commendation.
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COL~CIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMENDING MARGARET PATRICK
FOR HER SERVICE ON THE PL.~NNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Margaret Patrick has-served on the Planning
Commission from August 8, 1994 to April 1,2001; and
WHEREAS, Margaret actively participated in a'number of important
land use matters considered by the Commission during those years,
particularly the review of several major development proposals, including
the expansion and renovation of the Odd Fellows Senior Care and Living
Facility and the Argonaut Shopping Center, Sobrato Development, as well
as many other significant projects that have been reviewed by the Planning
Commission to ensure their integration into the environment and
community character; and
WHEREAS, Margaret participated in the Planning Commission's
consideration and completion of the Circulation Element; and
WHEREAS, Margaret participated in the review of two Julia Morgan
houses proposed for renovation and the enhancement of the Old Grandview
Estate; and
WHEREAS, since it is apparent to all who worked with her that
Margaret has been a dedicated and hard working Planning Commissioner,
her many years of sen;ice are greatly appreciated by the Planning
Commission, the City Council, and the staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Margaret Patrick is
hereby commended and thanked for her hard work on the Planning
Commission; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we wish her well in the future.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA on this 16t~ day of May 2001.
John iMehaffey, Mayor
City of Saratoga
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER:
SUBJECT: Check Register
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Approve the Check Register.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is the Check Register.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
None
.a.~LTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
None
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Check Register Certification.
IFund# Fund Name Date Manual Void
4127101 Checks Checks
AP CHEC KS A84803-85091
1 GENERAL 60,703.59
100 COPS-SLESF 60.00
110 Traffic Safety
150 Streets & Roads 6,504.73
160 Transit Dev
170 Hillside Repair
180 LLA Districts 5,696.47
250 Dev Services 36,822.31
260 Environmental
270 Housing & Comm
290 Recreation 24,652.60
292 Facility Ops 754.00
293 Theatre Surcharge
300 State Park
310 Park Develpmt 11,661.84
320 Library Expansion -. 93,209.71
400 Library Debt
410 Civic Cntr COP
420 Leonard Creek
700 Quarry Creek
710 Heritage Prsvn
720 Cable TV
730 PD #2
74O PD #3
800 Deposit Agency 2,376.00
810 Deferred Comp
830 Payroll Agency
990 SPFA
ISubtotal
10,896.30
242,441.25 10,896.30
PAYROLL CHECKS: B26585-26619
TOTAL
378
Prepared I)y:
Approved 3y:
Date:
Z
O~
~0
o~;
0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 m 0 ~ 0
0 o ~ 0 ~ u
o o o o o o o o
"~0
o
o
o
co co
O'~-
g~
o ~ o o ~ o o o o mo o ~ o ~ o ~ '
o ~ o
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o
o~
o3.
0',~'
Uo
U
o°'~ §'~ §~o o°"
o o o o o
[ilO[.-,
o oooo o o o o o o o o
o ~
...... ~o o ~o ~o 40 ~ ~o ~o
o
oo
U
~ o ~o ~o
......... § §
[..-, o
,~0
o
o oo oo o o o o o o o oo
oo =oo o .o o ~o oo oo oo
~ ~ o o ~ ~ o ~ ~
- G G o o o o o
do
~0
oo o o o o ooo o
r~
"~ 0
r~
~ o
121
o z o m o m o o ~ o o ~ o o ~m o - o ~
o o oo o oo o oo
~oo ~o .oo ~o oo
~ ~ ~ ~ 0
[-.
O0
0
nn
0
o o o o o o ooo o
~ ~ ~ ~ > > >~ >
§ o o o §
.%
o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o =
oo ~ ~ ~ ~ .....
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY:/,'?,~o't, v 7c7~ _/f,/~J~b,~~DEPT HEAD:///~%~/ff
SUBJECT: Financial Reports for the Ten Months Ended April 2001
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Accept the financial repons and the Treasurer's report for the ten months ended April 30, 2001.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The accompanYing financial repons represent the revenues, expenditures and fund balances in all
City funds for the ten months ended April 30, 2001.
Summary
Overall revenues are higher than expected at this point in the annual cycle, and expenditures are
slightly lower than budgete& For the ten months ended April 30, the City is in a positive
financial condition when compared to the annual budgeted revenues and expenditures.
Revenues
General Fund revenues are about $1.5 million higher than expected as of April 30. This is due to
higher property tax, sales tax, transfer tax, interest income, and motor vehicle license fees. The
new special assessment from Vessing Road Assessment District will be less than we budgeted
because costs have been less than anticipated so we are required to collect lower revenues.
In other funds, Development Fund revenues continue to be higher than budgeted this fiscal year
due to the continued active building environment. The FHWA reimbursement in the Streets and
Roads Fund for the Quito Road Bridge was expected to be received this fiscal year, but both the
work and the related reimbursement will be delayed until next fiscal year. Revenues in all other
funds remain approximately as anticipated.
Expenditures
General Fund expenditures are about $350,000 less than anticipated as of April 30, with minor
variances in many of the program budgets. Expenditures in the Streets and Roads Fund are
slightly low, but it is anticipated that they will increase within the next few months when a
majority of the streets and medians/parkways work is completed. Other funds are very close t.o
where they are expected to be.
Fund Balance
The General Fund balance is $11,488,320 as of April 30, 2001, and $19,006,157 for all funds
combined. At this point, it is anticipated that the Ge,neral fund balance will be approximateiy
$1.2 million lOwer by June 30, 2001, assmxfing the following transactions will Occur before the
end of the fiscal year:
The General Fund will be reimbursed by the Libn~xy Construction fund for about $600,000
in expenses incurred before the bonds were sold, '
- Approximately $200,000 in vehicles and rolling stock will be purchased,
- The pavement management program will be completed, with expenditures ofapproximately
$1.3 million, and
- Capital projects funded by the General FUnd will be completed for about $300,000. ~
The fund balance for all. funds combined is expected be about $30 million as of. June 30. Tlfis
includes the library bond proceeds of $15 million that 'were received in May. This also assumes
that approximately $3.5 million budgeted for the .pavement management, park improvements,
and capital e~tpenditures that have not yet been spent, will be spent by June 30.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Discussed above.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(~):
None.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Accept and file the reports.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
Financial repons for April 2001.
Treasurer's Report for April 2001.
2
7
CITY OF SARATOGA
TEN MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 2001
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 83.33%
FUNDBALANCE
FUND FUND DESCRIPTION
001 GENERAL FUND
002 MIS KEPLACEMENT FUND
003 PEKS RETIREMENT FUND
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
AUDITED UNAUDITED
BALANCE YEAR TO DATE ' ADJUSTS & BALANCE
JULY i. 2000~ EXPENDFTURE TRANSFERS APIL30. 2001
$ 8,955,703$ 7,292,700$ 4,382,843 $ (377,240) $ I 1,488,320
95,000 35,000 130,000
34,917 · - 34,917
9,085,620 7,292,700 4,382,843 (342,240)
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS:
100 COPS SUE LAW ENFORCEMENT 44,119 105,862 43,490 5,682 112,173
110 TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF 94,105 4,059 (90,046)
150 STREETS&ROADS SRF 638,734 21954,870 1,228,653 (558,951) 1,800,000
160 TRANS DEV ACT SRF-CAP PROJ I 11,707 169,200 57,493
170 HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF 2,517 (2,517)
180 LANDSCAPE./LGTNG SRF 107,940 151,908 i37,798 122,050
250 DEVELOPMENT SRF 1.358,905 1,690.873 1,325,126 1,724,652
260 ENVIRONMENTAL PRG SRF 420,458 455,323 194,968 680,813
270 HOUSING & COMM DEV SRF 13,583 140,657 127,074
290 RECREATION SRF 588,145 760,682 172,537
292 FACILITY OPS SKF 105,549 196,611 91,002
293 THEATER TCK SRCHG SKF 171 17,093 8,502 (8,762)
TOTAL SPECIAL REV. FUNDS 2,570.327 6,291,534 4,209,746 (206,428) 4,445,687
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS:
310 PARK DEVELOPMENT 2,143,964 30,684 264,267 1,910,381
320 LIBRARY EXPANSION 150,000 548,668 548,668 150,000
TOTAL SPE~CIAL REV. FUNDS 2,143,964 180,684 812,936 548,668 2,060.381
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
400 LIBRARY BONDS DEB2 SVC - 93,608 92,158 1,450
AGENCY FUNDS:
LEONARD ROAD DEBT SVC
720 C.A TV TRUST FUND
730 PARKING DIST #2 DEBT SVC
1740 PARKING DIST #3 DEBT SVC
SAKATOGA PUBL FIN AGNCY
TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
40,329 4,817 12,132 33,014
86.303 5,296 91,599
1,508 1,508
16,698 80,922 177,378 (79,758)
485,374 485,374
302,711 10,953 313.664
932,923 101,989 189,510 845,402
$ 14,732,834 $ 13,960,515 $ 9,687,192- $ 19,006,157
AUDITED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
BALANCE YEAR TO DATE ADJUSTS & BALANCE
JULY 1.2000 ~VENUE EXPENDITURE TRANSFERS JUNE 30.2001
$ 8,955,703 $ 8,598,222 $ 6,092,672 $ (I.249,622) $ 10,211.631
95,000 35,000 130,000
34,917 34,917 69,834
9,085,620 ' 8,598,222 6,092,672 (1,179,705) 10,411,465
44,119 100,000 111,344 11,344 44.119
148,500 25,917 (122,583)
638,734 3,916,434 3,851,392 1.102,224 1,806,000
95,234 169,200 73,966
2,517 0 (2,517)
107,940 193.608 171,670 129,878
1,358,005 1,867,000 1,634,501 (130,000) 1,461,404
420,458 552.096 587,691 384,863
382,034 101,260 (161,115) 119,659
737,500 1,036,412 298,912
130,000 224,416 94,416
171 25,000 40,078 14,907
2,570,327 8,149,923 7,953,881 1,179,554 3,945,9~
2.143,964 250,000 1,381,000 1,012,964
15.000,000 1,000,000 14.000,0~0
2,143,964 15,250,000 2~81,000 15,012.964
94,774 94,774 151 I$1
40,329 12,130 12,131 40,328
86,303 4,800 0 91.103
· 1,508 0 1,508
16,698 172,125 172,125 16,698
485,374 0 485.374
302,711 23.500 , 0 326.21t
932,923 212,555 184,256 961,222
$ 14,732,834 $ 32.305,474 $ 16,706,583 $ $ 30.331,725
APRIL2001~RECAP Page 1 5/11/01
CITY OF SARAT~OGA
TEN MONTHS ENDED A~PRIL 30, 2001
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED -- 83.33%
REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR 2000-01
· ~ REVISED ESTIMATED
: ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL
TITLE BUDGET (if different) (if different)
YEAR-TO-DATE
4/30/01 4/30/01
ESTIMATE ACTUAL
(YTD)
ACTUAL/
4/30
ESTIMATE
001
100
110
150
160
170
180
250
260
' 270
290
292
293
310
320
400
REVENUE RECAP BY FUND
GENERAL FUND
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS:
COPS-SLESF FUND 70,128
TRAF'FIC SAFETY FUND . . 153,500·
STREETS & ROADS:SRF ' 5,096,627
TRANSPORT DEVELOP ACT SRF 97,234
HILLSIDE REPAIR FUND 6,088
LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING FUND. ~ ! 77;954
DEVELOPMENT FUND 1,508,200
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM FUND 547,546'
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEV.FUND 262,928
· RECREATION FUND 782;300'
$ 7,536,184" $8,244,558 ~ $8,598,222 $ 5,747,484 $ · 7,292,700
100,000
148,500
5,127,444 .' 3,916,434
95,234
2,517
193,608
1,568,687 '' 1,867~000
552,969 552,096
365,429 382,034
737,500
FACILITY OPERATIONS FUND ........ 120,000·
THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF ..... 25,000 . '.
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 8,847,505 8,976~'605 '
CAPIYAL PROJECTS FUNDS:
PARK. DVLPMNT CAP'PRJ FND
LIB1L~.RY EXPANSION CAP PROJ FUN
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
DEB']' SERVICE FUND:
LIBlL~RY BOND DEBT SRV FI,ID
TOT/~L AGENCY FUNDS
420 LEObIARD RD DEBT SER FUND
720 CA TV TRUST FUND '
730 PRK DST#2 DBT SR/AGNCY FD
740 PRK I)ST#3 DBT SR/AGNCY FD
800 DEPOSITS AGENCY FUND
990 SARATOGA PFA AGENCY FUND
TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS
.130,000
25,000
8,149,923
93,150 250,000'
"- 1,000,000.' ' 15,000,000
'93,150. i: 1,093,150 ' 15,250,000
931678 ' 94;774
11,700
4,200
171,731·
20,000
4,800
172,125
23,500
207,631 212,555
$ 16,778,148 " $18,615,62~~ $32,305,474
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
100,000
87,500
. 2,983,549
111,707
4,407
A48,628
1,307,073..
460;808'
16,338'
634~333
100,000
.' . 20,833
5,975~175 6,291,534
35,000 30,684
150,000 150,000
185,000 · 180,684
93,677 93,608
105,862
94,105
2,954,870
111,707
2,517
151,908
1,690,873
455,323
13,583
-588,145
105,549
17,093
9,75b 4,817
4,860 5,296
86,062 80,922
15,000 10,953
115,612- 101,989
$ 12,116,948 $ 13,960,515
26.9%
5.9%
7.5%
-1.0%
0.0%·'
-42.9%
2.2%
29.4%
-16.9%'
~7.3%
5.5%
-18.0%
5.3%
0.0%
-2.3%
-0.1%
-50.6%
10.3%
-6.0%
-2~.0%
-11.8%
15.2%
APRIL2001\REVENOE Page 2 5)1 i/01
CITY OF SARATOGA
TEN MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 2001
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 83.33%
REVENUES
GENERAL FUND
001
TITLE
PROP TAX SECURED, LLNSECURED
TEA ALLOCATION
SALES TAX 1%
SALES TAX PROP 172
T1L,~NSFER TAX
CONSTRUCTION TAX
TILa, NS OCCUP TAX
FIL,~NCI-IISE FEES - PG&E
FRANCHISE FEES - TCI
FIL-~NCHISE FEES - SJ WATER
FIL-~NCHISE FEES - GREEN VALLEY
FISCAL YEAR 2000-01
REVISED ESTI.XL&TED
ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL
BUDGET (if different) (if different)
1,230.000 1,446,451
547.705 577,244
1,777,705 2,023,695
980.000 991,357 1,168,528
80.000 95,000
1,060.000 1,071,357 1,263,528
288.800 406,900
400.000 495,000
275,000 321.000
963,800 1,222.900
235.000 242.568
178.500 178.500
92,000 97.212
282.296 315.000
787,796 833.280
BUSINESS LICENSES 282,333 295.259
CLEEP 110.820 110.820
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEE 1.406.300 1,549.283
OFF HIGHWAY MV FEE 560 600
HOPTR 15,700 15.700
OTHER REFL-'.~DS & REIMBURSE
FINES-FALSE A LAP~M
FORFEITURES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS (VESSING)
INTEREST
RENTALS-CELL PHONE
HAKONE RENT PASS THROUGH
SALE OF ASSETS
MISC.
VEHICLE ABATEMENT
ANIMAL LICENSES
FUEL SALES
GROU.~D MAINT
PARK RENTAL
. PEILMIT-ENC~MT.
1,422,560 1.422.560 1.565.583
610,338 575,695 256.721
15.000 18.000
45,000 45.000
620.000 324,634
400,000 450,000
55.800 58.200
9.852 8,368
7.234
10.000
14.000
12.500
8.500
5.000
5.000
54,840 60.000
1,241,990 1,828,187 1.283.157
7,536,184 $ 8,244,558 S8,598,222
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
10,000
14,000
8,000
i0.000
5,000'
5.000
54,000
YEAR-TO-DATE
4/30/01 4/30/01
ESTISLa. TE ACTUAL
1.025.000 $ 1.283.823
1,025,000 1.283.823
826,131 1,033,071
66,667 71,223
892.798 1.104.294
240.667 324,474
333.333 391,703
229.167 226.640
803.167 942.817
242.568 242.569
148.750 166.611
92.000 97,212
235.247 232.161
718.565 738.552
235,278 250,418
110,820 110,820
1,171,917 1,427.416
560 612
13.083 7.824
1.185,560 4 !.546.672
256,721 289.026
12,500 17.875
30.000 21,872
333.333 825.094
46,500 55.948
8.210 9.189
8,333 9.487
11,667 9.003
6.667 12,230
8,333 6,534
4.167 1,000
4.167 6.011
45.700 52,034
776.298 1,315.304
$ 5,747,484 $ 7,292,700
(YTD)
ACTUAL/
4/30
ESTIMATE
25.3%
25.3%
25.0%
6.8%
23.7%
34.8%
17.5%
-1.1%
i 7.4%
0.0%
12.0%
5.7%
-1.3%
2.8%
6.4%
0.0%
21.8%
9.3%
-40.2%
30.5%
! 2.6%
43.0%
-27.1%
147 5%
20.3%
11.9%
13.8%
-22.8%
83.5%
-21.6%
-76.0%
44.3%
! 3.9%
69.4%
26.9%
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(4)
APR/L2001 \REVENUE Page 3 5/11/01
TITLE
SPECIAl., REVENUE FUNDS:
COPS-SLESF SP REV FD
SUPFL LAW ENFORCEMENT GIL4_NT
100 INTEREST
100 SUPFL LAW ENFORCE
T1LAFFIC SAFETY SRF
CROSSING GUARD MATCH
FINE'3-VEHICLE CODE
TOT:iL TRAFFIC SAFETy SRF
STREETS & ROADS SRF
150 REFUNDS & REIMB.
ST HIGHWAY USER 2107.5
ST HIGHWAY USER 2106
ST HIGHWAY USER 2107
ST FHWA REIMB.
ST 2105 S&H CODE
TEA-21
CAL'HLAN S-SARATOG.~SV RD.
AB 434 CLEAN AIR G1LANT
MEASL;RE B
TOTAL ST&RDS SRF
TRANSPORT DEVELOP ACT SRF-CAP PROJ
160 TOTALTDA
HILLSIDE EEPAIR SRF
170 1NTE?,EST
HILL3IDE STREET REPAIR
TOTAL HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF
LANDSCAFE/LGTNG SRF
180 PROP. TAX
SPEC [AL ASSESSMENT
INTEREST
TOTAL LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF
DEVELOPMENT SRF
250 GEOI.OGY REVIEW FEES
ENGI'~EERING FEES
PLANNING FEES
ARBORIST FEE
- MAP/PUB/OTHER SALES
DOCUMENT STRG FEES '
PERNiITS-BUILDING
PERMITS-G1LADING
FINES-TREE REMOVAL
INTEREST
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SRF
CITY OF SARATOGA
TEN MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 2001
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 83.33%
FISCAL YEAR 2000-01
REVISED ESTIgLATED
ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL
BUDGET (if different) (if different)
70,128
100,000
YEAR-TO-DATE
4/30/01 4/30/01
ESTI~LATE ACTUAL
100,000 100.000
5.862
70,128 100,000 100,000 105,862
3,500 3,500 -
150,000 145,000 87,500 94,105
153,500 148,500 87,500 94,105
140,835
6,000
150.744
270,325
1,404,000
193.095
224,082
2.0O6.000
324.294
377,252
261.543
6.000
149.550
251.531
62.000
194.742
252.705
2.006.000
355.111
377.252
364,835
1,180,000
215.000 208,144
6,000 6,000
113,058 111,034
202,744 192,368
144.821 144,683
2,006,000 2,006,000
295,926 286,640
355,111
5,096,627 5,127,444 3,916~34 2,983,549 2,954,870
97,234 95,234 111,707 111,707
800 0
5,288 2.517 4,407 2,517
6,088 2,517 4,407 2,517
73.750
102,204
2.000
61.458 89,656
85,170 56,059
2,000 6,192
89,404
102,204
2,000
177,954 193,608 148,628 151,908
65.000
60,000
350,000
60,000
200
13,000
900,000
60,000
1,508,200
960.487
1,568.687
65,000
95,000
436,000
75,000
0
14,000
1,132,000
50,000
54,167 59,715
50,000 92,639
291,667 341,522
50,000 84,259
10.833 12,307
800,406 949,767
50,000 46,450
104,215
1,307,073 1,690,873
1,867,000
(VrD)
ACTUAId
4/30
ESTIMATE
100%+
5.9%
7.5%
7.5%
-3.2%
0.0%
-1.8%
-5.1%
-0.1%
0.0% (9)
-3.1%
0.0%
-42.9%
-42.9%
45.9% (1)
-34.2% (10)
209.6%
2.2%
10.2%
85.3%
68.5%
13.6%
i 8.7%
100%+
29.4%
(4)
APRI L2001 \REVEN U E Page 4 5/I 1/01
CITY OF SARATOGA
TEN MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 2001
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 83.33%
REVENUES
TITLE
FISCAL YEAR 2000-01
REVISED ESTISLATED
OR/GINAL BUDGET ACTUAL
BUDGET (if different) (if different)
ENVIP<NMNTAL PRG SRF
ST REFUSE SURCHG AB939
ENVIRONMENTAL FEES
INTEREST
TOTAL ENVIRON PRG SRF
HOUSING&COMM DEV SRF
270 HCD/CDBG/SI-b~RP GRANTS
INTEREST
SI-L4RP LOAN REPAYMENT
TOTAL HOUSING/COMM DEV SRF
RECREATION SRF
290 FRIENDS OF WA~NER HUTTON HOUS
SPORTS LEAGUE FEES
CAMP FEES
EXCURSION FEES
CLASS/SPECIAL EVENT
COMM. CTR.SNACK BAR SALES
REDWOOD SPORTS PRGM.
TEEN SERVICES
TEEN SNACK BAR SALES
WAR_NER HUTTON CONTRIBUTIONS
30,479 29,606
517.067 522,490 522,490
547,546 552,969 552,096
259,928 362,429 362,429
3.000 3.000
16,605
262,928 $365,429 382,034
10,000 10,000
32,000 36,000
131,300 150,000
100,000 80,000
425.000 400,000
1,500 0
30.000 30.000
51,000 30,000
1,500 1,500
TOTAL RECREATION SRF 782,300 737,500
FACILITY OPS SRF
292 BUILDING RENT 120,000 130.000
TOTAL FACILITY OPS SRF 120,000 130,000
THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF INTEREST
o
293 THEATERTCK SRCHG 25,000 25,000
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
8,847.505 8.976,605 8,149,923
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
PARK DVLPMNT CAP PK1 YND
310 PARK DEVELOPMENT
LIBRARY EXPANSION CAP PROJ FU~'D
320 LIBRARY BOND PROCEEDS
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
93,150 250,000
1,000,000 15,000,000
93,150 1,093,150 15,250,000
YEAR-TO-DATE
4/30/01 4/30/01
ESTI-~LS, TE ACTUAL
(~TD)
ACTUAL/
4/30
ESTIMATE
25,399 22,596 -11.0%
435,408 432,727 -0.6%
39.580 100~-
460,808 455323 -1.2%
2,500 1,276 -49.0%
13.838 12.307 -11.1%
16,338 13,583 -16.9%
5,000 5.000 0.0%
26,667 30,703 15.1%
109,417 117.604 7.5%
83,333 64,436 -22.7%
354,167 317,892 -10.2%
25.000 27,685 10.7%
29.750 23,263 -21.8%
1.000 1.562 56.2%
634.333 588,145 -7.3%
100.000 105.549 5.5%
100,000 105,549 5.5%
548 100%+
20,833 17,093 -18.0%
5,863,468 6,179,827
5.4%
35,000 30,684 -12.3%
150,000 150,000 0.0% 02)
185,000 180,684 -2.3%
(11)
APRIL2001 \REVENUE Page 5 5/11/01
TITLE
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
LIBRARY BOND DEBT SRV END
400 PRIb'CIPAL
IN'TF REST
OTHER
CITY OF SARATOGA
TEN MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 2001
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 83.33%
REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR 2000-01
REVISED ESTIbLS-TED
ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL
BUDGET (if different) (if different)
85,000 85,000
8,408 8,408
270 1,366
TOTAL LIBRARY BOND DEBT 93,678 94,774
AGENCY FUNDS:
LEONARD RD DEBT SER FL.~,'D
420 SERYICES (ASSESS DISTRICTS)
CA TV TRUST FU~D
720 INTEREST INCOME
PRK DST#2 DBT S1L-"AGNCY FD
730 SERTICES (ASSESS DISTRICTS)
PRK DST#.". DBT SK/AGNCY FD
740 SERYICES (ASSESS DISTRICTS)
DEPOSITS AGENCY FU_~D
800 DEPOSITS . .
sAILa, TOG-X PFA AGENCY FL.~D
990 INTEREST INCOME
TO'IAL AGENCY FUNDS
GRAND TOTAL
12,130
11,700
4,200 4,800.
171,731 172,125
20.000 23,500
207,631 212,555
$ 16,778,148 $18,615,622 $32,305,474
YEAR-TO-DATE
4/30101
ESTI.~L~TE
4/30/01
ACTUAL
85,000 85.000
8,407 8,408
270 200
93,677 93,608
9,750 4,817
4.800 5,296
$86,062. 80,922
15.000 10,953
115.612 101.989
$ 12,116.948 $ 13.960,515
.(YTD)
ACTUAL/
' 4~30
ESTI.~L~TE
0.0%
0.0%
-25.9%
-0.1%
-50.6%
10.3%
-6.0%
-27.0%
-11.8%
15.2%
REVENUE NOTES:
(1) Property Taxes-Secured property tax paid in December/January and ApriLq~.la.v.
(2) Sale: tax revenues are higher than originally budgeted.
(3) Property Transfer taxes are higher than orginally budgeted due to the increase in real estate transactions.
(4) Development Fees-Development activits,' remains higher than orginally budgeted.
(5) Franchise Fees from PG&E and SJ Water received in April and February respectively.
(6) Motor Vehicle License fees are higher than orginally budgeted.
(7) Other refunds & reimbursement revenues are higher than originally budgeted.
(8) Inter.~st income revenues are higher than originally budgeted. Interest is allocated to various funds.
(9) State of CA CALTILANS monies (52,006,000) received in December 2000.
(10) Assessment Revenues-Paid in December/January and Aprib%~ay.
(11) Recreation revenues are heaviest in the summer months.
(12) Good Faith Deposit (5;150,000) for Library General Obligation Bond. Monies to be received in May.
APRIL 2001\REVENOE Page 6 5/11/01
CITY OF SARATOGA
TEN MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 2001
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 83.33%
EXPENDITURES
001
100
110
150
160
180
250
260
270
290
292
293
310
320
400
420
700
720
'730
740
8OO
990
ORIGINAL
TITLE BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 2000-01
REVISED
BUDGET
(if different)
ESTIMATED
ACTUAL
(if differen0
EXPENDITURE RECAP BY FLqND
YE.MI-TO-DATE
4i30/01 4130/01
ESTIMATE ACTUAL
GENERAL FUND S 5,523,254 $ 6,892,519
SPECLa, L REVENUE FUNDS
COPS SUP. LAW ENFORCEMENT 86,806
TRAFFIC S.M:ETY SRF 26,090
STREETS&ROADS SPY 5,654,413
TILMqS DEV ACT SRF-C.M~ PROJ 169,200
LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SPY 177,740
DEVELOPMENT SRF 1,646,522
ENVIRONMENTAL PRG SPY 621,380
HOUSING & COMM DEV SPY 191,806
RECREATION SPY 1,045,808
FACILITY OPS SRF 224,128
THEATER ICK SRCHG SPY 41,516
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS:
PARK DEVELOPMENT
LIBRARY EXP.,~N-S ION
TOIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
DEBT SERVICE H'ND:
LIBIL~RY BONDS DEBT SVC
TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS
LEONARD ROAD DEBT SVC
QUARRY CREEK PROJ ADM
C.A. TV TRUSI FL.'ND
PARKING DIST =2 DEBT SVC
PARKING DISI =3 DEBT SVC
DEPOSIT AGENCY FU.'ND
SA1L-~TOGA PUBL FIN AGNCY
TOIAL AGENCY FUNDS
TOTAL ALLFUNDS
5,959,553
247.453
$6,092,672
111,344
25,917
3,851,392
169,200
171,670
1,634,501
587,691
101,260
1,036,412
224,416
40,078
9,885,409 10,331,782 7,953,881
1.769,661 2,037,027 1,381.000
1,000,000 1.000,000
2,769,661 3,037,027 2,381,000
93,829 94.529 94,774
11,700 12,131
- 0
- 0
0
171,731 172,125
0
0
4,736,211 $ 4,382,843
50.637
15.219
1,586.195
169.200
149.820
1,318.463
260.710
142.263
831.483
187.694
8.529
4,720.214
43.490
4.059
1,228.653
169.200
137.798
1,325.126
194.968
140.657
760.682
196.611
8.502
4,209.746
260,000 264,267
557,000 548,668
ct"rD)
ACTUAL/
4130
E STI_X£-~TE
183,431 184,256
S 18,455,584 S 20,539,288 $16,706,583
-7.5%
-14.1%
-73.30 o
-22.5%
0.0%
.-8.0%
0.5%
-25.2%
-1.1%
-8.5%
4.8%
-0.3Oo
-10.8%
1.6%
-1.5%
817,000 812,936 -0.5%
93,829 92.158 -1.8%
11.700 12.132
171,731 177.378
183,431 189.510
S 10.550,686 S 9,687,192
3.7%
3.300
3.3%
-8.2%
APRIL2001 EXPEND. Page 7 5/11/01
CITY OF SARATOGA
TEN MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 2001
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 83.33%
EXPENDITURES
TITLE
FISCAL YEAR 2000-01
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
REVISED
BUDGET
(if different)
ESTLMATED
ACTUAL
(if differen0
OOl GEN[.RAL FUND
1005 CITY COUNCIL
1010 CONTINGENCY
1015 CITY COMMISSIONS
1020 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
1025 CITY ATrORNEY
1030 CITY CLERK
1035 EQUIPlVIENT OPERATIONS
1040 FINANCIAL M~MNAGEMENT
1045 ItUM.~Xl RESOURCES
1050 GENERAL SERVICES
1060 t'ACILITIES MAINTENANCE
1065 ?,-L~d~AGEMENT INFORMa&TION SYS.
1070 PUBLIC INFORMATION
2005 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
2010 (;ODE ENFORCEMENT
2015 POLICE SEWvqCES
2025 /xNII~L&L CONTROL
3030 PARKS 'OPEN SPACE
3035 GENERAL ENGINEERING
4005 ADV.~NCED PLANNING
7005 SENIOR SERVICES
7010 COMMLrNITY SUPPORT
7020 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
7025 HAKONE G.-~RDENS P.,M~K
9010 CAPIT.&L PROJECTS
SUBTOTAL
LESS OVERHEAD
TOTAL GENERAL FL'ND
$46,500
200,000
84,935
324,667
363,900
85,470
356,5O7
380,726
162,782
127,430
344,233
216,589
22,696
40,876
47,416
2,526.488
173.825
668.333
195.432
108.663
34.853
71.400
100.000
0
454,410
48,900
152,992
'86,129
323,708
390,900
97,659
406,701'
424,458
168,456
345,048
272,446
35,284
82,938
2,602,308
729,688
217,911
'163,780
310,960
:1,176,911.00
45,900
75,111
270.667
403.900
94.232
327.280,
412.581
154.557
130.040
343.266
255,041
19,224
29,983
70,693
2,821,941
- 72,333:
672,726
243,237
83,085
34,511
71,400
68,474
292,460
719,045
7,138,131 8,567,381 7,711,687
(1,614,877) (1,674,862 (1,619,015
$ 5,523,254 $ 6,892,519 6,092,672
YE_~R-TO-DATE
4/30/01 4/30/01
ESTIMATE ACTUAL
$38,250
50,074
225,556
336,583
78,527
272,733
343,818
115,918
97.530
257.450
180.027
14.418
24.986
41.238
$40,697
53,826
248.119
337.348
75.297
111.526
302.274
125.004
87.838
246.217
191.690
11.069
20.866
41.564
2,116.456 1,900.845
60.278 67.350
560.605 581.756
202.698 158.511
69.238-- 84.470
28.759 27.601
71.400 87.471
45.000 37.719
45.000 37.719
440.000 433.312
O~rD)
ACTUAL/
4/30
ESTIMATE
6A%
7.5%'
10.0%
0.2%
-4.1%
-59.1% (13)
-12.1% (14)
7.8%
-9.9%
-4.4%
6.5%
-23.2%
-16.5%
0.8%
- 10.2%
11.7%
3.8% (16)
-21.8% (17)
22.0% (18)
=4.0%
22.5°-0 (19)
-]6.2%
-16.2%
-1.5%
5,716,539 5,310,087 -7.1%
(980.328) (927,244) -5.4o-0
-7.5%
APRIL2001 .EXPEND. Page 8
5:11-01
C/TY OF SARATOGA
TEN MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 2001
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED -- 83.33%
EXPENDYrURES
TITLE
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS:
100 2030
COPS SUP. LAW ENFORCEMENT
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL COPS SRF
110 2020
TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF
FISCAL YEAR 2000-01
REVISED EST~LATED
OP~GINAL BUDGET ACTUAL
BUDGET (if ~fferenO (if ~fferent)
75,465 100,000
11,341 11,3-44
86,806 111,344
25,100 25,100
990 817
26,090 25,917
150 STREETS&ROADS SRF
3005 STREET MAINTENANCE 1,753,975 1,953,396 1,940,837
3010 SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS 91,404 91,280
3015 TR_M:FIC CONTROL 193,244 194,312 190,327
3020 FLOOD AdX, ID STO1LM DRAIN CONTR 126,067 112,639
3025 MEDIANS AND P.M~KWAYS 135,128 124,956
5010 CONGESTION ~L~NAGEMENT 324,770 359,668 355,965
9000 CAPITAL PROJECTS 2.493.000 2,533,783 512,000
SUBTOTAL 5,117,588 5,393,758 3,328,004
PLUS OVERHEAD 536,825 565,795 523.388
TOTAL STREETS&RO.M)S SRF 5.654,413 5.959,553 3,851,392
160 9010 TR_k\'S DEV ACT SRF-CAP PROJ 169,200 169,200
180 3040 L&NDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF 153,626 161.670
PLUS OVERHEAD 24,114 10,000
TOTAL LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF 177,740 171,670
4010
4015
4020
DEVELOP_MENT SRF
ZONING ADMINSTRATION
INSPECTION SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
SUBTOTAL
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SRF
250
5005
5015
9000
ENVIRONMENTAL PRG SRF
INTEGRa, TED WASTE MGMT
STORM WATER N'L'~NAGEMENT
CAP PROJ(STREET STORM DR)
SUBTOTAL
PLUS O'v'ERHEAD
TOTAL ENVIRN_M2NTAL PRG SR
260
YEAR-TO-DATE
4/30/01 4/30/01
ESTI.X£ATE ACTUAL
44,021 37,808
6,616 5,682
50,637 43,490
14,642 3,905
578 154
15,219 4,059
481,675 506,902 532.431
440.005 467,797 357.486
178,583 185,927
1,100,263 1,153,282 1,075,844
546.259 558,657
1,646,522 1,725,864 1.634,501
717,364 460,058
75,000 82,825
108,606 90,774
93,866 62~266
104,130 89,455
296,638 282,188
40.000 44,439
1.435,603 1,112,005
150.592 116,647
1,586,195 1.228,653
169,200 169.200
129,725 119,103
20.095 18.695
149,820 137,798
443,693 483,590
297,905 272,142
139,445 129.764
881,043 885.495
437,420 439.631
1,318,463 1,325,126
197,880 202,880 189.621
307.258 307,681 312,222
34.500 9.033
539,638 545,061 510,876
81,742 76,815
621,380 627,624 587,691
126,414 59,925
100,000 109,396
15.000 9,763
226,414 169,320
34,296 25,648
260,710 194,968i
ACTUA~
4/30
ESTI~£~TE
-14.1%
-14.1%
-14.1%
-73.3%
-73.3%
-73.3%
-35.9% (20)
10.4%
i
- 16.4% 1
-33.7%
-14.1%
-4.9%
11.1% (21)
-22.5%
-22.5%
-22.5%
-8.2~o
-7.07o
-8.0%
9.0% (22)
-8.6% (23)
-6.9%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
-52.6% (24) 9.4%
-34.9°--o (25)-25.2%-25.2%-25.2%
A~PRIL2001 :EXPEND. Page 9 5/11/01
CITY OF SARATOGA
TEN MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 2001
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 83.33%
EXPENDITURES
TITLE
270
290
292
293
ItOUSING&COMM DEV SRF
7015 HCDA ADMINISTRATION
9000 CAP PROJECTS (SR CTR & ADA)
SUBTOTAL
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL HOUSING&COMM DEV SRF
6OO5
6010
ILECREATION SRF
RECREATION
TEEN SERVICES
SUBTOTAL
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL RECREATION SERVICES
6020 FACILITY OPS SRF
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL FACILITY SRF
6015 THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF
TOTAL SPECL~L REVENUE FUNDS
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
310 9010 PARK DEVELOPMENT
320 9010 I.IBR_ARY EXPANSION
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
DEBT SERVICE FU,.~ND:
400 8015 LIBRARY BONDS DEBT SVC
FISCAL YEAR 2000-01
REVISED ESTIMATED
ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL
BUDGET (if different) (if different)
153,463 66,709
25,000 24,217
YE.AR-TO-DATE
4/30/01 4/30/01
ESTIMATE ACTUAL
55,591 57,668
76,776 73,205
76,776
178,463 230,239 90,926 132,367 130,872
13,343 17,214 10,334 9.897 9.785
191,806 247,453 101,260 142,263 140,657
659,566 628,551 523,793 494,624
149,180 143,054 119,212 93,628
808,746 771,605
237,062 264,807
643,004 588,252
188,479 172,430
1,045,808 1,036,412 831,483 760,682
67,756 68,090 56,742 59,437
156,372 156,326 130,952 137,174
224,128 224,416 187,694 196,611
34,687 33,551
6,829 6,527
7,126 7,104
1,403 1,399
41,516 40,078 8,529 8,502
9,885,409 10,331,782 7,953,881 4,720,214 4.209,746
1,769,661 2,037,027 1,381,000
1,000,000 1,000,000
2,769,661 3,037,027 2,381,000
260,000 264,267
557,000 548,668
817,000 812,936
93,829 94,529 94,774
93,829 92,158
O'TD)
ACTUAL/
4/30
ESTI~LATE
3.7% (26)
-4.7%
-1.1%
-1.1%
-1.1%
-5.6% (27)
-21.5% (27)
-8.5%
-8.5%
-8.5%
4.8%
4.8%
4.8%
-0.3%
-0.3%
-0.3%
'-10.8%
1.6% (28)
-1.5%
-0.5%
-1.8% (29)
APRIL200 I'EXPEND Page 10 5.:11-0 i
CITY OF SARATOGA
TEN MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 2001
PERCEN~r OF YEAR ELAPSED = 83.33%
EXPENDITURES
TITLE
AGENCY FUqN1)S:
420 8020 LEON.MID RO.M) DEBT SVC
720 1040 C..4~ TV TRUST FUND
730 8005 P.MtI~NG DIST #2 DEBT SVC
740 8010 P.M/KING DIST #3 DEBT SVC
990 1040 SARATOGA PUBL FIN AGNCY
TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEAR 2000-01
REVISED ESTD, LATED
ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL
BUDGET (if different) (if differenO
11,700 12,131
171,731 172,125
183,431 184,256
S 18,455,584 S 20,539,288 S16,706,583
YEAR-TO-DATE
4/30/01 4/30/01
ESTI_~tATE ACTUAL
11,700 12,132
171,731 177,378
183,431 189,510
S 10,550,686 S 9,687,192
O'TD)
ACTUAIJ
4/30
ESTISt-~TE
3.7% (30)
3.3% (30)
3.3%
-8.2%
EXPENDITURE NOTES:
(13) Equipment replacement (S 112:000) & vehicles replacement (S 105,000) to be replaced before end of fiscal year.
(14) Audit tees not paid until later in the fiscal year. :
(15) Joint Powers Authority tbrming for .Animal Control. City dues.
(16) General contracts for playground safety consultant & Trail maintenance will be entered & paid later in the year.
(17) SalaD' savings. Unfilled positions in Engineering Dept.
(18) Consultant sen'ices for Housing Element update will not be paid until work is completed.
(19) Equipment purchases for KSAR program.
(20) Sen'ices lbr Pavement Program, street stripping, emergency Work,. and medians maintenance will not be paid until work is completed.
(21) Road improvement_s-Saratoga-Sunn.xx-ale Rd. ($2,006,000) to be completed in fiscal year 2001-2002.
'(22) Contract services are more than originally budgeted.
(23) Sen'ices for building inspection staff contract support are lower than orginally budgeted.
(24) Ci~' Clean-up Day (S35,000) to be scheduled later in the year.
(25) Street Storm Drain repairs are lower than originally budgeted.
(26) Sanitary sewer grants from CDBG not used yet.
(27) Some expenses made for summer programs, but revenues not in yet.
(28) Park improvements for Congress Springs Park (S1,200.000) t? be completed in fiscal year 2001-2002.
(29) Debt sen-ice payments made in December and June.
(30) Debt sen'ice payments made in September and March.
APRIL2001 'EXPEND. Page 11 5/11/01
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001
DEPT: Community Development
PREPAR.ED BY: Kristin Borel
AGENDA ITEM: 2C
CITY M.4~NAGER:
DEPT HEAD&
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Actions, May 9, 2001
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Note and file.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are the Planning Commission Action Minutes of May 9, 2001.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
N/A
ALTER:NATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Action Minutes - Saratoga Planning Commission
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
D~kTE:
PLACE:
TYPE:
\Vednesday, May 9, 2001 - 7:30 p.m.
Council Chambers/CMc Theate-,_-, 13~-77 Fruit-:ale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
Regular Meeting
ROLL C.4J_L: Commissioners Ban3.', Garakani. Jac 'kman, Kurash, Roupe and Zutshi
IM~SENT: None
STAFF: Interim Director Kaplan and Plmmers Schubert and Duncan
PL EDGE OF ALLEGL4,NCE
EL ECTION OF TEMPORARY CHAIR
M1 Nb-ITS - Minutes from Regular Planning Cormmission Meeting of April 25, 2001
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pu::suant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 4, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKT1-
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a pubhc hearing in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this
age nda, or in ~,xitten correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior
to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets,
wr:tten communication should be fried on or before the Thursday before the meeting.
DR-01-014 (397-43-010) -ADLPARVAR, 13921 Loquat Court; - Request for Design
Review approval to demolish an emstmg 2,089 square foot structure and construct a new
3369 square foot, single-stoU' residence with a 2,281 square foot basement. Ma.xsrnum
height of the proposed structure is seventeen feet eleven inches and located within a R-I-
10,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 6-0)
PL-L\LNING COMMISSION AGENDA
:~D,Y 9, 2001
PAGE2
LL-00-005 (517-23-021 and 517-22-111) - HUSAIN/KHAN, 15480 Peach Hill Road; -
Request for Lot Line .Adjustment approval for two exqsting parcels with slope ~eater than
20 percent. Currently, a residence is located on top of the existing lot ]me. The purpose.of
the request is to correct this situation and create two parcels capable of supporting a
residential building site in a Hillside-ConseB'ation Residential zoning district.
(MOTION FAILED TO PASS, 3-3, BARRY, GARAKANI AND KUKASH OPPOSED)
DIRECTOR ITEMS
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
Written - Saratoga City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings of March_>,7' 2001 and
April 18, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT AT 11:45 TO NEXT MEETING
\Vednesday. May 23, 2001 Council Chambers/CMc Theater
137W Fmitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Final map approval for five lots located at 20251 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road.
Owner: Howell & McNeil Development, LLC.
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
1. Move to adopt resolution No. SD-00-002 granting final map approval of tentative
application No. SD-00-002 for five lots located at 20251 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road.
Move to authorize thc Mayor to execute thc Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
map
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is Resolution No. SD-00-002 which, if adopted, will grant final map approval for five
lots located at 20251 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. I have examined the final map and related
documents submitted to me in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.40.020 of the
Municipal Code and have determined that:
1. The final map substantially complies with the approved tentative map.
2. All conditions of the approved tentative map, as contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. SD-00-002, have been completed or will be completed concurrent with
development of the five lots.
3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all other applicable
provisions of law have been complied with.
4. The final map is technically correct.
Consequently, the City Sun'eyor's certificate has been executed on the final map and the final
map has been filed with the City, Clerk pursuant to Section 14.40.040 of the Municipal Code for
action by the City. Council.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The subdivider has paid $9,000 in Engineering Fees and $82,800 in Park Development Fees.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The final map must either be approved or rejected by the City. Council. If the map is rejected, it
would be returned to the subdivider with findings as to why the map was rejected.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
The signed map will be released to the subdivider's Title Company for recordation along with
recording instructions.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Site Map.
2. Tract Map.
'3. Resolution No. SD-00-002 granting final map approval.
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD-00-002 approving the tentative map with
conditions.
5. Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No./Location: SD-00-002:20251 Saratoga-Los Gat°s Road
Applicant/Owner:
Staff Planner:
Date:
Howell & McNeil-Development, LLC
C.hnsdna Ratcliffe. AICP, Assistant Planner
APN:
August 9, 2000
397-21-022
Department Head:
X
ooo
5.%
j ~
20251 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
RESOLUTION NO. SD-00-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA APPROVING THE FIN.ad_, MAP OF SD-00-002
20251 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1:
Five lots as showm on that certain Tract Map prepared by Westfall Engineers,
Inc., dated October 2000, and filed with the Ciw Clerk of the City of Saratoga
on May 16, 2001, are approved as FIVE (5) individual lots.
SECTION 2:
All streets and easements shown on said map and offered for dedication to
public use are hereby rejected on behalf of the public, save and except for
public sen, ice easements; and to the limited extent that any offers for public
street purposes either expressly or implicitly include offers for easements for
utility purposes along or beneath said street rights of way, then as to such
express or implied offers of easements for public utility purposes, the same are
hereby accepted on behalf of the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City. COuncil of the Cit3' of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the
Saratoga City Council held on the ~ day of .2001 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAEN:
ATTEST:
John Mehaffey, Mayor
Cathleen Boyer, CiD' Clerk
Acknowledged
Completed
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. SD-00-002
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ST^TI~ OF CAUFOI~IA
Howell fiz McNeil. LLC; 20251 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
WHERr=~, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdix~sion
Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga,
for Tentative Parcel Map approval of 11 lots, all as more particularly set forth m File No. SD-99-
003 of this CiW, and
Wl-nmF_~, this Advisory Agency hereby finds tlmt the proposed subdivision, together
' with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Phn
and with all specific plans relating thereto; and the proposed subdivision and land use: are
compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified m such
General Plan, reference to the staff report dated August 9, 2000 being hereby made for further
particulars; and
WHF_n~,S, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government
Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be
granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and
WRER~S, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed pubhc hearing at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence; and
Now, THERI~ORE BE IT ILESOLVlm that the Tentative Parcel Map for the hereinafter
described subdivision, which map is dated September 22, 1999 and is marked Exhibit 'A" in the
herein above referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approvecL The conditions of
said approval are as follows:
PLANNING
The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibits 'A' and 'B',
incorporated by reference, with the exception that Pervious Pavers shall be utilized in
the driveways of Lot ~4 and Lot #5, per the Arborist's report_
' Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer. the following shall be submitted
to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
Five (5) sets of complete improvement plans or Final Map incorporating this Resolution
as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions:
All applicable recommendations of the City Arbonst shall be shown on the improvement
plans.
File No. SD-O0-002; 20251 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
The Final Map shall contain a note with the following language: In the
event that buried archaeological resources are discoverecL all work m the
area shall stop immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted
to inspect the discovery. In the event that it is demonstrated that the
discovery comprises an archaeological deposit which has not been
historically disturbed, it will be the responsibility of the project manager to
conduct necessary evaluative archaeological testing to demonstrate the
potential scientific significance of any such discovery before any plans for
mitigation of impacts are adopted by the City of Saratoga.
A storm wat~ retention plan indicating how all storm water will be
retained on-site, and incorporating the New Devdopment and Construction
- Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site
due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be
provided on the plan.
Acknowledged
Application
submitted
Acknowledged
Acknowledged
Acknowledged
Acknowledged
Acknowledged
Acknowledged
5.
6.
7.
10.
The Arborist shall rex~ew and approve Improvement Plans prior to issuance of
permits.
Prior to approval of the Final Map, applicant shall submit an application to place
the main residence on the Heritage Resources Inventory and supply historical
background for same.
The pedesman pathway shall be installed per Exhibit 'A".
A Landscape Maintenance Agreement and for the pedestrian pathway shall be
recorded with the Final Map.
No ordinance size tree shall be removed (with the exception of Tree ~/8 on Lot
Trees i~9 fiz 11 on Lot i~ 2, Tree ~/3 on Lot #3 and Tree #4 on Lot//5) without first
obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceeii six feet in height
and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three
feet in height.
No structure shall be permitted m any easement, with the exception of the
pedestrian pathway, per Exhibit 'A".
Future devdopment of Lots ~1 through ~/5 shall require Design Review approva~
Building sites and driveway locations shall be consistent with the approved site
devdopment plan and based on current Zoning Ordinance regulations and City
policy. The locauon of any structures and their driveways on Lots 1-5 shall
maximize tree preservation.
Acknowledged
Acknowledged
File No. SD-00-002; HOWl:! I & McNEIL, 20251 Saratoga-Los Gatos
12. Applicant shall connect to San Jose Water Company.
13. Applicant shall coordinate with P,G & E in the development of the project plans.
Ail included on
the plans
Acknowledged
Postponement
approved b7 Planning
Dept.
Postponemellt
approved b7 Planning
Dept.
Acknowledged
CITY ARBORIST
14.
All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated April 28, 2000, June 22, 2000
and June 13, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is
not limited to:
The Arbor/st Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the
Improvement Plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on
the site and grading plans.
Five (5) k. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the Improvement Plan
as recommended by the Arborist with a note 'to remain in place throughout
construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Grading
Permit.
15.
16.
17.
18.
A note shall be induded on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or
private vehicles shall park or be :stored within the driplme of any ordinance protected
trees on the site.
Prior to issuance of a Grading Pernfit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form
acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of
$29,697pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee
the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site.
Prior to Final Map approval, two 36-inch box native trees shall be planted as
replacements. Ail 36-inch box trees shall have a trunk diameter of no less than 3-inches.
Diameters are measured 1 foot above grade.
Prior to Final Map approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance
with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection bi the Arborist and, any
replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be release&
Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arbonst's
recommendations.
File No. SD-00-002; HOWELL c~ McNEIL, 20251 Saratoga-Los Gatos
cknowledged
19.
A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained
to (1) pro*qde on site supen'ision during key aspects of construction of the improvements
for the purpose of preventing or minimi2ing damage to Ordimnce-protected trees and
(2) provide regular written progress reports to the City of these supervision functions as
they occur.
Acknowledged
Acknowledged
Acknowledged
Acknowledged
Acknowledged
~dged
Acknowledged
Acknowledged
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
20.
Future roof coverings shall be fire remrdant. Uniform Building Code Class ~A" prepared
or butt-up roofing.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance ~,ith
the provisions of the City of Saratoga Code-Article 16-60 in all newly constructed homes.
Early Warmng Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed
installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval.
Automatic spnnlders shall be installed in the newly constructed garages (2 heads per
stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the
size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements.
Automatic sprinklers are required for the new residences. A 4-head calculated sprinkler
system is require& Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall
be submitted to the Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a
licensed contractor.-
25.
26.
27.
The Developer shall install fire hydrants as determined by the Fire District. These
hydrants shall meet Fire District specifications and shall be accepted prior to the
construction of any building.
All Fire Hydrants shall be located v~ithin a 500 ft. radius from die residence and dehver
no less than 100 gallons/minute of water for a sustained period of two hours.
All driveways shall have a rnimmum inside curve radius of 21 feet.
Completed
PUBLIC WORKS
28.
Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department for examination, the
ox~aaer (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or
an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument
at all external property comer locations, either found or sec The submitted map shall also
File No. SD-O0-002; HOWELL fiz McNEIL, 20251 Saratoga-Los Gatos
show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the Public
Works Department, all in conformity with the Subdi~qsion Map Act and the Professional
Land Surveyors Act.
Map submitted
29.
The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map m substantial
conformance with the approved Ientative Map, along with the additional documents
required by' Section 14-40.020 of the Mumcipal Cock, to the Public Works Department for
examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section14-
40.030 of the Mumcipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items:
i. One copy of map checking calculations.
ii. Prehnmary Tide Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of
submittal for the Final Map.
iii. One copy of each map referenced On the Final Map.
iv. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map.
v. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that xs~
facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer.
Fees paid
Provided on
Final Map
the
Improvement Plans
approved
Included on the
plans
Included 3n the
plans
Acknowledged -
Fees paid
30.
31.
32.
ii.
33.
34.
The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works
Director, at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examinatior~
The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required
easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the
approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval
The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the Public Works
Department in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and m accordance with the
design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Munidpal Code. The
improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and
the appropriate of:fjeial.u fi-om other public agendes having jurisdictional authoritT.
including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. The
following specific conditions shall be included on the improvement plans:
Carnelian Glen Court within the limits of subdivision shall be overlaid with 2" of asphalt
concrete.
Driveway approach f~m Saratoga-Los Gatos Road shall be remove&
The owner (applicant) shall underground all ex~sfing overhead utilities along easterly side
of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road from Carnelian Glen Court to the dosest joint pole towards
Horseshoe Drive.
The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee,-as
determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are subnUtted for
review.
Improvement
signed
posted
Proof of insurance
provided
Letters provided
Permits secured
Fees paid
Acknowledged
Harmless
form signed
Acknowledged
File No. SD-OO-OOZ HOW'ELI_ & McNEIL, 20251 Saratoga-Los Gatos
35.
The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in
accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval.
36.
The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities m accordance with Section 14-
60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and mounts determined by the Public Works
Director prior to Final Map approval
37.
The owmer (applicant) shall furnish a written indmnmty agreement and proof of insurance
coverage, in accordance with Section 14~05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map
approval.
38.
Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with
satisfactory written commitments fl'om all public and private utility providers sen~ng the
subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to sen, e the
subdivision.
39.
The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits [rom the City and any other public
agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement ot
subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the
City shall be provided to City Engineer.
40.
The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map-
approval.
41.
All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and
Construction - Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of
preventing storm water pollution.
CITY ATrOKN~Z
42.
Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with Cit3,'s
defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court.
challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project.
43.
Noncompliance w~th any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of
the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the Cit3' could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City' per each day of the
violation.
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, Count3,, City and other
Governmental entities must be met.
CONTRACT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SD 00-002
AC-REEMENT, made and entered into th~s day of'
__2001, by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal
ccrporatio~ of the State of California, hereinafter called
"City", and Howell '& McNeil Development, LLC Subdivider and
Owner, hereinafter collectively called Subdivider:
W I T N E S E T H: ~
WHEREAS, Subdivider is engaged in subdividing that certain
tract of land known and designated as 20251 Saratoqa-Los Gatos
Road situated in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara,
Snare of California; and
WHEREAS, a final map of SD 00-002 has been filed with the
City Clerk of the City of Saratoga for presentation to the Council
for its approval, which map is hereby referred to and by said
reference incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, Owner and Subdivider has requested approval of said
final map prior to the completion of improvements of all streets,
highways or public ways and sewer facilities which are a part of
Or appurtenant to the abovementioned subdivision, including, but
withoun limiting the foregoing, the necessary paving, catch
basins, ~pipes, culverts, storm drains, sanitary sewers where
required, street trees and street signs where required, and
including a water system and fire hydrants acceptable to the San
Jose Water Works and the City of Saratoga, all in accordance with
an~ as required by the plans and specifications for all of said
improvements in or appurtenant to said subdivision, which plans
and specifications were prepared by Westfall Enqineers, Inc. ,
Civil Engineer, approved by the City Engineer and now on file in
the offices of the Clerk of said City and/or the City Engineer's
Office of said City, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of said City did on the
day of , 2001, adopt a Resolution approving said
Final Map, rejecting certain dedications therein offered which
rejection did not and does not, however, revoke nhe offers of
dedication therein contained and requiring as a condition
precedent to the future acceptance of said offers of dedication
that the Subdivider improve the streets and easements thereon
shown in accord with the standards of the City's Subdivision
Ordinance, as amended, of the City of Saratoga and in accord with
the improvement plans and specifications on file as hereinabove
referred to, and requiring as a condition precedent to the release
of said final map for recordation that the Subdivider agree in
w~itina_ ~ to so improve said streets and easements in accord with
this agreement,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and in
consideration of the City accepting all of said dedicanions after
the hereinafter agreed to covenants on the part of the Owner and
Subdivider have been complied with and in accord wish. Government
~= Section 66462(a) of the State of ~ ~ '
.... ~a~_fornia, in is hereby
agreed as follows:
1. Subdivider at this cost and expense shall construct all
of the improvements and do all of the work hereinafter mentioned,
all in accordance with and to the extent and as provided in the
above mentioned plans and specifications on file in the office of
said City, for the construction of said i~Drovements, in, for, or
appurtenant to said subdivision, and all in compliance with the
City's Subdivision Ordinance as amended and the laws of the State
of California, and shall complete the same within one year from
date hereof and shall maintain the same for a period of at least
one year after the satisfactory completion of the same.
2. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by
City and as condition precedent to recordation thereof, furnish to
th.e City and file with the City Clerk a good and sufficient surety.
bcnd or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in form to be approved
by' the City Attorney, securing the faithful performance by
Subdivider of all work and the construction of all improvements
herein in this Agreement mentioned within time specified, and-
securing the faithful performance by Subdivider of the maintenance
of said improvements for a period of at least one year after
ccmpletion of the same, and for such additional period of time as
may be necessary in order that Subdivider may cure and correct all
deficiencies of construction to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer of the City of Saratoga (in addition to said bond at
least 10% ($4,000.00) of said bond to be in cash, with the right
of City to use the same in its discretion for emergency
maintenance and repairs in addition to any other rights of use)
the amount of said bond to be in the sum of $40,000.00; and also a
gcod and sufficient surety bond in form to be approved by the City
Attorney securing the payment by Subdivider of all bills for labor
and materials incurred in the construction of any and all of said
improvements, and the doing of all other work herein agreed to be
dcne by the said Subdivider, the amount of said bond to be Forty
Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00).
3. Subdivider does hereby expressly agree to indemnify and
hc!d harmless the City and in their capacity as such, its
ccunci!men, officers, boards, commissions and its employees, from
any and all loss or damage, and from any and all liability for any
and all loss or damage, and from any and all suits, actions,
damages, or claims filed or brought by any and all person or
persons because of or resulting from the doing by Subdivider or
any and all things required of Subdivider by this contract, or
because of or arising or resulting from the failure or omission by
Subdivider to do any and all things necessary to and required by
this contract or by law, or arising or resulting from the
negligent doing by Subdivider, his agents, employees or
subcontractors of any and all things required to be done by this
contract, or arising or resulting from any dangerous or defective
condition arising or resulting from any of the above said acts or
omissions of Subdivider, his agents, subcontractors, or employees.
Subdivider having heretofore certified, by the certificate upon
the abovementioned subdivision map, that he can convey clear title
to the land within said subdivision, and City having relied upon
said certificate and the representation contained therein, the
foregoing provisions of this paragraph are specifically made to
apply to any destruction or damage to or removal of utilities,
water lines or pipe lines of any kinds, and any other improvement,
whether said destruction, damage or removal is required or caused
by the plans or specifications or by direction of an officer,
agent or employee of the City.
4. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map
by the City, and as a condition precedent to the recordation
thereof, furnish to the City and file with the City Clerk
certificates or policies of public liability and property damage
insurance in form satisfactory to the City Attorney, and
Subdivider shall at all times during the entire term of this
agreement maintain the same in full force and effect, which
policies shall insure the City of Saratoga, its Councilmen,
officers, boards, commissions and employees against loss or
liability for bodily injury and property damages arising or
resulting from Subdivider's operations and activities in the
construction of any and all improvements mentioned in this
agreement and the doing of any and all work mentioned in this
agreement, within or outside the abovementioned subdivision,
and/or arising or resulting from the doing or failure of
Subdivider to do all things required to be done pursuant to this
agreement. Said policies of insurance shall cover bodily injury
and property damage on both an accident and occurrence basis, with
completed operations coverage for one (1) year after completion
and acceptance of improvements, and shall be in amounts of not
less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) for each person, ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) for each accident or occurrence
and~ property damage coverage of ONE-HU~RED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($100,000.00) for each accident or occurrence and property damage
coverage of ONE-HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLJ~RS ($100,000.00) for each
accident, or occurrence. Said policies of insurance shall in
addition contain the following endorsement: "Other insurance -
the coverage afforded by this insurance shall be primary coverage
to the full limits of liability stated in the declarations. If
th~ assured has other insurance against the loss covered by this
policy, that other insurance shall be excess insurance only, after
th.~ entire face value of this policy shall have been exhausted by
payment."
5. In consideration of City allowing Subdivider to connectl
said subdivision to certain existing or proposed out-of-tract
storm sewer lines, and in consideration of City relieving
Subdivider of any obligation which City might legally impose on
Subdivider to acquire any right-of-way for, and/or to construct,
any out-of-tract storm sewer drainage pipe lines and appurtenances
which might reasonably be necessary to drain said subdivision and-
carry storm waters from said subdivision to natural drains,
Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by City and
as a Condition precedent to the recordation thereof, pay the City
the sum of Zero dollars ($ 0 ).
6. In consideration of City agreeing to accept, in accord
with this agreement, the in-tract storm drain lines and facilities
constructed or to be constructed by Subdivider within or outside
of said subdivision in accord with the plans and specifications
now on file with the City offices, including the streets and other'
easements in or beneath which said facilities lie, Subdivider
shall, before the release of said final map by City and as a
condition precedent to the recordation thereof, pay the City the
sum of Zero Dollars ($ 0 ).
7. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by
the City and as a condition precedent to the recordation thereof,.
pay to the City the sum of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($ 7,500.00) to be applied by City to the payment of expenses to
be incurred by City for engineering and inspection services to be
performed by the City in connection with said subdivision.
8. Upon Subdivider completing in accord with this agreement
all of the improvements to be made and done by said Subdivider as
hereinabove set forth and as shown on the plans and specifications
on file as hereinabove referred to, and upon Subdivider having
properly maintained the same for a period of at least one year
after the completion of said improvements as hereinabove
specified, and upon the Subdivider complying with all covenants
and conditions on his or its part to be done and performed in
accord with the within agreement, then and in that event, City
agrees to rescind its rejection of the offers of dedication of
streets and storm drain easements contained on the aforesaid final
map, and at that time accept said offers of dedication.
9. Should the Subdivider and Owner hereinabove referred to
not be the same person, firm or corporation, then this agreement
skall only be effective upon both the Subdivider and- the Owner
separately executing the same, and wherever the term Subdivider is
used, 5he same shall include Owner and wherever the term Owner is
used, the same shall include Subdivider.
10. This agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, personal
represensatives and assigns of Subdivider and Owner, and time is
cf tke essence hereof, save and except that the City Council of
the Cisy of Saratoga may, but need not, extend any time or times
for tke doing or performing of any acts as required under the
terms of this agreement by resolution, if in the opinion of the
City Council any such delay is without fault on the part of the
Subdivider and Owner.
Execution of the within agreement by the Owner or Subdivider
shall constitute an irrevocable authorization to City to insert
the date of passage of the Council resolution approving the final
map, and to insert the date of this agreement as of the date of
such resolution.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand
the day and year first above written.
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
AP?ROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
By:
(Owner, if different from
Subdivider)
S.M~,ATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works
PREPARED BY: ~x,.(~)0~'a~L~
AGENDA ITEM: 2~
SUBJECT: Park Restroom Improvements and Accessibility Ramp - Final Acceptance
and Notice of Completion
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to accept the Park Restroom Improvements and Accessibility Ramp Project as complete
and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract.
REPORT SUMMARY:
All work on the Park Restroom Improvements and Accessibility Ramp Improvements has been
completed by the Ci .ty's contractor, Jens Hanson Company, and inspected by public works and
building staff. The work included restroom renovations at Wildwood Park, Congress Springs
Park, and E1 Quito Park, and the construction of an accessibility ramp at the Civic Theater. The
final construction contract amount was $172,978, which is 9% above the awarded contract
amount of $158,661. The additional costs on the project were connected with lump sum change
orders for minor project site modifications encountered during construction. The additional costs
are within the Council authorized change order authority of up to $16,000.
In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one-year maintenanceAvarranty
period, it is recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is
recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the
construction contract so that the requisite 30-day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims by
subcontractors or material providers may commence.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The ten percent retention withheld fi.om previous payments to the contractor will be released.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOXVING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any
additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
St:aflwill record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract and release the contract
sureties and retention.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
None additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Notice of Completion
2 of 2
Recording requested by,
and to be returned to:
City of Saratoga
-P. ublic Works Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GWEN that the work agreed to be performed under the contract mentioned
below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale
Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property, rights, and the Contractor mentioned
below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Ov~mer on the 16th day of Max',
2001.
Contract Number: N/A
Contract Date: January 19, 2000
Contractor's Name: Jens Hansen Company
Contractor's Address: 939 Center Street, San Carlos, CA 94070
Description of Work: Park Restroom Improvements and Handicap Accessibility Ramp
This notice is ~ven in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the
State of California.
The undersized certifies that he is an officer of the CiD' of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing
Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of
his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information or belief,
and as to those matters that he believes to be tree.
I certi~, under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the CiD' of
Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on ,2001.
CITY OF S.kRATOGA
BY: ATTEST:
Dave Anderson
City Manager
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Gov. Code 40814
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001
AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING~Manager
CITY 1VLAaNAGER:
DEPT HE.AD:
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting the Transbay Terminal Improvement Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution.
REPORT SUMMARY:
On April 3, 2001, the City received a letter from the Sierra Club requesting that the City support
their efforts to encourage the VTA to continue to improve rail transit on the Peninsula with the
same effort that it is pursuing BART to San Jose.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
NiA
ALTERaNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Send certified copy of resolution to the Sierra Club-Loma Prieta Chapter.
.ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Letter from the Sierra Club-Loma Prieta Chapter
Attachment B - Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COU~-CIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DECLARING ITS
SUPPORT TO CONTINUE EFFORTS OF THE EXPANSION AND I3IPROVEMENTS OF TIlE
T1L6cNSBAY TERMINAL
WltEREAS, the recent votes by Valley Transportation AuthoriD, representatives to the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, opposing the Board's participation in the Transbay Terminal
Joint Powers AuthoriD' are a cause for concern by the Sierra Club; and
WHEREAS, CalTrain Electrification and Dox~mtown Extension are nvo of the most important
c~.pital projects for transit in the Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, the upgrade of the Transbay Terminal Project is essential for enhancing regional
transportation connections between AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, CalTrain, BART, and other
transportation services; and
WHEREAS, the Peninsula corridor is one of the most densely populated rail corridors in the
United States; and
WHEREAS, the Peninsula Corridor would benefit greatly from an upgrade in sen'ice from the -
cr.rrent "extended commuter" service to "full transit level sen, ice"; and
WHEREAS, these projects, and the sen'ice improvements they will facilitate are essential
ccmponents of enhanced regional transit system; and
WHEREAS, the upgrade of the Transbay Terminal is integral to CalTrain Electrification and
Downtovcn Extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the CiD' Council of the CID-' of Saratoga, as follows:
That the Ci~' Council of the Cit-3,' of Saratoga urges the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Board of Directors to fully support the Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular
meeting held on the 16~ day of May 2001, by the following 'vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
.,M3SENT: :
John Mehaffey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
CiD' Clerk
SIERRA CLUB · LOMA PRIETA CHAPTER
San Mateo * Santa Clara · San Benito Counties
April 3. 2001
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga CA, 95070
Dear Councilmembers,.
We are concerned by the recent votes by VTA representatives to the~P_e.n._i~5~u_la
Corridor Joint Powers Board, opposing the Board's participation in the Transba)'
Terminil J0in~t P-0,;~;ers "AUtho~ believe that Downtown Extension and
el~6'i'rification ......... '
of CalTrain are two of the most important capital improvements for
mass transit in the Bay Area. Not only are these projects important for residents of
the Southbay and Peninsula, these projects will help forge an important link in a
regional transit system.
We are worded that the VTA's fixation on BART to San Jose, may be leading it to
discount the importance of these needed projects: We hope you will join with us in
calling on the VTA for their committment ~9_i_rgprove_ rail transiy 9n_the Peninsula
with the same zeal th-a-t it is pursi~iflg BART to San Jose.
Yours truly,
Bill Michel
Chapter Chair
3921 East Bayshore Road Suite 204
Palo Alto, CA 94303
415-390-8411
FAX 415-390-8497
Printed on 1'00% tree free kenaf paper
Sun Microsys=ems 2001-05-08 12:59 Page 1 of 2 ~.~
To : Kathleen Boyer (sic)
Frcm : Bill Michel
Sukject : CalTrain Downtown Extension/Electrification
and the Transbay Terminal
Hi Kathleen,
The Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan is the document that is being
used as a plan by the Transbay Termina Joint Powers Authority. The
JPA is composed of the following members:
The City & County of San Francisco
AC Transit
MTC
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
The Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan was written by the
Regional Transbay Terminal Panel, whose executive Com~ttee is constituted
of:
The City &-County of San Francisco'
AC Transit
MTC
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
CalTrans
The Panel also includes members such as (not a complete list)
SamTrans
Berkeley
Emeryville
Oakland
BART
GG Transit
Greyhound Lines
CalTrans
CA High Speed Rail Auth
Ideally, we would like to see the City pass a resolution saying
something like:
Wher.~as CalTrain Electrification & Downtown Extension are two of
Sun Microsystems
2001-05-C8 12:59 Page
2 of 2
the most important capital projects for transit in the Bay Area.
Whereas the upgrade of the Transbay Terminal project is essential
for enhancing regional transportation connections between AC Transit,
Golden Gate Transit, CalTrain, BART and other transportation services,
Whereas the Peninsula Corridor is one of the most densely populated
rail corridors in the U.S.,
Whereas the ~eninsula Corridor would benefit greatly from an upgrade
in service from the current "extended commuter" service to "full transit
level service"
Whereas these projects, and the service improvements they will
facilitate are essential components of enhanced regional transit
system
Whereas the upgrade of the Transbay Terminal is integral to
CalTrain Electrification and Downtown Extension
The City of Saratoga calls on the Valley Transportation Authority
to fully support the the Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan.
I'll give you a call (or please feel free to call me) after you've
had a chance to read this.
Bill Michel
Chapter Chair
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
(510) 574-6417 (days)
(650) 814-8214 (cell)
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM: ~__ ~
CITY MANAGER: ~7~~j~
/
SUBJECT: Agreement to Provide Auditing Services for Fiscal Years 2001-2005
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Approve the agreement for professional auditing services between the City of Saratoga and
Caporicci, Cropper & Larson, LLP for fiscal years 2001-2005.
REPORT SUMMARY:
On August 9, 2000, staff distributed Request for Proposals (RFP) soliciting proposals for
professional auditing sen'ices to seven qualified accounting firms.
The City received five proposals in response to the RFP by the September 20, 2000 deadline.
The Audit Review Committee thoroughly revieWed the proposals and intetMew'ed the following
accounting firms:
Firm
Maze & Associates
C.G. Uhlenberg
Moss, Lex% & Hartzheim
Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co.
Caporicci, Cropper & Larson, LLP
Personnel
CoD' Briggs and Scott Maze
Jeff Ira and Peggy Chen
Ron
A.J. Brun
Steve Larson and Gan.' Caporicci
The Audit Review Committee Members
Gordon, Finance Commissioner; Mary Jo
Galindo, Accounting Supervisor.
were: Nick Streit, Cits' Council Member; Michael
Walker, Administrative Sen:ices Director, and Ray
The firms were evaluated based upon the following criteria:
· Relevant audit experience
· Technical expertise
· Understanding of Internal Control Structure
· Audit Approach
· Communication skills
· Quality of oral presentation made to Audit Review Committee
· Specific experience with implementing GASB Statement Number 34
The Audit Review' Committee debated the merits of each of the five firms, and voted to
recommend Caporicci, CroPper & Larson} LLP to the.' City Council, based upon the quality of
staff., previous exPerience, references, and fees. The Aflrninistrative Sexwices Director negotiated
a contract with the firm.
The Finance Commission agreed with the reconmiendation to enter into agreement xvith
Caporicci, Cropper & Larson, LLP.
Attached for your .review is the Independent Contractor Agreement between the City and
Caporicci, Cropper & Larson, LLP. The CiD' Attorney has reviewed the Agreement, and his
comments have been incorporated. The agreement is fi~r an amount not to exceed $252,970 over
a five year period. This includes professional audit sen, ices as well as providing consulting
se. rvices to implement the requirements of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) Statement Number 34.
Fiscal Year Professional
Fees
[ 2000-2001 $43,000
12001-2002 $44,100
12002-2003 $45,850
2003-2004 ~ $46,775
[ 2004-2005 ~ $48,2.45
[ GASB 34 $25,000
I Total Fees $252,970
F[SCAL IMPACTS:
Sufficient funds have been appropriated in fiscal year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 for auditing
services.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The City's annual audit may be delayed. Also the City may not meet the time line to implement
the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement Number 34.
2 of 3
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
Direct staff to return on June 6, 2001, with a revised contract.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Execute the agreemem for professional auditing services between the City. of Saratoga and
Caporicci, Cropper & Larson, LLP for fiscal years 2001-2005.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda serves as notice to the general public.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A-Agreemem of Cappricci, Cropper & Larson, LLP
Attachment B-Auditor Rating Sheet
3 of 3
CITY OF SARATOGA
STANDARD
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made at Saratoga, California by and between the CITY
OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and Caporicci, Cropper &
Larson, LLP, ("Contractor"), who agree as follows:
RECITALS -
WHEREAS, City requires the services of a qualified contractor to provide the '
work product described in Exhibit A of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, City lacks the qualified Personnel to provide the specified work
product; and-
WHEREAS, Contractor is duly qualified, to provide the required work
product; and
WHEREAS, Contractor is agreeable to providing such work product on the
terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. - - -
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. RESULTS TO BE ACHIEVED Subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in this Agreement,. Contractor-shall provide to City the work
product described in Exhibit A ("Scope of ~Work?). Contractor is not
authorized-to undertake any:efforts or incur any-costs whatsoever under the
terms of this Agreement-until receipt of a fully executed Purchase Order
from the Finance Department of the City of Saratoga.
2. TERM The term of this Agreement- commences on 3/26/01,
2001, and extends through December 31, 2005 or the completion of the
project, whichever occurs first, unless it is extended by written mutual
agreement between the parties, provided that the parties retain the fight to
tei-minate this Agreement as provided in Exhibit D at all times.
CiR- of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
o3/~5/o~
Page 1 of 20
3. PAYMENT City shall pay Contractor for work product produced
pursuant to this A~reement at the time and in the manner set forth in
Exhibit B ("Payment"). The payments specified in Exhibit B shall be the only
payments to be made to Contractor in connection with Contractor's
completion of the Scope of Work pursuant to this A~reement. Contractor
shall submit all billings to City in the manner specified in Exhibit B; or, if no
manner is specified in Exhibit B, then according to the usual and customary
procedures and practices which Contractor uses for billing clients similar to
City.
4. FACILITIES AND E(~UIPMENT Except as set forth in Exhibit C
("Facilities and Equipment"), Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense,
furnish all facilities and equipment, which may be required for completing
the Scope of Work pursuant to this Agreement. City shall furnish to
Contractor only the facilities and equipment listed in Exhibit C according to
the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit C.
5. GENERAL PROVISIONS Cit-}, and Contractor agree to and shall
abide by the general provisions set forth in Exhibit D ("General Provisions").
In the event of any inconsistency between said general provisions and any
other terms or conditions of this Agreement, the other term or condition
shall control insofar as it is inconsistent with the General Provisions.
6. EXHIBITS All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are attached
hereto and are by this reference incorporated herein arid made a'part of this
Agreement.
7. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION This Agreement shall be
administered on behalf of City by The Administrative Services Director
("Administrator"). The Administrator has complete authority to receive
infoimation, interpret and define City's policies consistent with this
Agreement, and communicate with Contractor concerning this Agreement.
All correspondence and other communications shall be directed to or
through the Administrator or his or her designee.
8. NOTICES All notices or communication concerning a party's
compliance with the ten-as of this Agreement shall be in writing and may be
given either personally, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by
overnight express carrier. The notice shall be deemed to have been given
and received on the date delivered in person or the date upon which the
postal authority or overnight express carrier indicates that the mailing was
delivered to the address of the receiving Party. The Parties shall make good
CiD' of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
03/15/01
Page 2 of 20
faith efforts to provide advance courtesy notice of any notices or
communications hereunder via telefacsimile. However, under no
circumstances shall such courtesy notice satisfy the notice requirements set
forth above; nor shall lack of such courtesy notice affect the validity of
service pursuant to the notice .requirement set forth above. Any Party
hereto, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other, may designate any
other address as substitution of the address to which the notice or
communication shall be given. Notices Or communications shall be given to
the Parties at the addresses set forth below until specified otherwise in
writing:
Notices to Contractor shall be sent to:
Stephen L. Larson
Caporicci, Cropper & Larson, LLP
1575 Treat Blvd., Suite 208
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Notices to City shall be sent to:
Administative Services Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
With a copy (which copy shall not constitute notice) to:
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
9. ENTIRE AGR~EMENT This Agreement supersedes any and all
agreements, either oral or written, between tine parties hereto with respect to
Contractor's completion of the Scope of Work on behalf of City and contains
all of the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to the
rendering of such services in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this
Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises 'or
City of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
03115/01
Page 3 of 20
~ DAY-10-2~i 1!:~9 CA?SRiCC~ CE3P~ER LARSDN 7i4 ~36 :~686
agreements, orally or otherwise, 'have been made by any party, or anyone
acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no
other agreement, statement or promise not contained in this Agreement
shall be valid or binding. No amendment, alteration, or variation of the
terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writ/ng and signed by
the pa.,~ies hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.
CONTRACTOR:
CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation
By:
John Mehaffey.
Mayor
Date:
Dale:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:_ Date:
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO BUDGET AUTHORITY AND INSURANCE:
By: Date:
Administrative Services Director
Attachments
Exhibit A -- Scope of Work
Exhibit B -- Contract Payment and Reporting Schedule
Exhibit C -- Facilities and Equipment
Exhibit D -- General Provisions
Exhibit E -- Insurance Requirements
City of Sarato~a/$tandp. rd Contract Agrcc-m~-il:
My Documea~s/Con~ra~ -
03/15/01
Page ,* o[ 20
TOTAL P,01
agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone
acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no
other agreement, statement or promise not contained in this Agreement
shall be valid or binding. No amendment, alteration, or variation of the
tea-ms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by
the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.
CONTRACTOR:
By: Date:
Stephen L. Larson:
Partner
CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation
By:
John Mehaffey.
Mayor
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: Date:
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO BUDGET AUTHORITY AND INSURANCE:
By: Date:
Administrative Services Director
Attachments
Exhibit A -- Scope of Work
Exhibit B -- Contract Payment and Reporting Schedule
Exhibit C -- Facilities and Equipment
Exhibit D -- General Provisions
Exhibit E -- Insurance Requirements
City. of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
03/15/01.
Page 4 of 20
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
Contractor shall complete the attached Scope of Work.
Ciw of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
03/15/0!
Page 5 of 20
Exhibit A
Scope of' work
To implement GASB Statement Number 34
Provide assistance in the following areas, but are not limited to:
Requirements of Management's Disussion and Analysis (MD&A)
Changes in budgetary comparisions
Fund Reporting
-Reclassification of funds
-Identification of major funds, major fund determination
Statement of Net Assets
'Infrastructure reporting
-Conversion of governmental fund data
-Determining relative order of liquidity of assets and liabilities
-Categorization of net assets
Statement of Activities
-ConversiOn of governmental activities
-CalculatiOn of depreciatiOn
-Allocation of depreciation
-Identification of program revenues
Additional note disclosure
-budgetar3, formats and basis,' and placements in the financial
statements
Provide assistance to restate the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR) for year ended June 30, 2001 to comply with
- G°vernmental Accounting Standards Board Statement Number 34
Print (40) copieS of the CAFR at completion of project by 4/30/02
For Professional Auditing & Accounting Services
· Audit of the General Purpose Financial Statements
· Audit of the Saratoga Public Financing Authority
· Single Audit Act work
· GANN Limit Calculation
· Controllers Report and Street Report
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT
1. TOTAL COMPENSATION City shall pay Contractor an amount not to
exceed the total sum of Two Hundred Fifty Two Thousand and Nine Hundred Seventy
dollars ($252,970) for work to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred pur~ant to
this Agreement. The total sum stated above shall be the total which City shall pay for the
work product to be provided by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement.
2. INVOICE~ Contractor shall submit invoices, not more often than
once a month during the testa of this Agreement, based on the cost for work
performed and reimbursable expenses incurred prior to the invoice date.
Invoices shall contain the following infonuation:
Serial identifications of bills, i.e., Bill No. 1;
The beginning and ending dates of the billing period;
A summary containing the total contract amount, the amount
of prior billings, the total due this period, and the remaining
balance available for all remaining billing periods.
3. MONTHLY PAYMENTS City shall make monthly payme, nts, based
on such invoices, for satisfactory progress in completion of the Scope of
Work, and for authorized reimbursable expenses incurred.
4. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES There shall be no right to
reimbursement of expenses incurred by Contractor except as specified in
Exhibit A to this Agreement.
Ci~' of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
03/15/01
Page 6 of 20
EXHIBIT C
FACILITIES AND E0~PMENT
City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets,
and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Contractor's use
while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the
info~¥aation in possession of City. The location, quantity, and time of
furnishing said physical facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In
'no event shall City be obligated to. furnish any facility which may involve
incurring any direct expense, including, but not limiting the generality of
this exclusion, long-distance telephone or other communication charges,
vehicles, and reproduction facilities. Contractor shall not use such services,
premises, facilities, supplies or equipment for any purpose other than in the
perfo~mance of Contractor's obligations under this Agreement.
City of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
o3/~s/o~
Page 7 of 20
EXHIBIT D
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR At all times during the term of
this Agreement, Contractor shall be an independent contractor and shall not
be an employee of City. Contractor shall complete the Scope of Work
hereunder in accordance with currently approved methods and practices in
Contractor's field. City shall have the right to control Contractor only with
respect to specifying the results to be obtained from Contractor pursuant to
this Agreement. City shall not have the right to control the means by which
Contractor accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
Likewise, no relationship of employer and employee is created by this
Agreement between the City and Contractor or any subcontractor or
employee of Contractor. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be
construed as limiting the right of Contractor to engage in Contractor's
profession separate and apart from this Agreement so long as such activities
do not interfere or conflict with the performance by Contractor of the
obligations set forth in this Agreement. Interference or conflict will be
determined at the sole discretion of the City.
2. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCe', Contractor shall complete the
Scope of Work required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and
according to the standards observed bv a competent pract/tioner of the
profession in which Contractor is engage~i in the geographical a_r~ea in which
Contractor practices its profession. All work product of whatsoever nature
which Contractor delivers to City pursuant to this Agreement shall be
prepared in a substantial, first class and workmanlike manner and conform
to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in
Contractor's profession.
3. .TIME Contractor shall devote such time to the Scope of Work
pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory
performance of Contractor's obligations pursuant to this Agreement.
4. CONTRACTOR NO AGENT Except as CiW may specify in writing,
Contractor shall have no authority-, express or implied, to act on behalf of
City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Contractor shall have no
authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to
any obligation whatsoever.
City of Saratoga/Standard Contract A~reement
My Documents/Contracts
03/15/01
Page 8 of 20
5. BENEFITS AND TAXES Contractor shall not have any claim under
this A~reement or otherwise against City for seniority, vacation time,
vacation pay, sick leave, personal time off, overtime, health insurance,
medical care, hospital care, insurance benefits, social security, disability,
unemployment, workers compensation or employee benefits of any kind.
Contractor shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all
applicable taxes, including, but not limited to, federal and state income
taxes, and in connection therewith Contractor shall indemnify and hold CIO"
hma-xless from any and all liability that City may incur because of
Contractor's failure to pay such taxes. City shall have no obligation
whatsoever to pay or withhold any taxes on behalf of Contractor.
6. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED No party to this A~reement may assign
any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or
purported assignment of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement
shall be void and of no effect. However, with the consent of the City ~iven in
writing, Contractor is entitled to subcontract: such portions of the work to be -
performed under this A~reement as may be specified by City.
7. PERSONNEL
a. Qualifications. Contractor shall assign only competent personnel
~to complete the Scope of Work pursuant to this Agreement. In the
event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the te~m
of-this Agreement, desires the removal of any such persons,
Contractor shall, immediately upon receiving notice from city of
such desire of City, cause the removal of such person or persons.
bo
Employment Eligibility. Contractor shall ensure that all
.employees of Contractor_ and any subcontractor retained by
Contractor in connection ~.4th this Agreement have provided the
necessary documentation to establish identity and employment
eligibility as required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act
of 1986. Failure to provide the necessary documentation will
result in the ten,,ination of the Agreement as required by the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
a. In General. - Contractor represents and warrants that, to the best
of the Contractor's knowledge and belief, there are no relevant
facts or circumstances which-could give rise to a conflict of
interest on the part of Contractor, or that the Contractor has
already disclosed all such relevant infom~ation.
City- of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
o3/~5/o~
Page 9 of 20
bo
Co
Subsequent Conflict of Interest. Contractor agrees that if an
-actual or potential conflict of interest on the part of Contractor is
discovered after award, the Contractor will make a full disclosure
in writing to the City. This disclosure shall include a description
of actions, which the Contractor has taken or proposes to take,
after consultation with the City to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the
actual or potential conflict. Within 45 days, the Contractor shall
have taken all necessary steps to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the
conflict of interest to the satisfaction of the City.
Interests of City Officers and Staff. No officer, member or
employee of City and no member of the City Council shall have any
pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the
proceeds thereof. Neither Contractor nor any member of any
Contractor's family shall serve on any City board or committee or
hold any such position which either by rule, practice or action
nominates, recommends, or supervises Contractor's operations or
authorizes funding to Contractor.
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
ao
In General. Contractor shall observe and comply ~4th all laws,
policies, general rules and regulations established by City and
shall comply with the common law and all laws, ordinances, codes
and re~lations of governmental agencies, {including federal, state,
municipal and local governing bodies) applicable to the
performance of the Scope of Work hereunder, including, but not
limited to, all provisions of the Occupational Safety anc~ Health Act
of 1979 as amended.
Licenses and Permits. Contractor represents and warrants to
City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals
of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Contractor to
practice its profession. Contractor represents and warrants to City
that Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect at
all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits,
and approvals which are legally required for Contractor to practice
its profession. In addition to the foregoing, Contractor shall obtain
and maintain during the term hereof a valid City of Saratoga
Business License.
FundinE AEency Requirements. To the extent that this
Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another entity,
Contractor shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations
to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance
pro,ram.
CiO' of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
03/15/01
Page 10 of 20
do
Drug-free Workplace. Contractor and Contractor's employees and
subcontractors shall comply with the City's policy of maintaining a
drug-free workplace. Neither Contractor nor Contractor's
employees and subcontractors shall 'unlawfully manufacture,
distribute, dispense, possess or use controlled substances, as
defined in 21 U.S. Code Section 8 ~'.2, including marijuana, heroin,
cocaine, and amphetamines, at any facility, premises or worksite
used in any manner in connection with performing services
pursuant to this Agreement. If Contractor or any employee or
subcontractor of Contractor is con'~icted or pleads nolo contendere
to a criminal drug statute violation occurring at such a facility,
premises, or worksite, the Contractor, within five days thereafter,
shall notify the City...
Discrimination Prohibited. Contractor assures and agrees that
Contractor will comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and other laws prohibiting discrimination and that no person
shall, on the grounds of race, creed, Color, disability, sex, sexual
orientation, national origin, age, religion, Vietnam era veteran's
status, political affiliation, or any-other-non-merit factors be
excluded from participating inl be denied the benefits of, or be
otherwise subjected to discrimination under, this Agreement.
10. DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS
.Property of City. All' reports, data, maps, models, charts,
studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda or other written
documents or materials prepared by Contractor pursuant to this
Agreement shall become the property of City upon completion of
the work to be-performed hereunder or upon termination of this
Agreement.
b. Retention of Records.
Until the expiration of five years after the
furnishing of any services pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor
shall retain and make available to the City or any party designated
by the City, upon written request by City, this Agreement, and
such books, documents and records of Contractor (and any books,
documents, and records of any subcontractor(s)) that are
necessary or convenient for audit PUrposes to certify the nature
and extent of the reasonable cost of services to City.
Co
Use Of Recycled Products.: Contractor shall prepare and submit
all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled
paper to the extent it is available at equal or !ess cost than virgin
paper.
d. Professional Seal. 'where applicable in the detei,nination of the
City of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
03/15/01
Page 11 of 20
contract administrator, the first page of a technical report, first
page of design specifications, and each page of construction
drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed
professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The
stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of
Registered Professional with report/design responsibility" as per
the sample below.
Seal and Signature of Registered Professional
with report/design responsibility.
11. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Contractor shall hold any
confidential information received from City in the course of performing this
Agreement in trust and confidence and will not reveal such confidential
information to any person or entity, either during the term of the Agreement
or at any time thereafter. Upon expiration of this Agreement, or tenuination
as provided herein, Contractor shall return materials which contain any,
confidential information to City. Contractor may keep one copy for its
confidential file. For purposes of this paragraph, confidential information is
defined as all information disclosed to Contractor which relates to City's
past, present, and future activities, as well as activities under this
Agreement, which infoi-~-x~ation is not other~ise of public record under
California law.
12. RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTOR Contractor shall take all
responsibility for the work, shall bear all losses and damages directly or
indirectly resulting to Contractor, to any subcontractor, to the City, to City
officers and employees, or to parties designated by the City, on account of
the performance or character of the work, unforeseen difficulties, accidents,
occurrences or other causes predicated on active or passive negligence of
the Contractor or of any subcontractor.
13. INDEMNIFICATION Contractor and City agree that City, its
employees, agents and officials shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law,
be fully protected from any loss, injury, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost,
expense, attorneys fees, litigation costs, defense costs, court costs or any
other cost arising out of or in any way related to the performance of this
Agreement. Accordingly, the provisions of this indemnity provision are
intended by the parties to be interpreted and construed to provide the fullest
protection possible under the law to the City. Contractor acknowledges that
City would not enter into this agreement in the absence of the commitment
of Contractor to indemnify and protect City as set forth below.
CiD' of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
03115/01
Page 12 of 20
a. Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor
shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its employees,
agents and officials, from any liability, claims, suits, actions,
arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory
proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind whatsoever
without restriction or limitation, incurred in relation to, as a
consequence of or arising out of or in any way attributable
actually, allegedly or impliedly, in whole or in part, to the
perfo,mance of this Agreement. All obligations under this
provision are to be Paid by Contractor as they are incurred by the
' -City.
bo
eo
Limitation on Indemnity. Without affecting the rights of CiD'
under any provision of this agreement or this section, Contractor
shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless City as set
forth above for liability attributable to the sole fault of City,
provided such sole fault is determined by agreement between the
parties or the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. This
exception will apply only in instances where the City is shown to
have been solely at fault and not in instances where Contractor is
solely or partially at fault or in instances where City's fault
accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved. In those
instances, the obligation of Contractor will be all-inclusive and
City will be indemnified for all liability incurred, even though a
percentage of the liability is attributable to conduct of the City.
Acknowledgement. Contractor acknowledges that its obligation
pursuant to this section extends to liability attributable to City, if
that liability is less than the sole fault of City: Contractor has no
obligation under this agreement for liability proven in a court of
competent jurisdiction or by written agreement between the
parties to be the sole fault of City.
Scope of Contractor Obligation. The obligations of Contractor
under this or any other provision of this Agreement will not be
limited by the provisions of any workers' compensation act or
similar act. ~Contractor expressly waives its statutory immunity
under such statutes or laws as to City, its employees and officials.
Subcontractors. Contractor agrees to obtain executed indemnity
agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this
section from each and every subcontractor, sub tier contractor or
any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of
Contractor in-the performance or subject matter of this Agreement.
In the event Contractor fails to obtain such indemnity obligations
from others as required here, Contractor agrees to be fully
responsible according to the tea-ms of this section.
CiD' of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
o3/~5/o~
Page 13 of 20
In General. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these
requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in
no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to
indemnify and defend City as set forth herein is binding on the
successors, assigns, or heirs of Contractor and shall survive the
termination of this agreement or this section. For purposes of
Section 2782 of the Civil Code the parties hereto recognize and
agree that this Agreement _is not a construction contract. By
execution of this Agreement, Contractor acknowledges and agrees
that it has read and understands the provisions hereof and that
this paragraph is a material element of consideration. City
approval of the insurance contracts required by this Agreement
does not relieve the Contractor or subcontractors from liability
under this paragraph.
14. INSURANCE RE(~UIREMENT8 Contractor shall procure and
maintain for the duration of the contract insurance as set forth in Exhibit E.
The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Contractor's bid.
15. DEFAULT AND REMEDIF~
a. Events of default. Each of the follo~4ng shall constitute an event
of default hereunder:
Failure to perfo~,u any obligation under this Agreement and
failure to cure such breach immediately upon receiving notice
of such breach, if the-breach is such that the City. determines
the health, welfare, or safety of the public is immediately
endangered; or
Failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement and
failure to cure such breach within fifteen (15) days of receiving
notice of such breach, if the breach is such that the City
determines that the health, welfare, or safety of the public is
not immediately endangered, provided that if the nature of the
breach is such that the City determines it will reasonably
require more than fifteen (15) days to cure, Contractor shall not
be in default if Contractor promptly commences the cure and
diligently proceeds to completion of the cure.
bo
Remedies upon default. Upon any Contractor default, City shall
have the right to immediately suspend or tei-minate the Agreement,
seek specific performance, contract with another party to perform
this Agreement and/or seek damages including incidental,
consequential and/or special damages to the full extent allowed by
Ci~' of Saratoga/Standard Contract A~reement
Page 14 of 20
My Documents/Contracts
03/15/01
law.
c: No Waiver. Failure by City to seek any remedy for any default
hereunder shall not constitute a waiver of any other rights
hereunder or any right to seek any remedy for any subsequent
default.
16. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement with or
without cause by providing 10 days notice in writing to the other party. The
City may terminate this Agreement at any time without prior notice in the
event that Contractor commits a material breach of the terms of this
Agreement. Upon termination, this Agreement shall become of no further
force or affect whatsoever and each of the parties hereto shall be relieved
and discharged here-from, subject to payment for acceptable services
rendered prior to the expiration of the notice of termination.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of this Agreement concerning
retention of records, City's rights to material produced, confidential
info~-mation, contractor's responsibility, indemnification, insurance, dispute
resolution, litigation, and jurisdiction Ired severability shall survive
te~-mination of this Agreement.
17. DISPUTE RESOLUTION The parties shall make a good faith effort to
settle any dispute or claim arising under this Agreement. If the parties fail
to resolve such disputes or claims, they shall submit them to non-binding
mediation in California at shared expense of the parties for at least 8 hours
of mediation. If mediation does not arrive at a satisfactory result,
arbitration, if agreed to by all parties, or litigation
may be pursued. In the event any dispute resolution processes are involved,
each par~ shall bear its own costs and attorneys fees. -
18. LITIGATION If any litigation is commenced between parties to
this Agreement concerning any provision hereof or the fights and duties of
any person in relation thereto, each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees
and costs.
19. JURISDICTION AND SEVERABILITY This Agreement shall be
administered and interpreted under the laws of the State of California.
Jurisdiction of litigation arising from this Agreement shall be in that state
and venue shall be in Santa Clara Count~~, California. If any part of this
Agreement is found to conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be
inoperative, null and void insofar as it conflicts with said laws, but the
remainder of this Agreement shall be in full force and effect.
CiD' of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
03/15/01
Page 15 of 20
20. NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL Contractor understands and agrees
that there is no representation, implication, or understanding that the City
will request that work product provided by Contractor under this Agreement
be supplemented or continued by Contractor under a new agreement
following expiration or tez-minafion of this Agreement. Contractor waives all
rights or claims to notice or hearing respecting any failure by City to
continue to request or retain all or any port/on of the work product from
Contractor following the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
21. PARTIES IN INTEREST This Agreement is entered only for the
benefit of the parties executing this Agreement and not for the benefit of any
other individual, entity or person.
WAIVER. Neither the acceptance of work or payment for work pursuant to
this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any fights or obligations arising
under this Agreement. The failure by the City to enforce any of Contractor's
obligations or to exercise City's rights shall in no event be deemed a waiver
of the right to do so thereafter.
City_ of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
03/15/01
Page 16 of 20
EXHIBIT E
INSURANCE
Please refer to the insurance requirements listed below. Those that have an
"X' indicated in the space before the requirement apply to Contractor's
Agreement (ignore any not checked).
Contractor shall provide its insurance broker(s)/agent(s) with a copy of
these requirements and request that they provide Certificates of Insurance
complete with copies of all required endorsements to: Administrative
Services Officer, City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
95070.
Contractor Shall furnish City with Copies of original endorsements affecting
coverage reqUired by this Exhibit E. The endorsements are to be signed by a
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. Ail
endorsements and certificates are to be received and approved by City before
work commences. City has the right to require Contractor's insurer to
provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies,
including endorsements affecting, the coverage required by these
specifications.
-x
x
Commei~cial-General/Business Liability Insurance with coverage as
indicated:
X $1,000,000 per occurrence/S2,000,000 aggregate limits for
bodily injury and property damage
$ " per occurrence bodily injury/$ per
occurrence property damage
Coverage for X, C, U hazards MUST be evidenced on the
~ Certificate of Insurance
' Ii the standard ISO Form wording for "OTHER INSURANCE", or
other comparable wording, is not contained in Contractor's
liability insUrance policy, an endOrsement must be provided
that said insurance will be primary insurance and any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers,
employees, agents or volunteers shall be in excess of
: Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute to it.
Auto Liability Insurance with coverage as indicated:
X
$1,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property
damage
CiD' of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
o3/~5/o~
Page 17 of 20
$ per person/$ per accident for bodily
injury
$ per occurrence for property damage
$ 500,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property
damage
Garage keepers extra liability endorsement to extend coverage
to all vehicles in the care, custody and control of the contractor,
regardless of where the vehicles are kept or driven.
X Professional/Errors and Omissions Liability- with coverage as
indicated:
X
__ $1,000,000 per loss/ $2,000,000 aggregate
$5,000,000 per loss/ $5,000,000 aggregate
Contractor must maintain Professional/Errors /1~ Omissions Liability
coverage for a period of three years after the expiration of this
Agreement. Contractor may satisfy this requirement by renewal of
existing coverage or purchase of either prior acts or tail coverage
applicable to said three year period.
X
Workers' Compensation Insurance
X Including minimum $1,000,000 Employer's Liability
The Employer's Liability policy shall be endorsed to waive any right of
subrogation as respects the City, its employees or agents.
The Contractor makes the follo~ving certification, required by sectlon 1861 of
the California Labor Code:
I am aware of the provisions-of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which
require every employer to be insured against liability for workers'
compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before
commencing the performance of the work of this contract
X
Additional Insured Endorsement(s) for Commercial General/Business
Liability coverage naming the City of Saratoga, its officers, employees
and agents as additional insured.
(NOTE: additional insured language on the Certificate of Insurance is
NOT acceptable without a separate endorsement such as Form CG 20
10)
X
The Certificate of Insurance MUST provide 30 days notice of
cancellation, (10 da~vs notice for non-payment of premium). NOTE: the
CiD· of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
03/15/01
Page 18 of 20
following words must be crossed out or deleted from the standard
cancellation clause: '... endeavor to...' AND '... but failure to
mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind
upon the company, its agents or representatives."
All subcontractors used must comply with the above requirements
except as noted below:
As to all of the checked insurance requirements above, the following shall
apply:
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or
self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the
City. At the option of the City, either (1) the insurer shall reduce
or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the City, its officers, officials and employees; or (2) the
Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses
and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
City as Additional Insured. The City, its officerS, officials,
employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as
respects: liability arising out of activities perfoi-med by or on
behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the
Contractor, premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor,
or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the
Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on
the scope of the protection afforded to the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers.
c. Other Insurance Provisions. The policies are to contain, or be
endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers.
o
The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each
insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except
with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
CiD' of Saratoga/Standard Contract A~reement
My Documents/Contracts
03/15/01
Page 19 of 20
Coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either
party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, has been given to the City.
d. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with
insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A: VII
City of Saratoga/Standard Contract Agreement
My Documents/Contracts
03/15/0!
Page 20 of 20
CITY OF SARATOGA
AUDITOR
SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 .
Instructions:
The rater completes this matrix by:
1. Listing additional key dirnensions to evaluate.
2. Rating each firm's experience and skills relevant to Auditor
Selection.
5- Excellence
4 - More than acceptable
3 - Acceptable
2 - Less than acceptable
1 - UnaccePtable
0 - Behavior not observed
FI].U~I NAMF Maze & C.G. M.L. & H V.T.D. & Caporicci,
Associates Uhlenberg Co Cropper, &
Larson
Reievant Audit
Experience
.Technical Expertise
Understanding of
Int,=rnal Control
Structure
Audit Approach
M~tndatory Criteria
Communication
Skills
TOTAL
Signature of Rater
Date
-rom~ Fau. W. Morns At: Mitcneh & MltCne~i insura~ .ce Agency, inc. To: Mary Jc Vv'a~,er 5axm: (;. lSj $53-7?52 Date:
ACORD. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE oP,o
CAPOCR/
05/10/01
CER . { THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
I
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
hell & Mi. tchell-T.ic0620650
~ . HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
,.JO Bel ]~c~.n Keys Blvd, Bid E ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
Novato CA 94949 i
Phone: 415-883-2525 Fax: 415-883-7752 [ INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURED
[~su~_~ CNC CNA CPA Program
[ ~NSU~ER B
Caporicci, C~oDDe~ & L~son .
Steve L~son, ~A ~ ,~su~c
17512 Von ~n Ave ~
Ir~ine ~ 92614 ~L~SU~O
COVERAGES
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED No'rvVITHSTANDING
ANY REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT VVITH RESPECT TO V~-IICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH
POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOV%~I MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
TYPE OF INSUR&NGE
INER
LTR
'~ PCLiCV '. ! °RC'
EXCESS LIABILITY
TCC.-~ i C;..z~3 ¥.ADE
~ DEDTC'r-=_LE
WORKERS CC~;';NSATION AND
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
OTHER
Y Prof. Liability
APL
POLICY NUMBER
140489982
POLICY EFFECTIVEi POLICY EXPIRATION
! D&TE _~u~__~/yy~ ! D&TE ~k~.._~__n_~yy~ I LIMITS
o7/ol/oo
DESCRIPTION OF C~=~TION~OCATION~EHiCLE~XCLUSiON$ ~DED BT END~=MENT~PEC~ PRO.SIGNS
Retroactive Date 7/01/92:$10,000 Deductible. This is a
of insurance
EACH CCC[.-~,~E~.C= ~ $
FI:~E ~JviAG--- ~ ore f 'e: ! $
GE~E~aG. AGG~EGA-E :~ S
PRODUCTS - COM=~O= A~G i $
COM.-. NED S:iuGLE
r
,
:Per a:::ce~
iAU-O O~.LV - EAACCIDE~.-. $
ONLY
--:AACC ! S
AGG : S
o7/ol/o1
E,~TH CCCb~;~E~.CE ;= $
i$
-= L D'SEASE - EA EMm. OYEE I $
E. O!SE~SE - POL~C;' L:¥.,T i $
Per Claim
Ao~egate
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
sample certificate
DER ~ N ! AODITION~L INSURED; NEURERLETTEI~ CANCELLATION
City of Saratoga
Admin. Services Direct
Mary Jo Walker
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga CA 95070~
INSURED
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
D~TE THEREOF. THE ISSUING INSURER W1LL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 3 0 OAY$ W~TTEN
NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT. BUT FAILURE TO DO $O EHALL
IMPOSE NO OELIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR
REPRESENTATIVE$.
Paul W. Morris
c:u,LR ucK I mlUA I OF LIABILITY INSURANce
PP~-_-'?JA -- ' 05/10/2001
Comp1 eta 2 nsurence, Znc. H~D_L_YAND___C~_N~F~R-R NO RIGHTS UPONTHE CERTIFICATE
/ ' ~;. I g:~ ! nc vr..l~l~P.. AFFOKOIED I~' 'THE POUCIE$ BELOW,
Newport Beech, CA 92660 ~ '
INSURERS AFFORDUIG COVERAGE
.db~u~u Cepor'~cc(. Cropper & Lerson, LLP g~URER~ Northern Znsurallce Co of Now York
3184-D A~rwey AVenue ~IRERB: Golden Eagle Znsurance Corp.
Costa Hose, CA 92614 ll~i~
=OV~IAGE~ ~S~u~ ~*-
POUCIE~ OFINSURANCE UbleD BELOW HAVE BEEN .L-~SUED TO~I~IE !HS~A~.u NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POIdCY PERIOD INDICAYED. NOTWITHb-rANDiNG
ANYREOUIREI~IEI~T. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WTTH RESPECTTO W~ICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAJN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POUCIES DESCRIBED HEREIN 16 SI~dECT TO AIL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUI~H
POLICIES. AGGREGATE UMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLadMS.
TYPE OF IN~Up_A_~E
GEI~RAL UA3IUTY
COMUER ~',lAI. GENERAL UABIUTY
C3JdH$ MADE [] OCCUR
OEN'L AGGRF. J:IATE UMIT APPLIES PEP:
AUll)MOBILE I~BIUTY
! ~HYAUTO
ALL OWNED AUTOS
SCHEDIJU':D AUTO8
HIRED
NON-OWNI;D AUTO~
,fl'irecl _Phys~cel
$~0,000 L(m(t
GAI~G'E LIABILITY
ANY
~AS3GTBeS$2
S52
~WC-G38137-03
09/01/2000
09/01/2000
09/01/2001
09/01/2001
10/01/2000 10/01/2001
~roperty 67~4~2 09/01/2000 09/01/2001
EACH OCCURRENCE
F__~£ D~MAGE (AW o~ Em)
MED ~ (Any ~
P~ & ~V I~RY
PR~ - CO~P A~
~DILY ~U~
(P~0 s
PROPE~
(Par m~)
~0 ONLY. ~
~ER~
~O ONL~
AGG S
EAO, I OCCURRENCE $
000.000
10
X,O00.O00
1,000,000
E.LEACHACC~ENT
E. CDISEa~E.EA
ELDISEASE-POLICYLJMiT 000,00~
S7S,000 - Zrvlne location
$15,000 - Yelnut Creek
$$00 Deductible
:ert(ficete hc,~der ~s named Additional Znsured es respects generml ]t&b~lety covwrage but only (f
· equtred by wr(tton contract v~th the named insured prtor to an occurrence subject to policy terms end
:ond(t~ons. Form 9S2001 attached &dy¶/es Add~ttonel Znsured coverage ~ncludod wtth~n the pol¶cy.
]~eb~l(ty coverage er(danced (s pr(mary end Bey other ~nmurence mu~nte~ned by the add~t¶one]
insured Js non-contr(butory. *Excep~ m ~0~d&y not(ce for non-payment of promSum,
ADJ2/lIOK43.1NGURED:INEURERLLfTTER CANG U.A~O
~
8HQULD ANY OF ~ ABOVE I:~CRIBEO POUCII~ BE C~ BEFORE THE
Ctty of Saratoga
ATTN: NARY 30 ~LKER/Adm~n. Serv. DSt.
13777 Pru~tvele Avmnue
Sorl~ogeB CA ~$070
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE I~RUINQ ~OMpANYV/ILL]glji~ 1MA~L
~(t D~W~ W~a ] le~d NOTICE TO 114E CERllFiC&TE HOLDER XA~ TO l~lE LEler,
)he P~ 1:cho$s -.
MAY. iO.2~i~ 2:16PM---"-CO~PLETE i~SbRA~CE 9Q9 26S-0906 ~0.875 =.5×Q
IMPORTANT
If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must be endorsed. A statement
on this certificate does not confer fights to the cerlflicate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may
require'an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate
holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
DISCLAIMER
The CertJficete of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between
the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it
affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon.
DATE: 09-01-00 ~'0 09-01-01
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT:'Administrative Services CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Agreement to Purchase Tax-Defaulted Property
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
1. Adopt resolution approving the purchase of tax-defaulted real property adjacent to Hakone
Gardens Park.
2. Approve agreement between the CiB, of Saratoga and the County of Santa Clara to purchase
tax-defaulted property.
REPORT SUMMARY:
In JanuaD-, the Count)' of Santa Clara notified the City of parcels that are tax-defaulted within
the City limits and slated to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The notification offered an
opportunity for the City to object to the sale of a particular parcel and to purchase the parcel
directly rather than allow it to be auctioned. The City of Saratoga objected to the sale of parcel
number 517-36-010 that was immediately adjacent to the City's Hakone Gardens Park, and
expressed its interest in purchasing the parcel. The parcel is a narrow sliver of land just west of
the Park. It is identified on the attached map as the narrow rectangle labeled #10, to the right of
the Hakone Gardens Park parcel #9.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The purchase price for the parcel is $800, which is the amount of defaulted property tax. An
additional amount of approximately $300 will be required for the cost of the public notice to be
placed by the Count),.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
There is no significant consequence if the process is merely delayed a few weeks. If the
agreement and resolution are denied by the City Council, the property will revert back to the
County of Santa Clara, who will sell it at the next Count): tax auction.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
Deny approval of the agreement and resolution, in which case the property will be sold at auction
to the highest bidder in the next County tax auction.
I~OLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Forward the signed resolution and agreement to the County of Santa Clara for further processing;
pay $800 to the Coun~ of Santa Clara within ten days after the agreement becomes effective;'
and take possession 'of the property.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A-Resolution approving the purchase o:5 tax-defaulted real property,' adjacent to
Hakone Gardens Park.
Attachment B- Agreement between the Ci~ of Saratoga and the County of Santa Clara to
purchase tax-defaulted property.
A~tachment C - Map
Co uncilRpt- Tax Property 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF TAX-DEFAULTED REAL PROPERTY
ADJACENT TO HAKONE GARDENS PARK
WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara notified the City. of parcels that are tax-defaulted within
the City limits and are slated to be auctioned; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga objected to the sale of parcel number 517-36-010 that vms
immediately adjacent to the City's Hakone Gardens Park, and expressed its interest in purchasing
the parcel; and
WHEREAS, the purchase price for the parcel is $800, which is the amount of defaulted property
tax, and an additional amount of approximately $300 will be required for the cost of the public
notice.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves to approve the
purchase of parcel number 517-36-010 adjacent to Hakone Gardens Park;
AND, approve the agreement between the City of Saratoga and the Count).: of Santa Clara to
purchase tax-defaulted property.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga
City Council held on the 16th day of May, 2001, by the follov~dng vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
John Mehaffey, Mayor
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT A
County of Santa Clara
Tax Collector
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
(408) 808-7959 F,4~X 294-3829
AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE TAX-DEFAULTED PROPERTY
This agreement is made this 16th day of May, 2001, by and between the Board of
Supervisors of Santa Clara County, State of California, and the City of Saratoga, a
municipal corporation, as a Taxing Agency, pursuant to the provisions of Division
1, ]?art 6, Chapter 8, of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
The real property situated within said county, hereinafter set forth and described in
this agreement is tax-defaulted and is subject to the power of sale by the Tax
Collector of said county for the nonpayment of taxes, pursuant to provisions of law.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
It is mutually agreed as follows:
1. That as provided by Section 3800 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code, the cost of giving notice of this agreement shall be paid by the
PURCHASER.
That the PURCHASER agrees to pay the sum of $ 800.00 for the real
property described in Exhibit "A" within 10 days after the date this
agreement becomes effective. Upon payment of said sum to the Tax
Collector, the Tax Collector shall execute and deliver a deed conveying
title to said property to PURCHASER.
That said PURCHASER will not share in the distribution of proceeds from
the sale.
If all or any portion of any individual parcel listed in Exhibit "A' is redeemed prior
to the effective date of this agreement, this agreement shall be null and void as to that
individual parcel. This agreement shall also become null and void and the right of
redemption restored upon the PURCHASER'S failure to comply with the terms and
conclitions of this agreement.
Board of Supe:-visors: Donald F. Gage. Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, James T. Beall. Jr., Liz Kniss
Count..-- Execulive: Richard Wittenberg
ATTACHMENT B
The undersigned hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this agreement and
are duly authorized to sign for said agencies.
ATTEST:
CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
By¸
Mayor
Depu~' County Counsel
ATTEST: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
By
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Date
Bv By '
Deputy Chairman
(seal)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3775 of the Revenue and Taxation code, the
governing body of the Ci~' of Saratoga hereby agrees to the sale price as provided
in this agreement.
ATTEST: CITY OF SARATOGA
By
Ci~? Clerk Mavor
(seal)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3795 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the
Controller approves the foregoing agreement this __day of , __
Kathleen Connell, California State Controller
By
EXHIBIT "A''
Description
First Year
Delinquent
Default
Number
Purchase
Price
527-36-010
(Legal Attached
Attachment A-l)
1993-94
517-36-010
$ 800.00
-==i
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
PREPARED BY:
May 16, 2001
CommuniD- Development
Mark J. Connolly ~)
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD: ~
SUBJECT: Continuance of DR-00-054& V-01-002; Kittridge Road-MARTIN/ROSE
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Accept the report and continue the item.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The applicant has requested Design Rex~iew and Variance approval to constr~ct a new 7,272
square foot txvo story residence on a 347,173 square foot vacant parcel. The Variance is necessan,
for retaining wails to exceed five feet in height and possibly closer than 10 feet for parallel wall~.
The Variance is also necessan,' to exceed 15,000 square feet of imper~'ious surface due to a long
driveway. Maximum height of the structure is 26 feet tall, located within a Hillside Residential
zoning district.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 28, 2001 at which the item was
approved (4-1) with Commissioner Kurash opposed.
The appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Samsel appealed the decision of the Planning Commission over
concern of inadequate drainage affecting their propert-y, which is located below the subject
property, on Kittridge Road.
In response to the appeal, Public Works and Planmng Staff visited the site to gain information
and offer suggestions to the applicant's Engineers to improve the drainage situation. Staff
submitted a letter to the applicant's Engineers for rex~iew and comment. A response letter was
then received by Staff, in which the applicant's Engineer's agreed xxSth some conditions and
suggested further improvements.
Planning Staff then held a meeting with the Samsel's to review the progress and gain their input.
The Samsel's agreed to all but one of the conditions relat-ive to drainage in an existing raxqne.
A subsequent meeting v,.4_ll be held on site bet~veen the Samsel's, Staff, the applicant and their
Er.gineers on Tuesday May 15, 2001 to resolve this final matter.
.TEe appellant's have therefore requested a continuance of the Cit3/Council appeal hearing on
June 6, 2001 in order to resolve the issues betxveen the two parties amicably. A copy of the
request is attached.
* 05/10/01 T111' 08:45 FAX 408 542 2020 X~RITY · ~002
May o 2001
15300 Kittridge Rd.,
Saratoga,. CA 95070
A.P.N. 517-14-023
A.P.N. 5 ] 7-14-083
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.,
Saratoga~ CA 95070
SUBJECT: DR-00-054 & V-01-002 (517-14-087) MART12N/ROSE, KITI'RIDGE RD
Dear Mayor and Ci~, Council Members,
I am the appellant for the Martin/Rose project that is scheduled to be heard on May 16*. Please
consider Otis l~tter as a request for a continuance until the follo~mg City Council ~eeting. Mr.
Mark Connolly is currently working v,.ith Martin/Rose m resolve the neg~ativc impact issues to our
property, and suggeaed that this action would be a bmefit to all parties.
Thank you for your understanding.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16,2001 AGENDA ITEM: ~
ORIGINATING DEPT: Communi~' Development CITY MANAGER: _~-~~~'~
pREpARED BY: Mark J. Connolly ~ DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Appeal - 01-002 of DR-00-036; Sobey Road. Applicant/Appellant-Grace San
Filippo
RECOMMENDED ACTION (S):
Consider the Public Testimony and the Record of the Planning Commission's Deliberations, and
Determine if the facts support the Planning Commission's Action. If so, it is recommended that
the Ciw Council Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The applicant has requested Design Review and Use Permit approval to construct a new 5,312
square foot two story residence with a 608 square foot basement and 529 square .foot cabana on a
vacant lot. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the cabana to be located within the
rear yard setback. The original application proposed the maximum height of the residence to be
26 feet. This was revised in the current proposal to 24 feet. The site is 43,042 square feet and is
located within an R-I-40,000 zoning district.
The Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on January 24, 2001 at which the item
was continued for a redesign to address issues of bulk and mass as well as compatibility with the
neighboring properties.
The applicant retumed to the Planning Commission on March 14, 2001 with changes that
responded to some but not all of the Planning Commission's concerns. This included a reduction
in overall height from 26 feet to 24 feet and an emphasis on landscape screening rather than
distance to buffer the proposed residence from adjacent neighbors. There were no changes to the
footprint or floor area of the design.
Staff had advised the Commission that although the project conforms to the Zoning Code
-Requirements, the revisions did not meet the intent of the Commission's recommendations, with
respect to the findings necessary for Design Review approval. The Commission denied the
project (5-0) with Commissioner Bernald recusing herself because of proximity to the proposed
project. Chairman Page was absent.
StaffAnalysis
Zoning: R-I-40,000
General Plan Designation: Residential - VeD' Low Density,
Measure G: Not applicable
parcel Size: 43,042 sq.ft. _
Average Site Slope: 11%
Grading Required: 793 cubicyards of cut, 578 cubic yards of fill; and 185 cubic yards of cut for
the basement.
Materials And Colors Proposed: Stucco exterior :painted medium tan with brown wainscot or
olive green stucco and dark brown wainscot. Window trim will be dark green, and the roof
material will be a Mission tile. Color and material samples will be available at the public
heating.
Proposal
Code Requirement,"
Maximum Allowable
Lot Coverage:
Floor Area:
SetbackS:
First floor
Second floor
Garage
Cabana
(Basement)
TOTAL
Front
Rear
Left Side
Right Side
32%
3,498 sq. ft.
1,352 sq. ft.
462 sq. ft.
529 sq. ft.
(608 sq. ft.)
5,841 sq.-ft.
50 ft.
85 ft.
20 ft.
30ft.
35%
5,844 sq. ft.
Minimum Required
50ft.
75 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
Height:
Residence
24 ft.
Maximum Allowance
26 ft.
2 of 7
Project Discussion
1. Design Review
The application is for Design Review and Use Permit approval to construct a new 5,312 square
foot two sto~ residence with a 608 square foot basement and 529 square foot cabana on a vacant
lot. The Use Permit approval is necessaD-' to allow the cabana to be located within the rear yard
setback. The current application proposes the maximum height of the residence to be 24 feet.
The site is 43,042 square feet and is located within an R-I-40,000 zoning district.
The neighbor to the north (_.Mr. Tim McNeil) has expressed concern regarding bulk, mass and the
proximity of the proposed residence. Mr. McNeil has expressed concern regarding the project
since the inception of the project design. A site visit involving the parties concerned was held,
and no resolution was acceptable to either party. The applicant was unwilling to move the
structure further to the south to create more distance from Mr. McNeil's house in order to have a
view of the meadow to the rear of the property. The applicant feels that moving the residence
into the meadow' would reduce enjoyment of the property.
Upon conclusion of the meeting the only recommendation Staff could offer was for the applicant
to provide mature landscape screening (15 gallon or greater), to be planted between the two
property lines. The applicant expressed willingness to do so, :however this was unacceptable to
Mr. McNeil. The applicant has submitted a letter addressing these issues, which is attached.
The City Arborist, the Public Works Department, the City, Geotechnical Consultant and the Santa
Clara County Fire Department have reviewed the application. Their recommendations are
included in the proposal or as conditions of approval.
Design
·
Review Denial Findings
The Planning Commission felt that the proposed residence was not sensitive to the._
adjacent neighbors, due to the combination of bulk and proximitT to neighboring
properties. _Also, there were concerns that the materials v,'ere not in character with the
neighborhood. The Commission believed that the Floor Area should be reduced to
minimize bulk and mass, and there should be more use of wood siding and natural
elements as opposed to stucco, to better integrate the design into the natural
emq_ronment and be in character with the neighborhood. Also, there was concern over
the cascading of the front of the residence down the slope, which can be seen from Sobey
Road. The Commission felt that the design should either be relocated dov, ua the slope or
cut into the hillside per the Cities Residential Design Guidelines. The proposed residence
in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding neighborhood, does not
minimize the perception of excessive bulk and does not integrate into the natural
emSronment, in that the structure's design does not incorporate elements and materials
which minimize the perception of bulk and mass. Ihe structure's design is not similar in
scale, size and sts, le to other homes within this area.
3 of 7
2. Use Permit
The application was also for Use Permit approval to allow the proposed Cabana to be constructed
within the rear yard setback; 15 feet from the property line at a'maximum height of 15 feet.
Staff felt that the necessary findings could be made to support the Use Permit in that it will have
minimal aesthetic impact on adjacent neighbors and would not be detrimental to public health,
safety, and the environment. The Planning Commission did not vote on the Use Permit, as it was
moot since the Design Review had been denied.
3. Parking
The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces
within a garage. The residence will have an attached two car garage.
4. Grading
793 cubic yards of cut, 578 cubic yards of fill; and 185 cubic yards of cut for the basement.
5. Geotechnical RevieTM
The application did receive Geotechnical clearance and the recommendations are included in the
conditions of approval.
6. Trees
The City A_rborist report contains recommendations for the protection of exisiing trees on the
site. There are 37 trees on the property potentially at risk of damage by construction. 17 trees are
proposed to be removed by implementation of the design. The report contains recommendations
for the restoration and protection of the health of all trees on site, as well as suggested mitigation
measures for the trees to be removed. All of the Arborist's recommendations have been made
conditions of approval in the attached Resolution.
7. Fireplaces
The plans clearly indicate that only one wood-burning fireplace will be constructed in the new
residence. There will also be 2 gas-burning fireplaces. There are also 2 chimneys proposed.
8. Correspondence
No new v~u'itten correspondence has been received since the date of appeal.
4 of 7
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLO~,~rING RECOMMENDED ACTION (S):
Reversal of the Planning Commission's denial will constitute approval of the project, which the
Ciw Council may do with or without additional conditions.
-a3-'TERNATIVE ACTION (S):
Provide direction and refer the item back to the Planning Commission
FOLLOW UP ACTION (S):
The City Attomey will prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting to memorialize the
decision of the City Council on this matter.'
.M)VERTISING, NOTICING AND pUBLIC CONTACT:
A public hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject
property and published in the Saratoga News newspaper.
ATTACHMENTS:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Appeal application from the applicant dated 3/29/01
Original Staff report dated January 24,2001
Memorandum dated March 14, 2001
Minutes fi.om January ~2~4, 2001, and March 14, 2001 Planning Commission meetings
Original Plans, Exhibit 'A'
Revised Plans, Exhibit 'B'
5 of 7
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE · SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 · (408) 868-1200
Incorporated October 22, 1956
FILE NO.
DATE SUBMITTED:
PLAN~qJ~,'G SERVICE REQUEST
FEE: $
COL','NCIL ~MBER&
Evan Baker
Stan Bogosian
John Mel~affey
Nick'Streit
Ann Waltonsm/t,h '
RECEIPT NO.
( ) DESIGN RE%'ZEW
( ) TENTATIVE !VL.~P APPROVAL
( ) ADMINISTILATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
( ) BUILDING SITE EXEMPTION
( ) V.MCLL~NCE APPROVAL
( ) USE PEILMIT APPROV.~L
( ) LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
( ) S1TEMODIFICATION
( ) TEMPORARY USE PEP~MIT
( ) SECOND UNIT PEmMIT
( ) GENEIL4L PLAN AMENDMENT
( ) ZONqrNG ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
( ) SIGNPERMIT
( ) EN%HRON%4ENTAL ASSESSMENT
( ) FENCE/SOL,'NDWALL PEKMIT
( ) GEOLOGIC RE'vIEW AUTHORIZATION
( ) ADMINISTILATIVE STRUCTUP. E PERMIT
( ) HORTICULTURAL RE%qEW AUTHOPdZATION
( ) MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PROJECT
( ) EXTENSION OF APPROVED PROJEcT
( ) HERITAGE PRESERVATION REVIEW
ADDRESS OF PROJECT:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
NAME OF LEGAL PROPERTY OWNER:
( ) SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT*
( )?AILATOGA FIRE DISTRICT*
.
RECEIVED_B%:
Po -t
WORK:
ADDRESS: PHONE:
*Must provide separate check payable to the applicable Fire District.
AGREEMEN~r FOR PAYMENT OF FEES FOR ApPLI(~ATION PROCESSING
FOR CITY USE ONLY:
.Applicant Name
Address of Pr~ect
Copies to: CiwAttorney
Finance
Issue Date
File No.
Applicant
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANTi
TO: City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale AvenUe
Saratoga, California 95070
Project Description A[~t [
Phone: (408) 868-1200
I, \ ~ (insert name of applicant) agree to pa3' all personnel and related
direct' and indirect costs (including 100% of direct personnel costs for employee benefits and overhead)
for review and processing necessaD, for the subject project, 'even if the application is withdrawn, not
approved, approved subject to conditions or modified upon approval.. Applicant agrees to make a
deposit(s) to be applied toward the above costs, in an amount and at such time as requested by the
Community Development Director or the CiD' Engineer. Applicant further'agrees that'no Certificate of
Occupancy will be issued for the project until all costs are paid.
Payments are due and payable x~'ithin 30 days. Interest will accrue at the maximum legal rate on all costs
unpaid 30 davs after billing, and the City is entitled to recover its costs, including attorney's fees, in
collecting unpaid accounts.
Applicant 'a~ees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred'
by CiD' or held to be the liability of City in connection with Ciw's defense of its actions in any
proceeding brought in any state or Federal court challenging the Ciw's actions with respect to the
applicant's projec~t. If applicant is not the property owner, applicant a~ees to pay such costs unless the
property oxvner also skmas this agreement, in which case both the applicant and property oxvner shall be
jointly liable for such costs. -
Name: .~,CLk '~....~x . Telephone:
Address:
(Number & Street)
Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent:
Print Name:
CITY OF SAR_5,TpGA
(City, State & Zip)
r OFFICIAL RECEIPT
~ CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE RECEIVED FROM:
PHONE: (408) 868-1200
FAX: (408) 868-1280
ANIMAL LICENSES ~1-2~5.42~-0~-~
ARBORIST FEE 1250-40~ ~4.02-~ iP~K RENT~ 2~-602~462-0~02
BUILDING PERMITS ~50~4015-422-01~ iPROPER~ TAXE~SECURED ~=.1~4~ ~.0~-~
BUILDING RENTAL ~292-6020-462-C~01
BUS TICKETS ~001-0~202-
BUSINESS LICENSE T~ ~1-1~413-05-~ RENTAL DEPOSIT 292-~-2~-~0~
DOCUMENT STORAGE FEES :25~40!~-05-~ SALES TAX ~'.~412-0!-00
DOCUMENT TRANSFER TAX !~-I~413-03-~ THEATER SURCHARGE 293-6~5-462-0~03
DONATiONS-RECREATION :2~-601 ~47'-01.~0 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY ~3~- I ~0-4 ~ 3-03-00
5NCROACHMENT ~ERM!TS ~i-3035.422-0~3 W~RELESS COMM LEASE 00~- I~3-462-0~-30
ENG=NEERiNG FEES 250-3835-~3-02-~
ENVIRONMENTAL FEES 2~-5~5-~4-0~
FALSE ALAqM FEES 001-1 ~0-451-01.~
FINES & ~ORCEITS 001-1~0-452-0;.0C
FOOD SAL~'RECREATION 2~-6~5-~5-0~00
FOOD SAL~%EEN SERVICES 2~60~5-~
FRANCHISE FEES ~1-1~0-413-04-~
GEOLOGY FEE 2~-3035-~3-01-~ '
GRADING PERM:TS 25~4C~ 5-422-C2-00
RECEIVED BYIDEPT.:
FORM OF PAYMENT: CASH
CHECK NO.
DEPOSIT
RECEIPT #
L.t?_. ¢,5'
52107
L
THIS BOX TO BE COMPLETED
BY TEIE CITY CLERK
'DATE RECEIVED:
FFEARING DATE:
FEE:
RECEIPT #
CITY OF SARATOGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
APPEAL APPLICATION
This two-part application must be submitted to the City Clerk, 13777
Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga CA 95070, by 5:00 p.m. within fifteen (15)
calendar days of the date of the decision.
Appellant Name: Grace Sanfilippo
Address: 117 E1 Porton, Los Gates, CA 95032
(408) 866-2031
Telephone #:
Name of Applicant (If
different than' Appell .ant):
Project file number and'address: DR-00-36 UP-00-0] a ~_~97-0~-09] )
Decision being appealed: Denial of Request For Design Review
Grounds for appeal (letter may be attached):
See Attachment
Sobey
Road
(Please do not sign th_is application and the attached authorization until it is
present at City offices)
ATTACHMENT TO CITY OF SARATOGA
PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL APPLICATION
The ~projeCt meets all minimum zoning requirements in terms of set
backs, floor area, coverage and height as well as all Policies and Techniques
of the City of Saratoga Residential Design Handbook Guidelines and is
comPatible with the neighborhood.
The 'design is careful to maintain the grade and natural features of the
lot. The architect, civil engineer, and .landscape architect have worked
together to fit the structure onto the land to minimize grading and to conform
with the natural drainage and features of the site. The house itself is located
in the mid-portion of the lot away from the street. An arbor .17rovides an
architectural feature relating to the street and a transition to the house itself.
The denial of the Request for Design Review was improper.
CITY OF SARATOGA
A~PPEAL APPLICATION
PART 2
AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING
I, Grace Sanfilippo , as appellant on Projec~ DR-00-36 ,
Herby authorize Engineering Data Services to perform legal noticing for this
appeal appliF~o~n.
Sienamre( ~~Q~~ ' Date
~ ' Grace S~J ~i~
APPEAL FEEs AS OF7~99 (REsoLUTION 99-35)
~ Municipal Code Section 2-05.030 (a) appeals:' .
c No-Hearing ................................................... $100.00
o With Hearing ................................................. $200.00
~1 Municipal Code Section 15-90.010 appeals (zoning related):
o Appeals from administrative decisions to. Planning Commission
$150.00
Municipal-Code Section 15-90.020 appeals (zoning i:elated):
o Appeals from the Planning Commission to City Council
$250.00
Request for continuance:
c For fn:st request .............................................. No Charge
ITEM 1
REPORT TO'THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No./Location:
Applicant/Owner:
Staff Planner:
Date:
APN:
DR-00-036 fiz UP-00-018; Sobey'Road
SAN FILIPPO
'MarkJ. Cormolly, Assistant Planner
January 24, 2001
· 397-05~091
North
Sobey Road
00000~.
EXEC~VE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed:
Application complete:
Notice published:
Mailing completed:
Posting-completed:
7/28/00
12/20/00
V10/01
Vll/01
1/4/01
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has reqUested Design Review and Use Permit approval to construct a new
5,312 square foot two story residence with a 608 square foot basement and 529 square foot
cabana on a vacant lot. The Use Permit approval is necessary ro allow the cabana to be
located within the rear.yard setback The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet.
The site iS 43,042 sqUare feet and is located within an R-I-40,000 zoning district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review and Use Permit application by adopting Resolution DR-00-
042 & UP-00-018.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolutions DR-0'0-036~ ~'UP-00-018 ' '
3. Arborist Report dated September, 212000
4. Correspondence Dom applicant addressing neighbor issues
5. Plans, Exhibit 'A'
000002
File No. DR~00~036 & . P~00~018; Sobey
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R-I-40,000
GENERAL pLAN DESIGNATION: Residential; Very Low Density
MEASURE G: Not apphcable
PARCEL SIZE: 43,042 sq.ft.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: !1%
GRADING REQUIRED:
of cut forthe basementl ·
793 cubic yards of cut, 578 cubic yards of fill; and 185 cubic yards
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Stucco exterior painted medium tan with
brown wainscot or olive green stucco and dark brown wainscot. Window trim will be
dark green, and the roof material will be ai Mission tile. Color and material samples will be
available at the pubhc hearing.
Lot Cover.age;.,
Floor Area:
Setbacks:
First floor
Second floor
Garage ..
Cabana
· rB~semenr~ ~ . .
TOTAL'
Front
Rear
Left Side
Right Side
Proposal
Code Requirement/
A1]owallce '-
30%. 35%"
3,498 sq. fi:
1,352 sq. ft.
.462sq. ft.
. 529 sq.'ft.
(608 sql ft.)
5,841 sq. ft.
50fc
85 :ft.
20fc.
30 ft:
5,844 sq. ft.
50ft.
75 ft.
20ft.
20ft.
Height: Residence
26ft.
26ft.
P: ~P lanningkMarkkPC Staff Reports~D R-00-036 SAN FILIPPO.doc 0 00 0 0 3
File No. DR-00-036 & . P-00-018; Sobey
PROJECT DISCUSSION
DesJg~ Review
The applicant has requested Design Review and Use Permit approval to construct a new
5,312 square foot two story residence with a 608 square foot basement and 529 square foot
cabana on a vacant lot. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the cabana to be
located within the rear yard setback. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet.
'The Site is 4_3,042 square feet and is located within an R-I-40,000 zoning district'.
Stag f~nds that the project can be supported_ The project meets the minimum zoning
requirements of setbacks, height, floor area and lot coverage. The rooftrees are well
articulated and the design is sensitive to the existing adjacent residences, as well as the
natural environment. The project has undergone a design iteration to locate the residence
more m the center of the lot rather than toward the fi:ont of the lot where the slope exceeds
30%. Staff feels that the proposed design and both alternatives of the materials board are
compatible with the neighborhood_
There is concern fi:om the neighbor to the north (Mr. Tim McNeil) who has concerns
.' ~egarding bulk and mass. Mr. McNeil has been involved with the applicants since the
inception of the project design. However, it was not brought to stags' attention that Mr.
McNeil was unaware of the final design until the project had been publicly noticed. Upon
staffs recommendation a site visit between-all parties concerned was hdd and no resolution
was amenable to either party. The applicant is unwilling to move the structure further to
the south due to a desire to have a view of the meadow to the rear of the prope ~rSy. Thd
applicant feels that mo~'ing the residence into the meadow would reduce enjoyment of the
property.
Upon conclusion of the meeting the only recommendation staff could offer was for the
applicant to provide mature landscape screening (15 gallon or greater), to be planted
between the two property lines. The applicant expressed willingness to do so, however
this was unacceptable to Mr. McNeil. The applicant has presented stag with a letter
addressing these issues and is attached.
The City Arborist, the Public Works Department, the City Geotechnical Consultant and
the Santa Clara County Fire Department have reviexved the application. Their
recommendations are included in the proposal or as conditions of approval.
Use Permit
The applicants are requesting Use Permit apProval to alloWthe prOposed Cabana to be
6onstrUcted within the rear yard setback; 15 feet fi:om the property line at a maximum
height of 15'feec Stag feds that the necessary findings can be made to support the Use
Permit in that it will have minimal aesthetic impact on adjacent neighbors and will not be
detrimental to public health, safety and the environment.
P:~lanmn~arkkl:~ Staff Repo=~DR-00-036 SAN FILIPPO.cloc 0 0 0 0 0 4
File No. DR-00-036 &
P-00-018; Sobey
Parking
The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking
spaces within a garage. The residence will have an attached two car garage.
Grading
793 cubic yards of cut, 578 cubic yards of fill; and 185 cubic yards of cut for the basement.
C. eoteclzrdcd Review
The apphcation did receive Geotechnical clearance and the recommendations are included
in the conditions of approval.
The City Arborist report contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on
the site. There are 37.trees on the property potentially at risk of damage by construction, 17
trees are proposed to be removed by implementation of the design. The report contains
recommendations for the restoration and protection of the health of all trees on site, as well
as suggested mitigation measures for the trees to be removed. All of the Arbotist's
recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the attached Resolution.
F~epIaces
The plans clearly indicate that only one wood-burning fireplace will be constructed in the
new residence. There will also be 2 gas-burning fireplaces. There are also 2 chimneys
proposed.
Correspondence
No written correspondence in opposition of the project has been received at the rime of this
report.
Conclusion
The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's
Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-
45.080 of the City Code. The residence minimizes interference with views or privacy,
preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of
bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other
zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and
impervious coverage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review application by adopting Resolution DR-00-036 & UP-00-018.
P:~Planning~ar~C S taft Reporrs~DR-00-036 SAN FILIPPO.doc
-' THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ' *
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
O0000G
File No. DR~00~036 6,
P~00~018; Sobey
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO: DR~00-036
· CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING· COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FILIPPO; Sobey Road
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application
for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,312 square foot two story residence with a
608 square foot basement and 529 square foot cabana on avacant lot; and
WHYS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Pubhc Hearing at which
rime all interested parries were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
and
WH~m:_AS, the apphcant has met the burden of proof required to support said
apphcation for Design Review approval, and the following finding5 have been determined:
· The height,· elevations and placement on.the site· of the-proposed residence, when
considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on
adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will
avoid um'easonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the
proposed residence will be partially screened from existing residences by mature
vegetation.
· The natural landscaPe will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing
structures .to follow the natural contours of the. site and minimizing tree and soil
removal;: grade changes will be minimized' and will be in keeping with the general
appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that there
is minimal grading proposed outside. Of the basement excavation and the 17
ordinance protected trees that are proposed to be removed will be mitigated for.
The proposed .residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the
surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be
integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates
elements 'and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the
residence into the surrounding environment in that the structure's design
incorporates elements and materials which ~e the perception of bulk and
integrate the residence into the surrounding environment and the structure's design
is similar in scale, size and style to other homes within this area.
File No. DR-00-036 tx P-00-018; Sobey
The residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing
resi&nml structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate
neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural
environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent
properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent propemes to utilize
solar energy.
· The proposed Site· development or grading plan incorporates current grading and '
erosion control standards used by the City.
The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and
techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section
15-45.055.
· .' Now~ THEREFOR& the Planning COmmission of the City of Saratoga does hereby
resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans
and other exhibits submitted m connection with this matter, the application of DR-00-036;
SAN FILIPPO for Design Review approval'be and the same is hereby granted subject to the
follo~wing conditions:.
CoMMuNITM DEVELOPMENT
,.
The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit 'A',
incorporated by reference.
Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the
Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a
separate plan page and containing the following:
i. The plans shall ShoTM only one wood burning fireplace.
ii. All recommendations of the City Arborist shall be followed and
incorporated into the plans.
iii. The sire'plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or
Licensed Land Surveyor.
The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Ptior to
foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provid,e a
· written certification that all building setbacks are per the aPproved plans..
FOur (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution and '
Mborist report as a separate plan page.
OOOO0_8
File No. DR-00-036 &
P-00-018; Sobey
vi. No Retaining wall shall exceedfive feet in height and three feet within the f
front yard setback. ·
No Ordinance-size tree shall be. removed· without first obtaining a Tree Removal
Permit.
FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height
and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three
feet in height.
5. N'o structure shall be permitted in any easement.
A storm water retention plan indicating hog, all storm water will be retained on-
· site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management
Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or
other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan.
CITY ARBORIST
7. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated October 21, 2000 shall be
followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to:
a. The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the
construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted
on the site and grading plans.
· .b. The grading plan shall be revised to show that no grading will occu} within the
follgwing distances form the trucks of the following trees:
Tree/~1
' ' Tree #2
18 feet Tree/~15-17 15 feet
35 feet ' Tree # 27 18 feet
Fivd (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall'be shown on the site plan as
recommended by 'the Arborist with a note' 'to remain in place throughout
construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a
Building Permit. :
A bond in the amount of $14,897 be posted to ensur~ protection of trees/~2 and
~27 and a.10 % bond of all other trees. . -- "
e. The applicant shall replant an equivalent value of $12,513 in 6- 36 inch box and
11- 24.inch box'native specimens fOr removal of #3q4-and #28-32.
A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment
'or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the driplme of any ordinance
protected trees on the site.
P:~PlannmgLMark~PC Sr~ff Reports~DR-00-036 SAN FILIPPO. doc OOOOO 9
File No. DR-00-036 & P~00-018; Sobey
g. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning
Clearance showing locations of the any native replacement trees.
Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify
compliance With tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the
A.rborist and, any replacement crees having been planted, the bond shall be released_
Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the
Arborist's recommendations.
10.
A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculrure shall be'
retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of consumction of the
residence and driveway for the purpose of preventing or minimizing damage to tree
# 1; and (2) provide regular written progress reports to the City of these supervision
functions as they occur.
CITY GEOLOGIST
11. The City Geologist was not consulted due to the stability and modest slope of the
property.
FIRE PROTECTIONDISTRICT
14.
15:
The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A' prepared
or built-up roofing.
Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance
with the provisions of the City of Saratoga Code-Article 16-60.
16.
Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the
proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval.
17.
The required fire flow for this project is 2,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The
fire flow IS NOT available Dom the area water mains and the fire hydrants which
are spaced at the required spacing.
18.
Provide the required fireflow from the hydrants spaced at the maximum of 500 feet,
OR, provide and approved fire sprinkler system designed per NFPA standar ~13D
and local ordinances throughout all portions of the building. The sprinkler system
shall be installed by a licensed contractor.
19.
Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum
radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside.
20.
An approved, automatic fire sprinkler System shall be provided for the garage.
OOOO10
PSPlann~ng~Mark~PC Staff Reports~DR-00-036 SAN FILIPPO.doc
File No. DR-00-036 & P-00-018; Sobey
C~rz ArroaN~Y
21.
Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection
with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought m any State or Federal
Court, challenging the City's action with respectto the applicant's project.
22.
Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation
of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due
to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to chis City per each
day of the violation.
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will
expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless 'appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the
Saratoga City Code, this'Resolution shall become effective ~teen (15) days from the date of
adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of
Califorma, this 24th day of January 2001 by the following roll call vote:
NOF_S:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
PSPlanningqM arl~c Staff Reporr~'d3 R-00-036 SAN FILIP PO.doc
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
000012
File No. DR-00*036 & P-00-018; Sobey
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. UP~00~018
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FILIPPO; Sobey Road.
WI-I~dm~s, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an apphcation
for Use Permit approval to allow a 528 square foot Cabana to be located within the rear
yard setback; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which
time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
and
WKEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application, and the' following findings have been determined:
· The proposed location of the conditional use will be in accord with the objectives of
the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the dismct in which the site is located.
· That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, nor be materially injurious to the propemes or improvements in the
vicinity.
· That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does
hereby, resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site Plan, architectural drawings, and
other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of SAN FILl?PO
for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following
conditions:
P:~PlannmgkMarl&PC Staff RePOrts~DR'00'036 SAN FILIPpO.d°c 000013.
File No. DR-00-036 ~ WP-00-018; Sobey
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The devdOpment shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit 'A',
incorporated by reference.
Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the
Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a'
separate plan page.
b. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered civil Engineer or a
Licenced land Surveyor.
c.-'The ,Cabana shall be lOcated exactly as shown in exhibit uA" at a mzxqmum
height of 15 feet. '--
d. A final landscaping plan showing the proposed landscape screening be
submit-reck
FENCING REGULATIONS- No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height
and no fence or wall lOcated within any required front yard shall exceed three
feet in height.
4. No structure shall be permitted m any easement.
PUBLIC WORKS
All building and construction rdated activities shall adhere to New Development
and construction Best Management-Practices as adopted by the City for the
purpose of preventing storm water pollution.
CITY ATTORNEY
Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, incurred-by the City or held to be the liability of the City in
connection with the City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought m any
State or Federal court, challenging the City's action with respect to the appli-
cant's project.
Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation
of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due
to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each
day of the violation.
PXPlanmng~Mark~PC Staff Reports~DR-00-036 SAN.FILIPPO.doc O O O O 1 4
File No. DR-00-036 ~.~P-00-018; Sobey
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will
expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the
Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shallbecome effective fifteen (15) days from the date of
adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga PlannLng Commission, State of
CalJornia, th/s 24t~ day of January 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AVES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair, Planning Commission
AT1-EST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
00O016
Period
"-i/: Protective Fenc~
\
12 ~-..
tion Per
Fence
I
,I
23
L
Grace Sanfilipp'o
Sobey Road
Saratoga, Calif.
! ' · :uve Fence
N.. ~. I ~
~:... ; 38
SOB~,
Exis~m$
O000:t?
BARRIE D.' )ATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
408-353-1052
Fax408-353-1238
23535 Summit'Road, Los Gatos, CA 95033
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN TREE PRESERVATION AND
CONSTRUCTION AT THE SAN FILIPPO SITE, SOBEY ROAD
SARATOGA
Prepared at the Request of.'
Mark Connelly
Community Planning Dept.
City of Saratoga -. -
13777 Fmitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Site Visit by:
.. Michae!L. Bench
~. -Consulting Arborist
September 1, 2000
Plan Received: 8/10/00
Plan Due: 9/8/00
· Job. #08-00-201~
O000:l.S
AT THE ~ FII/PPO SITE, Sm~tY. BOAD. ~aATOGA
/~UCTION
Asagnment
At the request ofMark Connelly Planner, City of Ssratog, this-relx~rt reviews the
proposal to construct a large home and a pool w/th a ~ on a vacant lot, Jn the
context of potential damag~ to ortbe removal of existing uees. This report further
provides information about the condition of the trees on site, and makes
recommendations by which damage to the ~ trees can be minimized to.prevent
decline.
The plans, reviewed for this report are: (1) the Fl°or Plans prepared by Camargo and
Associates, San Jose, Sheets T, A1.0-A3.0, dated July 25, 2000, (2) the Topography and
the Grading and Drainage Plans prepared by Michael Rosenberg, l. amdscal~ Architect,
· and by TS Civil Engineering, Sheets C1-C3, dated 5-22-00, revised 7-26-00.
Summary ...
This proposal exposes 37 trees to some level of risk bYconstmction.
Seventeen trees are to be removed by implementation of this design. Replacements,
which equal their value, are suggested.
Procedures arc suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected.
A combination bond equal to 30% the value oftrees/t2 and #27 and a bond of 10% the
value of all other trees:is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks.
Observations
There are approximately 21 trees on this site and 16 located on adjacent proi~rties that
are large enough to be controlled by the City Ordinance and are at risk of damage by
proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their
approximate canopy dimensiom. Each tree has.been tagged with a metallic label
indicating its assigned number. Tree #5 is slightly smaller than the size controlled by the
City Ordinance. This was discovered after the labels were attached. Thus, tree #5 is
omitted from the value assessment..
The 37 .trees are. classified as follows:
Tree #1 .'.
Trees #2, 4, 12, 1827, 37, 38
· Tree #3
Trees g6-.l 1,31
Trees #13, 15
Trees #14, 16, 17, 33-36
Trees tt28, 29, 32.
· Tree 1130
Valley Oak (Quercus lobata)
Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
Big Leaf Maple (~,lcer macrophyllum)
Califomia Black Walnut (duglans hindsii) '
Aleppo Pine (Pinus halepensis)
Monterey Pine (Pinus radmta)
Plum (Prunus,cerasifera)
Bailey's Acacia (~4cacia baileyana)
The health and structure of each specimen is raled on a scale I to 5 (Excellent-Extremely
Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text This information is converted to a single
descriptive rating intended to aid with planning as follows:
OOO019
Exceptional Fine Specimens Fail: Speciram~Marginal Poor Specimens
Specimens '.' Specimens
2,3,27,37 1,4,6,10,12, 7,' 11, 20 8,9,14,30,31, 28,29,32
· . 13, 15-19, 21, 34
22~26, 33, 35,
36~ 38'
Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever'procedures are nee. z~
to retain th~n in their current COndition must b~ used.
Fine specimens must be retained fi.poSSible but without major design revisions.
Mitigation procedures r~amunended here are intencl~l to limit damage within accept~
horticultural standards in order to prevent decline.
Fair sPeCimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation
must prevent further decline.
Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to
facilitate COnstruction. Mitigations-recommended here are intended to prevent significant
decline. .......
Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardleSS of care. For any which are
COnsidered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not
be typically'requested. ·
Trees lOCated on adjacent properties Which would be affected by this activity must be
treated as Exceptional ~regardless of COndition.
.Ing~act of Construction ' .'
· With the exception'of trees #15 and 17, the'plan 'proposes to remove all of the trees inside
'the boundaries of this property. These proposed removals included two Exceptional
specimens: tree #27 a moderately large coast live oak, and tree #3, a young big leaf
maple. Although tree:#3-is rated as exceptional, it can be easily replaced, which I
recommend. However, tree #27 cannot be replaced, and because of its size, it is not an
acceptable candidate for tnmsplant. This is not to.say that itcould not be transplanted, but
should it be transplanted, it would no doubt decline, and its life span would in all
probability be greatly.~.
The proposed grading and drainage work inside the dripline of tree #27 would be severe.
Revisions of the grading and drainage plan and of the landscap~g plan would be required
to prevent decline of this tree~:
Tree #15 would suffer severe root damage ifthe.dminline on the north side of its trunk is
trenched as proposed'. The minimal expected result would be canopy decline, which may
recover after a feW years if envimnmentalcondit/ons'were opt/mai. However, if the trce
AT THE SAN 1;1LtPPO SITE, So,~EY ROAD, .~kRATOOA '
were to become infested by insects, the tree.may die after a few years of decline. -
Weakened trees are targe~ for insect infestation. The neighboring trees (#16, 35, and 36)
Tree # 17 would be minimally affected by the trenching to c~nsuuct the adjacent drain,.
but may be severely affected by surface grading, should it be necessary to grade inside
the dripline to assure surface dtainag~ toward the existing catch basin.
Proposed surface grading would expose all of tben~ighboring trees adjacent to the south
property boundary to the same risk. ...~
A wall is proposed onthe south side adjacent.to the property boundary. If this wall were
to be con~ using a typical footing, Uees #15-17 and #33-36 would be rendered
unstable, becaUSe buttress roots would no doubtbe severed, ffthis ,,vail were to be
constructed by a pier and beam design without, a footing, the same trees would likely
suffer only minor root damage provided piers were to be relocated a minimum of 8 feet
from the trunk of any of these individuals trees, and provided the bottom of the proposed
· wall is constructed on top of or slightly above the existing grade.
A large and relatively level 'open space is seen north of trees #15-17, 35' 36, east oflxees
#18-21, and south 0ftrees 022-27.: Beca~ ofthe size and the complexity of this project
all of these trees would be subjected to one. Or more of the following damaging events
that are common to construction sites~
The stockpiling of materials or thestorage ofequipmem under the canopies.
The dumping of conStruction _maten'als, especially waste materials, such as painting
products, mortar, concrete, etC.) under the canopieS.
Soil compaction as a result ofconsUuefion traffic, including foot tm~c across the
root systems, :and.the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the
canopies Under the canopies. :.
The trenChing across root zones for new utilities Or. for landscape irrigation.
The grading of the' surface. sOil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root
tips. ~
6.' 'Broken branches or bark injuri~ as a reSult ofconsm~on equipment passing too
close. '
There is a larg~ open space adjacent to Sobey Road between roms #1 and #38, which
would expose tree #38 to most of these same risks. .
If the jtmction P°le marks the property as noted on sheet C2, it appears that the'wooden
fence between trees #37 and 38 extends onto this site by approximately 5 feet. If this
o
(;' & )SIO~S'NI
"(g-r) XJ.ltlOlUd 9NINn~M
(~'$) HI'lV'-J H
.,. II-Ig~H
133:1 ~) U3 i :IHVlO
fl3.L.~XS~lnH
fl
II
Jl
Letter to the Planning Commission:
From the onset of this project, the intention of Ms. Sanfilippo was to cause the least
amount of adverse impact to the surrounding neighbors. The lot was the perfect site to
create a home that would command a beautifully landscaped rear yard that included a
cabana and pool, with plenty of room in the surrotmding areas to entertain and welcome
guests.
UPon receiving the conceptual plans, Grace made a point of notifying all the neighbors
that bordered her property by sending each one of them a letter explainhg exactly what
she proposed to build. She included the name' of the architect, Maurice Camargo, and
invited each one of them to contact Maurice if they had any questions or concerns about
the project'. Several.neighbors did, in fact, contact Maurice for additional information.
Additionally, Grace invited all the neighbors to a breakfast meeting at the site to show
them the conceptual plans that were to be submitted to the Planning Commission. Grace
had the-entire footprint of the home staked out and outlined with ribbon so that the
neighbors could see the exact position of the home. The consensus of those attending the
.meeting was an'.0verwhelming acceptance 'of the project..
In accordancewith the specitic design criteria as set be the City of Saratoga, much care
was taken to mitigate the impact of the project on the adjoining landowners. For example,
the allowable'building setback 'distance is 20.feet fi.om the eastern property line. The plans
have the improvement sited at 30 feet away.fi.om.the prOperty line, lessening the impact as
it pertains to'privacy andview issues. The garage is located completely offthe street view
on the lower level as well. The majority of the home is situated on the lowest portion of
the prOpertY. The front portion of the home is designed as a one story, and the'remainder
of the plan is extremely articulated to reduce the perception of excessive bulk.
The plans have been designed so as to minimize the fenestration on the eastern side, in
order to respect the adjoining landowner's privacy. The activity on this side of the house is
· limited to the occasional car coming in or out of the garage. The outdoor activity is
oriented aWay fi'om the eastern side and focuses on the meadow, increasing the privacy
level.
The topography of the land mandates the placement of the home where it is sited, as the
regulations prohibit a structure to be placed on a 30 percent or greater slope. A minimum
amount of cutting and grading, has been called for to preserve the natural topography.
Additionally,' the fi-ont portion of the home is designed as a one story, thereby minimizing
the PercePtion of exceSsive bulk While'maintaining a street presence.
JAN 11[ 2001
'CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMUmTY F, NYntO~
Page 2
Letter to Planning Commission
As is the case in most new development, some ti'ees may be lost in order to properly site
the home in the allowable setback limitations. The report fi.om the City Arborist has'
delineated the list of trees that may be removed and those that must stay and be carefully
preserved. The landscape plan calls for a specific number and type of tree or trees that
must be replaced. In addition to the Arborist's list, the landscape plan calls for a major
screening effort to be done on the northeastern side of the property, adjacent to the land
owned by Mr. McNeil. Grace has offered to increase the number and size of the
screening trees to suit Mr. McNeil,. even going so far as to plant trees on his property, thus
preserving the natural look of the landscape and increase his level of privacy.
Regarding the grading and erosion control issues, a detailed plan has been included that
utiliv, es the existing storm drain already on site, and improves the absorption of water and
the control of runoff as required by the City of Saratoga.
As you 'can see, every effort Was made to be concerned and involved with the neighbors
and to be as considerate as possible of their privacy issues, and to be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. The project meets or exceeds the desired design criteria
the City of Saratoga. It is our sincere hope that the Planning Commission members will
appreciate the time and expense involved that it has taken to prepare this presentation, in
collaboration with the Planning Staffand respectfully asks for approval of this project.
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
000034
Incorporated October 22, 1956
ITEM 1
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE * SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 · (408) 868-1200
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Evan Baker
Stan Bogosian
John Mehaffey
Nick Streit
Ann Wa!tonsmith
MEMoRANDuM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Mark Connolly, Assistant Planner
March 14, 2001
DR-00-036 8z UP-00-018; SAN FILIPPO, 15500 Sobey Road
DESCRIPTION
The apphcant has requeSted Design Review and Use Permit approval to cons ,t-Tuct a new 5,312
square foot two story residence, and a 529 square foot cabana totaling 5,841 square feet on a vacant
lot. In addition the proposal includes a 608 square 'foot basement. The Use Permit approval is
necessary to allow the cabana to be located within the rear yard setback. The maximum height of
the residence will be 24 feet. The site is 43,042 square feet and is located within an R-i-40,000
zoning dismct.
Comparative ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED SAN FILIPPO ON SOBEY ROAD.
DR-99-010 ~ V00-020
ZONING: R-I-40,000: GENERA[ pLAN DESIGNATION: ResidenQal- Hillside Conservadon
PARCEL SIZE: 43,042 sq. ft. (net)~ AVeRaGE SITE SLOPE: 11% ' ."
Ori~nal,SuBmittal
GRADING REQUIRED:
Cut: 793 Cu Yds Max. Depth: 8 ft. & Cut for Basement: 185 Cu Yds
Fill: 578 Cu Yds Max. Depth: 12 ft.
File No. DR~Oo-osB & UP-O0~018; Sobey Road
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Stucco exterior painted medium tan ~vith brown
wainscot or olive green stucco and dark brown wamscoc Window trim will be dark green, and
the roof material will be a Mission tile. Color and material samples will be available at the
Public Hearing.
Proposal
Code Requirement/
iliowal'lce
LOT COVERAGE:
Approx. 36% 35%
SETBACKS:
Front: 50 fr. 50 f.
Rear: 85 fr. 75 fr.
Right Side: 30 fr. 20 fr.
Left Side: 20 fr. 20 ft.
SIZE OF
STRUCTURE:
First Floor: 3,498 sq. ft. '
Second Floor: 1,352 sq. fr. '
Garage: 462 sq. fr.
Cabana 529 sq. fr.
Basement' (60g sq ft.)
TOTAL: 5,841 sq. fr.
5,844 sq. fr.
HEIGHT:
26 ft. 26 fr.
New Pronosal
GRADING REQUIRED:
Cut: 793 Cu. Yds. Max. Depth: 8 fr. & Cut for Basement: 185 Cu Yds'
Fill: 578 Cu. Yds. Max. Depth: 12 ft.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Light beige painted stucco exterior with a stucco base
xvamscot in a darker beige and trim details in white. The roof material proposed is a darker red and
brogm blended mission tile. A color.and material board will be available at the Public Hearing.
00000
File No. DR-O0-O$6 & UP-O0-018~ Sobey Road
LOT COVERAGE:
Driveway -'
Entry and Walks
Dining patio and fountain -
Upper deck and house
POol and Pool deck
Walk fromgarage '
House' and garage
Cabana
Total
'SETBACKS:
SI7E OF
STRUCTUKE:
HEIGHT:
Proposal
Fron~:
Rear:
Right Side:
Left Side:'
32.6% --(14',113/43,042)
3570 sq. fi:
1004 sq. fi:
183 sq. fi:
1460 sq. fi:
3218 sq. fi:.
'122 sq. ft.
'4,027 sq. fi:
529 sq. fi:
14,113 sq. fr.
50fi:.
85fi:.
30ff.
2off:.
First Floor:
Second Floor:
Garage:
Cabana
Ba.~emenr:'
TOTAL:.
3,498 sq. fi:.
1,352 sq. fi:.
462 sq. fi:.
529 sq. ft.
(~0~ ,~q. ft.)
5,84.1 sq. ft..
24 fi:..
Code Requirement/
AlloWance
50fi:.
75 fi:.
20fi:.
20ft.
5,844 sq. ft.
26fi:.
35%
DISCUSSION
The project was continued from January 24, 2001 for the applicant to redesign the residence and
address issues of compatibility with the neighborhood, bulk and mass, cascading of the residence
down a slope at the front of the lot to the middle, reducing impervious coverage, and to consider
changes to size and materials.
000003
File No. DR-o0~O$6 & UP-O0-018~ $obey Road
The applicant has reduced the height of the residence to 24 feet from the previous 26 feet, and
softened the rooflines. The impervious coverage has been reduced well within the maximum
allowed through the use. of pervious pavers and gravel walks. The square footage, footprint, and
materials are'unchanged. ' .. '
There was aoncern at the January 24th Public hearing from an adjacent neighbor to the West who
had raised issues of bulk and mass, and recommended that the residence be reduced in size and
brought down the slope on the front of the property toward the middle of the lot. The applicant
chose not to relocate the residence but to mitigate the impact by lowering the overall height and
emphasizing.landscape screening. Staff feels that the revised design responds to some, but not all
of the commission's 'recommendations, and fails to meet the intention, which is to reduce the
overall effect of bulk and mass, and create a design more compatible with the natural
environment and the adjacent properties.. Staff is basing its conclusion on the following Design
review findings:~ :' ' ' .....
· Although the height was '_'educed 2 feet, the project does not adequately protect the
adjacent properties from unreasonable interference with views and privacy through
placement, height and elevations.
The project does preserve the natural landscape by.cascading the structure to follow the
natural topography and by avoiding excess grading cuts. To achieve this, the plan
requires removal of a considerable number of trees that have been apprQved by the City
Arborist.
The residence ua. Il rely upon landscaping to screen the project from the adjacent
properties and to minimize the perception of excessive bulk and mass in relation to other
structures on adjacent lands due to the slope at the front of the property, the perception
of bulk is reduced as viewed from Sobey Road and will blend in from that elevation.
The project does maintain compatible bulk and height to the adjacent properties to some
degree, in that the rooflines are well articulated, and the residence is stepped down the
slope. However, it does not maintain compatible mass with the adjacent properties in
that the residence would cover a large port-ion of the lot. Relative to the neighborhood,
the residence is only about 300 sq. ft. larger than the largest homes immediately adjacent.
· The project does incorporate current grading and erosion control measures.
· As described above, the project has incorporated certain but not .all policies and
techniques of the Residential Design Handbook.
000004
File No. DR-O0~03~3 & UP~00-018; Sobey Road
RECOMMENDATION
Although the project meets all minimum zoning requirements m terms of setbacks, floor area,
coverage andheight, staff notes that it does not appear that the redesign bally comphes with the
intent of the Commission. Nor does the project meet all. the necessary Design Reviexv findings'
and the Residential Design Handbook guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolutions DR-00-036 & UP-00-018
2. Excerpted Planning Commission hearing minutes,January 24, 2001
3. 'Previous Plans, Exhibit ~A"
4. Current Plans, Exhibit"B"
5. Correspondence from Tim McNeil in opposition of the project
6. Correspondence from David and Linda Scott with concerns of compatibilit3, and water
drainage
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIoNALLy LEFT BLANK
000006
APPROVAL OF-RESOLUTION NO. DR--00~036
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FILIPPO; SOBEY ROAD
. WHEREAS,. the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for
Design Review approval to construct a new 5,312 square foot two story residence with a 608
square foot basement and 529 square foot cabana on a vacant lot; and
WHEaEAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Pubhc Hearing at which time
all interested parries were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHE~^S, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined:
The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when
considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location 'of residential structures on
adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid
unreasonable interference with views .and privacy, in that the location of the proposed
residence.will be partially screened from existing residences by mature vegetation.
.The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to
follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil ,removal; grade
changes Will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of
neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that there is minimal grading
proposed outside of the basement excavation and the impact of 17 ordinance protected
trees proposed ro be removed will be mitigated.
· The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding
region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the
natural em~onment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials
which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding
em4_ronment in that the structure's design incorpOrates elements and materials which
minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding
environment and the structure's design is similar in scale, size and style to other homes
within this area.
· The' residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential
structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the
same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably
' impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of
adjacent Propemes.to uriliTe solar energy.
00000'7
File No. DR-00-036 Cs: UP-00-018; Sobey Road
· The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion
control standards used by the City.
as follows:
· The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable desig'n policies and
techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15-
45.055.
Now', THEmiFOmi, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga doeslhereby resolve
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and
other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of DR-00-036; SAN
FILIPPO for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following
conditions:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit 'B', incorporated
by reference.
Prior to ~ubmittal for Building permits, the~foll°wing shall be submitted to the Planning
· Dixdsion staff in order to issue'a Zoning Clearance:
Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a
separate plan page and containing the following:
i. The plans shall show only one wood-burning fireplace.
ii. All recommendations of the City Arborist shall be followed and incorporated into
the plans.
iii.
The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or
Licensed Land SurveYor.
The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to
foundation inspection by the City, the. RCE or LLS of. record shall provide a
written Certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans."
Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution and
Arborist report as a separate pi_an page.
vi. No Retaining xvall shall exceed five feet in height and three feet within the
front yard setback. ·
No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
000005
File No. DR-00-036 ~z UP-00-018; Sobey Road
FENCING REGULATIONS ~ No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no
fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in
height.
No structure shall be permitted in any easement.
The walkways from the garage leading to the rear patio and cabana shall be constructed'
of completely pervious material (i.e.'decomposed granite or gravel), and the par'king area
of the driveway closest to the garage shall be echo stone or turf block.
o
A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and
incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If
all storm water cannot be retained on-site due-to topographic, soils or other constraints,
an explanatory note shall.be provided on the plan.
CITY ARBORIST
All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated October 21, 2000 shall be
followed and inc°rporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to:
ao
The Arborist Report shall be incorporate& as a separate plan page, to the
construction plan set and the grading plan set and all apphcable measures noted on
the site and grading plans.-
The grading plan shall be revised to show that no grading v, qll occur within the
folloxx,4.ng distances from the trunks of the following trees:
Tree 5~1 18 feet Tree ~15-17 15 feet
Tree ~'2 '35 feet Tree ,~ 27 18 feet
Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as
recommended by the Arb°fist with a note "to remain in place throughout
construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building
Permit.
d. A bond in the amount of $14,897 be pOsted to ensure protection of trees/~2 and/~27
and a 10 % bond of all other trees.
e. The applicant shall replant an equivalent value of $12,513 in 6- 36 inch box and 11- 24
inch box native specimens for removal of ~3-14 and/~28-32.
f. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or
private vehicles shall park or be stored within the driplme of any ordinance protected
trees on the 'site.
000009
File No. DR-00-036 6:r UP-00-018;
$obey Road
I0.
11.
A rex~ised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance
showing locations of the any native replacement trees.
Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verffT
compliance xvith tree protecm,e measures. UpOn a favorable site inspection by the Arborist
and. any replacement trees haxmg been planted, the bond shall be released.
Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arbonst's
recommendations.
A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained to
(1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction of the residence and
driveway for the purpose of preventing or minimizing damage to trees and (2) prm4de
reg-ular written progress reports to the City of these supervision functions as the)' occur.
CITY GEOLOGIST
12.
All conditions of The City Geologist shall be incorporated into the plans as a separate plan
page.
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class uA" prepared or
built-up roofing.
Earl), VVarmng Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the
provisions of the City of Saratoga Code-Article 16-60.
18.
Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed
installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval.
19.
The required fire flow for this project is 2,000 gpm at 20-psi residual pressure. The fire
flow IS NOT available from the area water mains and the fire hydrants, which are spaced at
the required spacing. '
Provide the required ~e flow from the hydrants spaced at the maximum of 500 feet, OR,
prox~ide and approved Lire sprinkler system designed per NFPA standard #l)D and local
ordinances throughout all portions of the building. A licensed contractor shall install the
sprinkler system.
Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum
radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside.
An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided for the garage.
OOOO10
File No. DR~00~036 ~r UP~00-018; Sobey Road
CITY ATTORNEY
20..
Apphcant agrees to hold City harmless fi:om all costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees, incurred bY the City or held to be the'liability of CitY in connection with Cit3,'s defense
of its actions in any proceeding brought m. any State or Federal Court, challenging the'
City's action with respect to the applicant's project.
21.
Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this Permit shall constitute a violation of the
permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could recur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each da3' of the
'~qolation.
0000 .
File No. DR~00~036 ~ UP~00~018; Sobey Road
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the 'State, County, CiU, and other
.Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 Of the Saratoga
City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption:
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California,
this 14th day of March 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES':
ABSENTi
ABSTAIN:
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
OOO012
File No. DR-00.036 ~: UP-00-018; .Sobey Road
A??wov~a. or RESOLUTION NO. UP-00-018
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE Or C,~LIFOKNIA
SAN FILIPPO; Sobey Road.
WHEREAS, the City of saratoga planning Commission has received an application for Use
Permit approval to allo~v a 529 squ.are foot Cabana to be located within the rear yard setback;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning COmmissiOn held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which rime
all interested parries were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHERr~S, the applicant has met the burden .of proof required to support said
application, and the following findings have been determined:
· The proposed location of the conditional use will be in accord with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in ~he vicinity.
· That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEILEFOILE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby
resoh,e as follows:
exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the aPPlication of SAN FILIPPO for Use
Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to thc following conditions:
ooooxa
File No. DR-00-036 ~ UP-00-018; Sobey Road
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit 'B', incorporated
by reference.
Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning
DMsion staff m order to issue a Zoning Clearance:.
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a
separate plan page.
b. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered cml Engineer or a Licensed
land Surveyor. '
c. The Cabana shall be located exactly as shown in exhibit 'A" at a maximum height of
15 feet.
d. A final landscaping plan showing the proposed landscape screening be submitted.
FENCING REGULATIONS- No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no
fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in
height.
No structure shall be permitted in an3, easement.
PUBLIC WORKS
'?dl building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and
construction Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of
preventing storm water pollution.
CITY ATTORNEY
Applicant agees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including
attorney's'fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection
with the City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal
court, challenging the City's action xvith respect to the applicant's project.
Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the
permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the
violation.
000014
File No. DR-00-036 ~ UP-00-018; Sobey Road
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval ,aSll expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, Count3', Cit3' and other
Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga.
City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPIED by th& City of Saratoga Planning
Califorma, this 14th day of March 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commission, State of
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
000015
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
000016
Saratoga Planning Commissi
Minutes of January 24, 2001
Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There are no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC' HEARING ~ ITEM NO. 1
' DR-00-036 & UP-00-018 (397-05-091)- SAN FILIPP0~ Sobev Road: Request for Design Review'
approval to construct a new 5,312 square foot two-storY residence with a 608 square foot basement and
529 square foot cabana on a vacant lot. The Use permit approval is necessary to allow the cabana to
be located within the rear yard setback. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site
is 43,042 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Stated that this request is for a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 5,312 square
foot, two-story residence with a 608 square foot basement and. a 529 square foot cabana. A Use
Permit is required to allow the cabana to be located within the rear yard setback. The maximum
height of the cabana is 15 feet while the maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. This is a
constrained lot in that there is a 30 percent grade at the front of the lot. Concerns have been
expressed by the adjacent neighbor to the east regarding the proposed placement of the house. As
mentioned during the Technical Corrections, amendments to the plans will be required to reduce
the impervious surfaces for the property to meet allowable percentages. Echo stone and
· decomposed granite or gravel will be used for walkways. With those adjustments, staff is
recommending approval as all other requirements are met.
Commissioner Kurash inquired about the cabana.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a Use Permit is required to allow the 15-foot height as well as the
placement within the rear yard setback.
Commissioner Roupe inquired whether, the retaining walls are within the allowances.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that staff has verified 'that the maximum..height of any retaining walls on
site is three feet.
Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Rick Zea, 4616 Venice Way, .San Jose:
· Identified himself as the representative for the applicant and advised that they have worked closely
with staff to meet all requirements. Thanked Mr. Connolly for his assistance.
· Added that they have also worked closely with the neighbors, having mailed information as well as
meeting with neighbors. At the meeting with neighbors, support was expressed.
· ReqUested approval.
· ' Advised that both the applicant and architect are available for questions.
Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Zea if there would be any problem complying with the requirement to
reduce impervious Surfaces.
Mr. Rick Zea deferred to the applicant and architect.
0000:1.:7
Saratoga Planning Commissi: Minutes of January 24, 2001
Page 3
Commissioner Patrick added that she felt there is too much paved area on the property. Asked if the
applicants might consider reducing the amount of driveway.
Mr. Rick Zea advised that adequate access to the site requires the long driveway. Said that they would
consider a compromise material for portions of the driveway as possible.
Mr.. Maurice Carmargo, 3953 Yolo Drive:
· Identified himself as the project architect.
· Assured the Commission that it Will be easy to reduce the impervious sUrfaces to meet acceptable
standards. Suggested changes to some of the walkway materials.
Commissioner Roupe asked about the significance of such changes.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that should the walkways be comprised of decomposed gravel, a 25
percent credit is given that reduces the total amount of impervious surface to allowable levels. Added
that the applicants will be using pervious pavers for the hammerhead and flat area in front of the
garage, which offers a:25 percent credit. These changes result in 32 percent of impervious surfaces.
Chairman Page expressed concern with the numbers provided and ultimate percentage of impervious
surfaces that will result on this site.
Commissioner Roupe agreed and said that there appears to be a lot of impervious surface. This issue
must be resolved to ensure that the project meets allowable limits.
Mr. Maurice Carmargo said that there are-walkway areas that can be eliminated outright. Assured that
he was willing .to make changes to meet City requirements. Said that the edges of tl~e driveway can be
constructed using pervious material.
Chairman Page inquired whether any other architectural design styles .had been considered and
whether the applicant might be willing to consider the use of wood siding. Added that this
Mediterranean-style stucco building is out of character with the beginning of Sobey Road. Said that
with the removal of 17 trees from this site, this structure will be highly visible from Sobey Road 'and
that he is not certain this stYle home fits.'
Mr. Maurice Carmargo advised that they had considered many architectural styles but that the owner
has a pretty strong desire to have Mediterranean-style architecture. Added that many trees are staying
and that the house is setback quite a way from the front of the lot while retaining a presence to the
street. There are limits due to the constraints of the lot. Concluded by stating that this design is
Compatible and set back.
Commissioner Roupe said that the structure gives the appearance of a three-story in that it marches up
that hill. Said that' the ceiling height in the study seems excessive and inquired why it is so massive,
especially since it is at the front elevation that is most visible fi'om the street.
Maurice Carmargo said that the house is single-story on that elevation. Said that the high Ceiling
for the study Was designed to give balance to that whole elevation and a certain prominence tO
highlight the front entrance. Said that this one-story fa¢ade balances with the living room wing.
000018
Saratoga Planning Commissi~ .,/linutes of January 24, 2001 Page 4
Commissioner Roupe stated that it rather creates bulk and mass.
Commissioner Kurash inquired about landscaping plans around the large oak tree in the front of the
property.
Mr. Maurice Carmargo advised that the' landscaping plan'has not yet been developed. Said that they
could look into adding additional landscaping that is compatible and requires low water.
Commissioner. Kurasch asked if the neighbor's concerns.have been addressed. 'Asked why the house is
situated on the site as it is currently.
Mr. Maurice Carmargo said that they moved the house as far back from the east property line as
'possible. The study has been buffed into the hillside. They also created a planting strip between the
driveway and house next~door. This planting area will .allow plenty of.mom to install screening
landscaping. Added that the owner is willing to plant as many trees as necessary.
Mr. Tim McNeil, 18450 Sobey Road, Saratoga:
· · Stated his opposition to this project:
· Expressed' concern that the structUre cascades down the slope of the hill which gives bulk and mass.
to the house.
· 'Added that this new home'has been positioned over his rear yard and pool area, which will greatly
affect his privacy. . - .
· Said that there is plenty of property in the meadow portion of this lot on which to construct this
home. ' .... ' :' ' - .... '
· Advised that many of the 17 trees to be 'rem0ved' are ove~ 30 feet' in height. Thergfore, his property
will be substantially and unfairly impacted bY this Project.
· Suggested that the project be redesigned for placement, on the lower portion of the meadow.
Added' thai the City' should consider issuance of a Variance, if.necessary, in order to facilitate
' placement of this'home there. Said' this would be a'good: solution to the Problems of the' current
placement.
ExPressed his opinion that it was a bad subdivision that created this lot.
Ms. Nona Christensen, 1851'0 sobey Road, Saratoga:
· S'aid th'a~ she owns three acres Over several lots, including the lot' immediately adjacent to the'west
to the aPplicant's'lot. '
· Expressed support for this project and stated that th~ p~bposed house will be a beautiful addition to ..
Sobey Road.
· Said that several architects .were consulted and all came up with the same. placement of the house
on this lot.
Ms. Grace San Filippo, Applicant, 117 E1 Portal, Los Gatos:
· Advised that this is her first, experience in building a house.
· Said that she feels strongly that she wants a Mediterranean-style home to reflect her Italian
heritage.
· . Said that She has done everything, possibleto design this project and feels that it will be a beautiful
· .addition to .Sobey Road. . .
O00019
Saratoga Planning Commissi, .Vlinutes of January.24, 2001
Page 5
Commissioner Roupe asked why Ms. San Filippo would not consider constructed in the meadow area
of her lot.
Ms. Grace San Filippo replied that the meadow area is so far back and would feel very isolated and
would result in a flag lot appearance. Said that she prefers a home with a street presence.
Additionally, to do so would leave her with little rear yard area and without an3' option for the
placement of a cabana on.site.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, Seconded by Commissioner Roupe; the
Public Hearing for. Agenda Item No. 1. was closed at 8:25 p.m. (5-0-2;
Commissioners Bernaid and Jackman were absent)
Commissioner Barry said that she was not ready to approve this application this evening, as she does
not feel it fits with the rural character of Sobey Road. There is still the chance to preserve the semi-
rural atmosphere. Said that the mass and bulk issues raised are relevant and that she has concerns
about drainage issues. ..
Commissioner Roupe stated his shared concern. Said that this is a large house that cascades down the
slope. The high ceiling in the study accentuates the mass and bulk.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the proposal is not outlandish and is kind of a trend.
the house might be a bit ambitious for its lot: ..
Suggested that
Commissioner Patrick reiterated concern about impervious coverage. Added that the house is not
compatible with the neighborhood. Said that the siting of the house seems logical but that the mass
and bulk are a problem. This is simply too big a house and she cannot support it. "
Chairman Page stated that he concurred with the other Commissioners' concerns. He listed a concern
with the architectural style of the house. Since this part of Sobey Road is more rustic, wood siding
might be more compatible. While much of the house may-.not be visible from the street, from the
neighboring homes, this structure will be highly visible.
Commissioner Roupe stated that it appears this application would not be approved if put to a vote this
evening. Suggested a continuance to allow the applicant the opportunity to reconsider several things.
Suggested changes include reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on the site as well as the mass
and bulk of the structure (specifically the three-story appearance caused by the high ceiling of the
study) and possibly repositioning the structure on.the lot. - --
Chairman Page advised that should the application not be approved this evening, the applicant can
appeal to Council. An alternative is a continuance to allow some redesign, which can be brought back
to the Commission at a future meeting.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned whether the Commission was in agreement that the architectural
style was inappropriate.
Commissioner Roupe cautioned that the Commission shoUld not stand too hard on thai issue. The
main issues appear to be the mass and bulk and the cascade effect of this current design.
Saratoga Planning Commissk .vlinutes of January 24, 2001
Page 6
Chairman Page suggested the' addition of some stone and a different roof color.
Commissioner Barry stated her preference for a wood-sided home at this location. Added that since
not all seven Commissioners are here tonight, other views may be forthcoming. Said that this house
will have a presence and should be more compatible with the area. Everyone will have to try to be
reasonable.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission continued DR-00-036 & UP-00-018 to its meeting of March 14, 2001:'
(5-0-2; Commissioner Bernald and Jackman were absent)
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 .
DR-00-052 (397-07-018) - MAESUMI, 15171 Maude Avenue: Request for Design Review approval
to demolish an existing single-story residence and two accessory structures totaling 3,100 square feet
and construct a new 5,235 square foot single-story residence with 2,486 square foot basement.
Maximum height of the structure is 24 feet tall, located on a 33,105 square foot parcel within an R-1-
40,000 zoning district.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that this application seeks approval for the demolition of three existing structures totaling
3,100 square feet and the construction of a 5,235 square foot, single-story residence with a 2,486
square foot basement. The maximum height would be 24 feet. The zoning is R-1-40,000 and the
lot is 33,105 square feet. This project meets all minimum requirements and is actually two feet
lower than the maximum allowable. Staff is recommending approval.
Commissioner Patrick pointed out two light wells that appear larger than the allowable 36 inches.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant would modify the size of the light wells on their
construction plans.
Commissioner Barry asked if a color board is available.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied yes and distributed the color board to the Commissioners.
Chairman Page asked if the new construction hours would be imposed on this project, from 7:30 a.m.
to 6:30 p.m. weekdays with no weekend construction permitted.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that those hours would be imposed.
Chairman Page inquired why a new fire hydrant is required, as it appears that there is an existing fire
hydrant in close proximity.
Mark Connolly advised that the applicant had the option to install the fire hydrant or install fire
sprinklers throughout the new home.
Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:45 p.m.
THIs PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
00002;?,
FROM : RICK ZEA REMAX GS BAY
FAX NO. : 1408 255 ~627
Feb. 23 2001 03:5qPM P2
February 7, 2881
Ms. Grace Sanfilippo
117 El Portal
Los Gatos, CA 95832
Dear Grace,
This letter is to follow up on our conversation after the planning
commission meeting on January 24th. We do not wish to oppose your
project and are looking forward to welcoming you to the
neighborhood when you move in.
However, our concern is the towering effect the proposed home will
· have over our backyard. The proposed plan has the footprint of the
home starting on the slope with it cascading down the hill thus giving
it the appearance of a three Story home from ourbackyard. Our only
request is .that you bulld Your home. as a true two story home to help
minimize the mass and scale of your project.
This woUld require you 'to begin the home about 28 - 25 feet further
back on the lot; Although,. the impact on us will still be gre{lt, we are
not objecting to the setbacks,-size, tree's or style of your home. We
feel that this would be a fair comprOmise.
In'conclusion, you wili.stilI .be able to build your home, pool, spa and
cabana but will lesson the impact and privacy issue the three level
home would impose. If you feel that you would be agreeable to this
minor change in the footprint, then we would, be happy to support
your project.. ...
Thank you..
Regards,
Tim McNeil & Jennifer McNeil
cc: City of Saratoga
0000;88
David and Linda Scott
14269 Quito Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
March 8, 2001
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale, Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
F E 13 0 $ 2001
C]T¥ OF S.4JL~'I"OGA
COI~IMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Subject:
DR-00-036 (397-05-091)
Sanfilippo Developmenton Sobey Road
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
TMs is an update to our previous letter.
We own the lot adjacent and to the east of the proposed development by Ms. Grace Sanfilippo on
Sobey Road. We are aware of the minor revisions to the original plan and we are writing again
to register our ongoing concerns related to this project. Please enter this letter as part of the
official meeting minutes.
1. The scope of the project seems out of character with the neighborhood.
The house's mass and proposed architectural style stands in stark contrast to a neighborhood of
ranch style, fairly unobtrusive homes. The lot in question is an L-shaped, one acre lot, meaning
that it is really two one-half acre lots joined at the angle. The proposed two-story, 6,000 square
foot home does not fit well on the current site lot. The proposed home is shoe-homed on one-half
and the other half is covered with a pool, hot tub, terrace, out building and a lot of concrete (all
'impermeable fixtures). Such a project will create a monster home because of the shape and slope
of the lot in question.
2. A smaller house, limited to two levels and relocated to the lot's lower portion, would be a
better fit and less intrusive to the existing neighbors.
Looking at the plans dated July 25, 2000, and taking into account the minimal changes of thc
revised plan, it appears that because of the slope of thc lot this is still really a three level house
and 26 feet above grade. The problem is that the lot has a considerable slope to it; the front of
this lot is already at the same level as the roof of our two-story house. The proposed new
structure will add yet another 24 feet, creating a house that would loom over thc neighbors and
dramatically affect privacy indoors and out. Our back yard and the main living areas of our
home (and our neighbors) - including living room, kitchen, dining room and master bedroom all
face the lot in question. If thc house was smaller and moved lower on the lot, this issue would be
minimized.
O000Z4
3. The full length of the lot needs sufficient screened to minimize noise and light-~.
Adequate screening (fencing and planting) would be necessary to help block light and noise.
The proposed driveway is planned to nm the length of McNeil's and a considerable portion of
our yard - both of us have our master bedrooms facing the location of the proposed driveway. In
addition, the garage and its turnaround area would be located next to both of our properties and
bedrooms. Yard lights, headlights and noise from cars going up and down the driveway is a
potential problem. We would therefore like to see sufficient .screening, including appropriate
fencing and mature trees made part of any approved plan.
4. Water drainage issues must be addressed
Looking at the proposed plans, it seems that a large portion of the lot will be covered with either
the house or some other impermeable structure. If not handled properly, water that would
normally drain from our back yard will-back up onto our property and perhaps damage existing.
in?rovements. Right now, there is a large storm drain on the Sanfilippo lot at its lowest point
near our fence that the prior owners have filled and buffed. It needs to be excavated and opened
prior to any development.
We do not want to stop the property's development, but we do want to ensure that, once
completed, it .fits into the existing neighborhood and does not adversely impact the existing
neighbors' enjoyment and use of their properties.
Sincerely,
David and Linda Scott
CC:
Mr. and Mrs. Tim McNeil
Mr." and Mrs. Paul Heath
Camargo and'Associates
0000 5
DATE:
PLACE:
TYPE:
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, March 14( 2001
Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
Regular Meeting
Chair Page called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Commissioners B'arry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick and Acting Chair RoUpe
Chair Page
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan and Planner Mark Connolly
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 28, 2001.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald,
the Regular Planning Commission minutes of February 25, 2001, were
approved with the following amendments:
· Page 5 - Questioned. the reasoning for Condition of Approval 30A as it
pertains to street ada. dress.2ng addresses being placed in view ....
* Page 9 - Modifications and/or additions to the Conditions of ApprovaifOrXD-
00-006 included as part of the rnotion for approval:
'· Require additional landscaping to the satisfaction 9f :staff, including
landscaping in the rear yard; and
· That the last paragraph in the Harvey Report should be directly quoted
in the Conditions of Approval.
· Page 11 ,-Upon motion of Commissioner Kuraseh Barry ...
· Page 16 - Suggested deepening the garage instead. However~ if they
enlarged the garage~ the house would be above the allowable FAR. Said
~that necessary storage...
Page 18 - Commissioner Bernald reported on the pOssible improper
removal of a eucalyptus tree. -.
as she was absent from .this
(5-0-1-1; Commissioner Jackman abstained
meeting and Chair Page was absent.)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA ' ' ' ~
Mr. Mark COnnolly, Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.'2, the agenda for
Jthis meeting Was properly posted on'March 9, 2001.' ' '
Saratoga Planning Commiss~
Minutes of March 14, 2001 : Page 2
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan, provided the following technical corrections to the packet:
· 'Advised that Agenda Items 2 and 3 will be 'continued to the March 28, 2001, Planning Commission
Meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There are no Consent Calendar Items.
I PUBLIC HEARIN~G - ITEM NO____:. 1 '
DR-00-036 (397-05-091) - SAN FILIPPO~ Sobey Road: Request for Design Review approval' to
construct a new two-story residence on a 43,042 square foot parcel, and Use Permit approval to allow
· an accessory structure t~ be located within the rear yard setback. Maximum height -of the structure is.
26 feet tall and is located within an R-I-40,000 zoning district. '
Commissioner Bemald recused herself as her home is located within 300 feet of this project site. She
left the dais to sit in the audience. ·
'Mr. Mark connolly, Plannerl presented the staff report as follows.'- -
· Advised that this project was continued from the January 24, 2001, Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Barry asked whether the structure's'square footage in now larger than the proposal
revieWed by the commission on JanUary 24th.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the structure's square footage has not changed sinc~ January 24th.
Acting Chair Roupe opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:48 p.m.
MS. Grace San Filippo, Project Site Property Owner, Sobey Road:
· ' Introduced her team including architect, landscape architect and attorney.
Mr. Rick Zea, 4616 Venice Way, San Jose, CA 95129i
· Acknowledged that the Commission stated several objections at the last meeting.
o. ~!nformed that.they have addressedthe concems through changes and redesign.
· Added that the project meets City guidelines and rules. .
· Admitted that they had made calculation errors in the total amount of impervious c°verage
originally depicted on the landscape plan.
· Said that they have since reduced the impervious coverage to 32%'by reducing hardscape areas
and/or utilizing pervious materials.
· Another concern was the mass and bulk of the structure. To counter that concern, they have
"'lowered the height of the study portion of the home by two feet, added wood elements to the
structure as well as corbels. Additionally, decorative stone will be use.
Advised that, while the Commission had objected to what.they considered "orange" tile roofing
material,, they have brought samples this evening to clearly demonstrate that the roofing material is
brown.
Saratoga Planning Commiss~
Minutes of M _arch 14, 2001 Page 3
Said that another concern raised by the Commission was the need to reflect the character of the
neighborhood. Advised that-there is no coherent theme or design standard on Sobey. The homes
'in the area. reflect diversity in architectural styles. Added that they actually have captured the
flavor of the vineyard currently being installed on property across the street fi.om their project site.
'Said that they have honored the desire for an unobtrusive structure.
Showed slides of the surrounding homes, including slides which feature the project site with story
'poles in place for this proposed structure. Another slide showed a perspective of the planned
Distributed stOne samples for use on the retaining wall as well as on the colunms for the arbor. .
Informed that the study portion of the new home Will actually be hidden by the natural berm 0n the
prOperty.
Said that an electric gate will secure the garage area at the side rear while guests will pull up at the
front of the house:
Advised that a great deal of time and effort have been spent to design and to reflect the concerns of
'the Planning Commi'sSion.: ' ..
Said that members of the design team are available for any questions.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned what has been done to address the Commission's concerns about
bulk and mass. Also mentioned the 10-foot drop' in.grade fi.om the street to the proposed house and
asked. What the drop is from the.street to the second story, elements.
.Mr. Maurice Camargo, 3953 Yolo Drive, San Jose, CA 95136:
· ~ Advised that they have veneeredthe structure with stone. The roofline for the study portion of the
home was lowered by two feet. This section is set back fi.om the entry and living room space.
· They also added-wood corbels and used articulation of textures.and materials, .including stone, on
the chimney elements.
· Informed that the house is split level. There is a nine-foot plate height at the tt~p of apprOximately
5.5 feet. There is a slope in the land fi.om east'to west. .-
Commissioner Jackman asked when the story poles went up and wondered why the Commissioners
were not notified that they had been installed.
Mr. Mark. Connolly advised that he only discovered that they had been installed on the day of the site
visit. . ..
Mr. Maurice Camargo-replied that the story poles were installed on Tuesday morning '(March 13th) and
that. they had brought pictures this evening .in .the event: that the Commissioners had not had the.
opportunity to see the story poles in person. "
Commissioner Patrick asked .how. the .coverage was reduced fi.om Plan. A to Plan, B.
appears that the paths and driveways are mostly the same as before.
Said "thai it
Mr.. Michael Rosenberg, 878 Valencia Schoolhouse Road, Aptos, .CA 95003:
· Said that portions of the driveway have been removed .for gravel, paving off of the dining area has
· ~-been removed and paving around the pool area diminished with planting areas being cut into the
impervious coverage around the pool.
Saratoga Planning Commissil Minutes of March 14, 2001
Page 4.
Mr. Zimmerman:
· Advised that several hundred square feet of impervious coverage have been cut out and replaced.
with permeable material. That is why the drawings still look similar:
Commissioner Patrick pointed out that there was 12, 726 square feet of impervious-coverage in the
original plan.
Commissioner Barry reminded the applicants' that the Commission had requested a maximum of' 30
percent in impervious coverage at the last meeting:
Mr. Rick Zea: '
· Stated that they did reduce as requested..
· Added that the original plan was~actually over 35 percent due to calculation errors.
· - Promised to find ways t° reduce even further as a Condition of Approval.
· 'Said that they'have'alreadY achieved a 32 percent leVel. '~
Mr. Tim McNeil, 18450 SobeyRoadi'Saratoga:
·
·
·
·
Said that he did not agree with the depiction of the impact on his home.
Added that the new submittal has made little effort to 'meet the requests of the Commission.
Said that 'this home cascades down the slope and has excessive bulk and mass.
Stated that while the actual square footage of.the second story is very small, the massing is bigger
to accommodate that space .... ·
· Said that the impact of this proposed structure is too great on' the neighborsl
Commissioner :Kurasch. asked Mr. McNeil 'if he felt the design home .was in character with the
neighborhood. "
.Mr. Tim McNeil replied that he was not. objecting.to the architectural design.
Filippo. He is only objecting to the cascading effect.
That is up to Ms. San
Mr. David Scott, 14269 Quito Road, Saratoga:
· Advised that he lives next door to the McNei'is and has two Objections. The extent of the
impervious surfaces and the need it creates for the storm drain on site to be upgraded as well 'as the
. massing of the structure, .which will tower over and affect his privacy greatly..
Mr. Frank Garcia, 4691 Albany Circle, San Jose:
· Stated that there is some misunderstanding and that this. house does not reflect mass.
Mr. Nick Livak, Attomey, 981 Fremont, Santa Clara:
· Stated that the letter prepared by Mr. Camargo answers issues, including the two-story feature.and
drainage issues. _ .. _. ' '
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick~ seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:29 p.m. (5-0-1-1; Chair Page was'
.: absent and Commissioner Bernald abstained),~ ..
Saratoga Planning Conuniss~: Minutes of March 14, 2001 Page 5
Commissioner Jackman expressed disappointment that the plans appear the same as before. There is
much house for the shape of the lot. The proposal is for a 5,841 square foot house when 5,844 is
maximum allowable. This property is an irregularly shaped lot with neighbors on five sides, This
is way too much for the lot. The architectural style of the house is great but not on this lot. It is too
imposing on this lot.
Commissioner Patrick concurred and suggested that the house either needs to be smaller or reset on the'
lot. There is too much coverage with 14,000 square feet of coverage which will result in drainage into
the watershed, Advised that she cannot approve this project asit is prop6sed.
Commissioner Barry stated that .she is pleased with the added wood and stone and that the roof has
been lowered by two feet. However, she agreed with fellow Commissioners with what is missing in
the proposal. There are specific peculiarities of lot and impact on neighbors, which present a major
problem. Stated that the storm drain issue has been covered with the Conditions of Approval. The
applicants are attempting to maximize the use of the lot but they can't dueto the shape of the lot.
Commissioner Kurasch concurred with Commissioner Barry. Said that the house is not in conteXt with
its location' on the lot. Said that a senSitive use of-the property could have stunning results. Said this
current configuration has negative impacts on neighboring properties and that there are alternatives
available. Suggested a reduction in lot coverage.
Acting Chair Roupe stated that he.shares similar concems. Said that the applicants have reduced the.
height and added materials to the structure. Added that the architectural style is compatible with the
neighborhood but the extent of imperious coverage-raises concern. The greatest concern is the
structure comes down the hitl, more evident from the McNeil property.than from the street. The use of
impervious coverage has been reduced but needs further reduction. Asked what options are available
to the Commission. '- - ..
Commissioner Barry riplied that there are two options, another continuance or denial with a stipulation
without prejudice.
Commissioner Patrick said if the applicant wants a vote, the Commission should iust deny the proposal
outright. .
I ~ommissioner Kurasch said that she would prefer a denial without prejudice as it gives the applicant.
the most flexibility.
Commissioner Jackman stated that the project, would require a major redesign to obtain approval so'
she stated her support fo~: denial without prejudice.
· Acting Chair Roupe agreed .to support, denial without prejudice... Added that the applicant can appeal
the denial to Council if filed within 15 days. There is no fee involved. The second alternative is. a
continuance to allow for a substantial redesign including a change in the footprint.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Jackinan, thd
Commission reopened the Public Hearing: at. 8:42 p.m. to allow the applicant to
chose one of the two options, denial or continuance. (5-0-1-1; Chair page was
,. absent and Commissioner Bernald abstained).
-'OfM~~~.' aratoga Planning Commissi_, .vlinutes of March 14, 2001 . _Pag.__~e_6 /
· r. Nick Livak, Attorney for the Applicant, advised that Ms. San Filippo would prefer a denial"~
~ without ·prejudice. ·
Motion: Upon'motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
~Commission again closed the Public Hearing at 8:43 p.m. (5-0-1-1; Chair Page
:. was absent and Commissioner Bernald abstained)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
~ Commission denied DR-00-036, without prejudice. ' (5-0-1-1; Chair Page was
absent and Commissioner Bernald abstained)
Commissioner Kurasch asked whether a vot~needed to be taken on the Use Permit application.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that the Use Permit. application was moot due to the
Commission's denial of the Design Review application. · - . ,
- Commissioner Bemald retumed to the dais upon conclusion of Public Heating No. 1.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.~2
DR-00-054 & V-01-002 (517-14-087) - MARTIN/ROSE, Kittridge Road: Request for Design
· Review approval to construct a new 7,340 square foot two-story residence on a 346,173 square foot
vacant parcel. The Variance is necessary for retaining ,walls to exceed five feet in height and possibly
closer than 10 feet for parallel walls. The Variance is also necessary to exceed 151000 square feet of
impe~5ous surface due to a long drivewa_~--~_~_..Maximum height of the structure is 26 feet tall, located
within a Hillside Residential zoning distric .t7a-~
Acting Chair Roupe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:46 p.m.
Mr. I.M. Farrar,~ 20860 Kittridge Road; Saratoga:
· · Advised that Kittridge Road is a private road for which repair and maintenance is the responsibility
.. . of the residents of that road.- .
· Expressed concern aboUt a high level,of construction traffic on the road and the potential for
'damage to the road.
· Asked that either the City or .Builder assume responsibility for repair of the road caused by this
project's construction.
Commissioner Jackman encouraged Mr. Farrar to pUt his. request 'in letter form for inclusion in the next
staff report.
Mr. I,M. Earrar agreed to do so. ~ -- --' ---' ~ -'
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission continued consideration of DR-00-054 & V-01-002 to the Planning
Commission meeting of March 28, 2001. (6-0-1; Chair Page was absent)
fence must be rel~ tree #37 may be exposed to at least minor root damage ifa new
fence is not immediately reconstructed after demolition of this existing fence. Also, tree
//37 must not be exposed to any risk during reco~on of the fence, how~vex minimal.
Trees # 1 and # 2 ~re located in the public right-of-way. How~-w,r ~hc canopy of tree #2,
an Exceptional 49-inch diameter DBH coast live oak (Q'uercus agr~olia), extends onto
this property by approximately 35 feet. The root zone in all likelihood extends outside the
canopy perimeter by an additional 40 feet. The Grading Plan proposes to. change contours
112, 114, and 118 inside the perimeter of the canopy.' This would adversely affect as
much as 40°/6 of thc root zone. Bear in mind that matme specimens such as this one is
more sensitive and much less tolerant to changes in its environment than young
specimens of the same species. Even 20%.root dnmnge in the root zone of this tree would
be significant, probably severel The open space on the south, east and west sides of this
~ has been disced to control annual weeds. Because of this, the majority of the
absorbing roots.have been destroyed to a depth of 4-6 inches in the area of more than
50°,4 of the root zone. As a result, tree #2 is considered to be in a stressed condition and
must not be subjected to any additional root damage from grading, from trenching for
landscape irrigation,, from a dense landscape planting, from trenching for utilities, or from
excavations for any purpose. Temporarily, this can be addressed by providing 3-inches of
mulch and supplemental irrigation.
Tree #2 is one of a hand full of unusually fine large mature coast live oaks in this area.
The fo!lowing.mitigation sugg~tions are intended to reduce the extent of construction
damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured Of survival
without decline. These suggestions are based on the construction plans provided. If any
changes to these plans oecor during construction, the following may require alteration.
Temporary. consm~on fencing must be provided and located as noted on the
attached map,
Fencing must be. of chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts
driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any
other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is
completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily
moved during, construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached
map. I suggest that pcrmi~ion be obtained from the neighbor at 18470 Sobey Road to
provide a protective fence adjaccnt to the curb of Sobey Road as noted on the
attached map.
I suggest that the grading plan be revised so that no grading would occur within the
following distances from trunks oft~es noted:
Tree #1 18 feet
Tree #2 35 feet
Trees #15-17 15 feet
Tree #27 18 feet
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL C LICT BKTWKEN TREE PRESERVATION AND C
AT THE SAN ~ SITE. SOBET ROAD, SARATOGA
ffthe plans must be revised to ~hieve to these clearances, the plan must be
revised.
3.. I suggest that the drain proposed on the north side of trees #15, 16 and #33 -36 be
relocated a minimum of 15 f~ from the trunks of any of these trees.
4. I suggest that the landscape plan and the landscape imgation plan be reviewed by the
· City Arborist for the prot(~on of trees g. 1, 2, 27, 15-17, and #33-36.
5. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be
located outside the driplines of retained trees, unless specifically indicated on the
enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist
be. retained to determine acceptable .locations. A 2-foot section of each txench
adjacent to any tree must ig left exposed for inspections by the city arborisL
6. Supplemental irrigation must be provided fOr Trees # 1 and 2 during the dry months
(any month receiving less than l inch of rainfall) starting immediately. Irrigate with
.~-10 ga/ions for each inch of trunk diameter every tv, x) weeks throughout the
construction period.
I suggest that the wall on the south boundary be constructed on a pier and on-grade
beam.design and that th~ piers be located between the trunks of existing trees at'a
minimum distance ofg feet from the trunk of any of the trees adjacent to the south
boundary. In the event that piers must be dug during the wet season of the year, such
that tires of an auger rig would create ruts of any depth, the hole must be dug by hand.
The bottom of the span sections of the wall must be constructed on top of the existing
grade or above.
Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of
trees. Loose. soil must not be allowed to si/de down slope to cover the root collars of .
retained trees. #this occurs, the soil must be excavated by hand to the original grade
and may require a retaining wall (dried laid stones, such as cobbles or rip rap set
without a footing) to prevent further soil encroachment.
Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any
other landscape features must be no closer to a tnmk than 1 $ times the trunk diameter
from tree trunks. However, ~eli~! trenches may be made ifthe trenches reach no
closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, if the spokes of such a
design are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter oftbe c, anoI~.
10. Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum
· .. of 20% ofthe entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk
diameter from the trunk of oak trees.
O000: B
ANALySIs OF POTENTIAL ~ .~ICT BETWF~ TREE PRESI~VATION AND ¢
AT TH~ SAN FILIPPO SITE, ~Y ROAD, S~ATOGA
· at~mo~ 6
Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside tl~ canopies of
existing trees, because its installation requires t~nching of 4-6 inches, which may
result in significant root damage.
12.
The species of plants usedwithin thc root zone of an oak tree must be only with
compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained from the
California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite $10, Oakland 94612.
13.
Sprinkler imgation must be designed so ti~ it does not strike .the tnmks of trees. It is
strongly suggested that spray irrigation not be allowed to strike beneath the canopies
ofoak trees. '
14. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be
directly in contact with the bark ora tree dueto the risk of disease.
15. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arbori~ and according to ISA Western
Chapter Standards.
¸16.
Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of
· trees must Ix: done' completely on-grade without excavation.
Materials or equiprnent must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried on site.
Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be
removed from site.
Value Assessment
The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition.
The plan proposes to remoVe seventeen trees (#3-14 and #28-32), which have a total
value of $12,513. This value is equivalent to six 36-inch boxed and eleven 24-inch boxed
native specimens. Replacements are suggested.
Acceptable native trcc replacements arc:
Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia
Valley oak - Quercus lobata
Big leaf maple - ,4cer macrophyllum
California buckeye -,,tesculus calorornica
Coast Redwood- Sequoia sempervirens
However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24-inch boxed specimens may not be
available at the end of a project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of
construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60
days of the issuance of permits and evidence ofthat be provided to the planning
department.
AT 'rFIJ: SAPi lrlLIPPO Mi L, SOBL'Y ROAD, SARATOGA
Tree #2 has a value of $43,261 and the value of tree #27 is $6,394. The neighboring trees
#37 and #38 have valUeS of $10,606 and $34,308 respectively.
I suggest a combination bond equal to 30% ofth~ total value ofthe trees #2 and 27 and a
bond equal to 10% the value of all of the other trees to assure that adequate protection is
provided. Refund of these bonds should be predicated upon installation and maintenance
of the fences.
Respectfully submi
M/chael L. Bench, Associate
MLB/sl
Enclosures:
Tree Data Accumulation Charts
Map of Tree locations and Protective' Fencing
Tree Protection Before, During and After Consm~cfion
Protective Fencing
'Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies
' O ~
(~-~) sm"~s~a ~r~,'~ -oo~ ~"
(g-L) C]3U3AOO ~1'I00 .Loou,
(S-I,)AV03O
(g-I,) aOOM av--Ja
(g-I.) 3~Y3glO NMOS0 33~J.
(~-~)
(~) AJJ~C~d
J.HOi3/~A't3N3
~)N~IV~ NMO~IO
NOIJ.Y~IOJ~3~ NMO~I~)
ON~NNIH/
(e-c) ON~W a~rz~
(o~-z) g~v~ NO~uaNoo
(~-~)
(~) HJ.~3H
J..33d ~) ~I3.L3n'Yla
HGCI
m
0,.
(g-~) I:Ig. LYM SO=~gN
(~-&) gSV'-JS~O kiV'nOO.LC)Okl
(g-~) C~U~AO0 b'VTK)O .LOOU
(;-~.) OooM a4r'~a
(~-~.) ;~sv-Jg;O NMOt;O
(g-L) g..LO3gNI
HE(]
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services
PREPARED BY://~~ '
I
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2001/02 and 2002/03 Draft Budget Presentation
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Continue the budget study sessions.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The draft budget for Fiscal Years 2001/02 and 2002/03 was presented to the City Council on
May 2, focusing on summary data, highlights, changes, assumptions and revenues. The
presentation on Ma>, 16 will concentrate on expenditures. A public hearing wilLbe held on June
6 with final adoption of the budget scheduled for June 6.
Attached is the City Manager's budget message. This provides an executive summa_D., of the
revenue and expenditure plan for the next two fiscal years, staffing levels, comments on the
City's capital program, and highlights of significant plans and accomplishments.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None at this time
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
This would delay the budget review timeline, and potentially impact final adoption of the budget
by June 6.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Staff will return on June 6 to present the fmal budget for adoption.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
-None for the budget study sessions. The budget public h~arings in June will be appropriately
noticed.
Al?TACHMENTS:
Ci~37 Manager's Budget Message.
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE · SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 · (408) 868-1200
'~ ~'~' ~:~' COLqgCIL MEMBERS:
Incorporated October 22, 19~ Evan B~er
Stan Bogos~an
John Meha~ey
May l 0, 2001 N;ck Stre,t
Ann Waltonsmit~
Honorable Mayor, Members of the Ci~' Council
And Citizens of Saratoga
I am pleased to present the draft Budget document for the CiB' of Saratoga for the two fiscal
vears 2001/02 and 2002/03. The draft Budget makes the most of limited resources to best meet
the City Council objectives, operational requirements and expressed communi~, needs. Ihe draft
Budget is built upon a conservative set of assumptions for annual revenue ~owth and does not
assume that any' potential one-time revenue sources v~411 materialize if not yet committed or
guaranteed to the Ci~'. A few service level enhancements have been incorporated in prioriB'
areas identified by the City Council. Saratoga continues to support policies and practices intended
to maintain the Ci~"s financial integrity, such as contingency appropriations and fund balance
reserves.
The Ciw of Saratoga operates as a "limited sen'ice" Cie'. Certain public sen:ices such as fire
protection, schools and utilities pre-date incorporation and are provided by other'public agencies.
Sen'ices provided by the Ci5' effectively utilize and combine a small, dedicated workforce of Cis'
employees, with contract sen'ices obtained through numerous public agencies, private firms and
indMduals.
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND OUTLOOK
Within a close proximity to many businesses associated with the high technolo~' industD', Saratoga
is viewed as a desirable place to live and serves primarily as a residential community to the Silicon
Vallev. There is limited commercial or industrial activit3-' occurring vdthin the Ci¢"s boundaries.
Due to the communi~,'s residential character, the main measure of the City's economic condition is
based on service charges and, to a lesser extent, sales activiB,. Sen'ice charges from development
activity have been brisk for the last several years. Recently, sales taxes received primarily from
restaurants, retailers and food markets serving the local citizen_r3' have kept pace with the region's
economic ~owth. This is primarily due to the recent renovation of the Argonaut Center, one of the
major retail outlets in the City, in which two of the Ci~"s top five sales producers are located.
1 a
The region's strong economy over the past several years has begun to slow down recently.
Assessed valuations of real property has returned to the slower but still strong gro~xh which
Saratoga has historically experienced. Property tax apportionments to the City still account for
the largest single source of revenue to the City's General Fund. Motor Vehicle License Fees
remitted to the City by the State and other local taxes comprise significant portions of the
revenue base. These factors, coupled with the fiscal and organizational controls enacted by the
City, have placed the Ci~' in a stable risc:al condition, despite the national and regional economic
slowdowns. This trend is expected to continue throughout the next two fiscal years. .
CITY COUNCIL OBJECTIVES
The City Council has identified a number of objectives that have been incorporated in the final
Budget document: ~
· Renovation and expansion of the Saratoga Libra_D'
· Implementation of an economic revitalization and development program
· Options to expand the City's playfieds
· Development of a Heritage Orchard Preservation Plan
· Improvements and possible expansion of the Civic Center, including the Commu_nity Center
and the Senior Center.
· Development of Congress Springs Park
· Improvements to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
In the General Fund, revenues are expected to decrease from $8.6 million this current fiscal year
to S8.3 million in Fiscal Year 2001/02. The decrease is due primarily to one-time revenues
received in the current year, including the $110,820 from the CLEEP grant for public safety high
tech equipment and $96,366 for the Sheriff's' Office refund. Other funds are expected to remain
fairly constant throughout the budget cycle, except for one-time revenues from the sale of the
Lib:ary bonds in the current fiscal year, and grant revenues in the Streets and Roads Fund from
TEA, Measure B, FHWA and Caltrans.
Exl:.enditures in the General Fund are projected to decrease from approximately $6.1 million to
$6.0 million in Fiscal Year 2001/02. This is due to an increase in operating costs of
approximately $300,000, offset by a counterbalancing decrease in capital project costs of about
$400,000. The primary increases in operating costs are from the Police Sen'ices program and the
Parks and Open Spaces program. In other funds, significant expenditures are recommended for
various street projects, most of which are funded from federal and state revenues, for several park
development projects, largely funded from the Park Development fund with support from the
Ger..eral Fund, and the Saratoga Library.
lb
Summaries of fund balance projectiOns, revenues, expenditures, operating transfers, and
personnel levels are included in the dra~ Budget document, followed by individual budget pages
detailing the appropriations on each operating program.
Presented below are revenue and expenditure summaries.
Revenues
Fund
General Fund
Property Taxes $2,023,695 $2,096,398
Sales Taxes 1,263,528 1,263,500
Other Local Taxes 1,222,900 1,121,000
Franchise Fees 833,280 845,000
Motor Vehicle Fees 1,549,283 1,572,500
Refunds/Reimbursements 581,355 414,193
Interest 450,000 400,000
Other 674.181 556.600
Total General Fund $8,598,222 $8,269,191
Other Operating Funds
Streets & Roads Fund 3,916,434 3,552,354
Development Fund 1,867,000 1,616,000
Environmental Fund 552.096 563,613
Recreation Fund 696,000 733,000
Library Development Fund 15,000,000 0
Other Funds 1.675.722 2.018.413
Total Revenues
FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 FY 20002/03
Estimated Proposed Proposed
$32,305.474
$16.752.571
$2.570.513
1,263.500
1,121.000
857.000
1,596.100
118.827
400.000
551.100
$8,478,040
1,884,702
1,616.000
579,621
735,000
0
1.979.966
$15.273.329
i C
E__xpenditures
Fund
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
C->mmunity Development
Environmental Services
Recreation Sen'ices
Communi~, Services
Debt Service
Library Project
Capital Improvements
Total Expenditures
FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 FY 20002/03
Estimated Proposed Proposed
$2,531,799 $2,989,414 $3,001,774
3,120,050 3,214,062 3,366,174
3,537,672 3,520,416 3,627,257
1,158,929 1,315,612 1,369,227
857,808 969,128 668,351
771,605 834,731 864,387
635,195 682,526 493,827
279,030 873,644 1,023,454
0 1,000,000 15,000,000
3.814.495 19,876.203 O
$16,706,583
$34,275,736
$14.414,451
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
General Government
· The $200,000 contingency is budgeted for both fiscal years, as is the City's practice.
· All-Commission dinner is budgeted in the Ciw Council program budget..
· Funding for the legislative consultant is included in the City Manager's 5udget.
· ' The purchase of various equipment is recommended in the Equipment Operations budget.
· Facilities Maintenance Worker is requested to replace janitorial contract and enhance
building maintenance services.
· New recreation software for scheduling classes and facilities is programmed in the
Management Information Systems budget.
Public
·
SafeD'
In the Police Services program, expenditures have been increased over the current
contract by 5.5%. This includes the two additional traffic officers previously approved.
Sheltering services in the Animal Control program will be performed by the new Animal
Control of Silicon Valley JPA. Field services are included in the Integrated Solid Waste.
Management budget.
Public Works
,, In the Street Maintenance program, the Pavement Management Program is accelerated.
,, Included in the Parks/Open Space program is funding for trail maintenance, the Quarry.
Creek wetlands mitigation, and the Heritage Orchard, and an additional Parks
Maintenance Worker
ld
Community Development
Advance Planning includes funding for the General Plan advance planning study, and for
the reissuance of the Heritage Resources book.
· Zoning Administration includes the additional Planner that was previously approved in
February to keep pace with development activity.
· Inspection Services includes the additional Building Inspector approved in February.
Environmental Services
· A City-wide clean-up day by Green Valley Disposal is included in the Integrated Waste
Management budget, as well as increased costs associated with the Household Hazardous
Waste program. This program also includes animal control field services.
Recreation Services
· Revenues and expenditures in the Recreation Services and Teen Services programs are
budgeted at a higher level, because of an anticipated increase in demand for recreation
sen'ices. If the demand does not materialize, the expenses will be lower.
CommuniB' Support
· $15,000 in support to
SASCC and the $3,000 for facility maintenance of the Senior
Center is included in the Senior Services program, as usual.
· HCDA includes the program activities that the City Council recently approved, plus
carry-over funding from the previous year for individuals requiring financial assistance to
comply with the septic abatement program.
· The new Economic Development function is established in a separate program.
· Costs associated with the Hakone Gardens Park under the new lease agre.ement have been
established in a new program.
Debt Service
· Bonds for the existing LibraD- will be paid off in Fiscal Year 2001/02. Debt service on
the new LibraD' bonds will begin in that same year.
Capital Projects
New capital projects will be discussed in a separate process, beginning in July after the operating
budget is completed. Included in the operating budget is funding for existing capital projects
which the City Council has already approved. The major existing projects for Fiscal Year
2001/02 are highlighted below:
· Completion of the Quito Road Bridge replacement.
· Saratoga-Sunnyvale road enhancements
· Park Development projects
· Completion of the Vessing Road improvements.
· Cox Avenue railroad crossing upgrade
· E1 Camino Grande/Monte Vista Drive
· Renovation and expansion of the Saratoga Libra~' for up to $14 million in Fiscal. Year
2001/02.
I e
STAFFING
A Park Maintenance Leadworker is requested in the draft Budget to assist in supervising the Park
Maintenance staff,, to enhance the appe~xance and safety of City parks and landscape medians.
This position will provide for day-to-day supervision of pa/'k maintenance crews and for quality
control issues. An additional Facility Maintenance Worker is requested to replace the contract
jan::tofial and maintenance services and to better serve the City H.all, Community Center, and
Serdor Center facilities. Contract janitorial services have provided widely varying levels of
service. This position will also provide the extra staff presence requested by the Senior Center
and required by numerous evening meetings in the Civic Center Complex. The Office Specialist
in the Human Resources Division, cun'ently at three-fourths time, is requested to increase to full
time, due to an increase in the Human Resources workload. At the City Council's direction, two
positions that were previously classified as "limited term" have been reclassified to regular
positions, leaving two positions remaining in the limited-term classification. These additions
and reclassifications bring the total City staffing level to 59.00 regular full-time equivalents
(FTE) and 2.0 limited term FTE.
The limited-term positions include the Public Safety Officer in the Code Enforcement program,
and the Economic Development Coordinator. The limited-term employees receive all benefits of
regular employees, but with less long-term job security. It is requested that the Public Safety
Officer be granted an extension of the limited-term status for another year term until June 30,
2002. Funding for this position is from the State of California Supplemental Law Enforcement
grant. If the grant is discontinued at any time, there would be no funding for the position. The
Economic Development Coordinator has a two-year term expiring in May, 2003: '
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
As discussed above, new capital projects will be discussed in a separate process, beginning in
July after the operating budget has been completed. Included in the operating budget is funding.
for existing capital projects which the City Council has already approved.
FIVE-YEAR REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS
The Five-Year Revenue and Expenditure Projections will be distributed at the May 16 City
Council budget study session.
SUMMARY
The final Budget document provides programmatic service levels that are within the City's
financial means while reserving funds for capital projects, meeting debt service obligations, and:
pro,riding adequate reserves and contingency levels. The City's healthy financial condition and
If
federal and state funding allows for the consideration of a greater financial commitment to the
City's Capital Improvement program including the Saratoga Library, and various street and park
projects. Program and sen, ice enhancements in the Development Services, Economic
Development, Street Maintenance and Parks and Open Space programs are recommended to
address the high level of development-related activity, increase recreational and park faciliD'
usage, and meet the growing demand for programs.
Sincerely,
Dave Anderson
Ci~' Manager
lg
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works
PREPARED BY: ~ ~A.q,~,~
/
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MAN'AGER: ~..~~ --
DEPT HEAD: ~~- ~_
SUBJECT: Proposal for preparation of a Design and En~neering Services for the Saratoga-
Sunn,wale Road Improvement Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Approve proposal from Greg G. lng & Associates in the amount ofS226,375 for design and
en~neering sen'ices for the Saratoga-Sunn~,ale Road Improvement Project and authorize the Ci~,
Manager execute a Professional Sen'ices Agreement for the same.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Backeround
When Highway 85 was completed in 1994, Caltrans pursued relinquishment of Sarfitoga-Sunnyvale
Road (old State Route 85) fi'om Highway 9 to Prospect Road (roughly 2.5 miles). A~er len~hy
negotiations, the City agreed to accept responsibiliB, for the road including $2 million dollars from
the State to perform needed infrastructure improvements.
Recently, several Gateway Task Force meetings have been held, with interested residents and
business owners, to discuss the future development of the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Project (the
Gateway Task Force was created in 1996 to develop a Specific Plan for the area). A consensus was
reached from the Task Force using the ofi~nal ideas developed in 1996 as a template for the nature
and type of improvements for the project (see attached Gateway Specific Plan Implementation
Measures). The Task Force decided to move forward separately with the design of the public
improvements, while continuing to work with the Community Development Department to
complete the businessffesidential design guidelines for the Gateway Specific Plan.
Discussion
Over the past few months, staffhas been working on the retention of a qualified design consultant
for the project. The Ci~' received a total of five design proposals. Three equally qualified firms
were chosen and asked to submit cost proposals, which are summarized as follows:
Greg Ing and Associates:
Mark Thomas & Co., Inc.:
A-N West, Inc.:
$226,375
$261,132
$521,000
G~eg lng & Associate, who submitted the low cost proposal, has assembled a team which includes
De, sign Studio West, a nationally recogrdzed planning and engineering design finn, as well as local
en.,qneering firm, Allied Engineering, Inc.
It is therefore recommended that Council approve a proposal fi.om Greg G. lng & Associates, who
is currently the City's landscape architect for the Congress Springs Park Improvement Project and
who are developing the Azule Park Concq~tual Plan, in the amount of $226,375 for design and
en~,dneering sen, ices for the Saratoga-Surrayvale Road Improvement Project and authorize the Cit3'
Mtx~ager execute a Professional Services Agreement for the same.
Design work is scheduled to commence as soon as an agreement is executed and the project will be
ready for bid by spring of 2002 with construction commencing soon after. A Gateway Task Force
meeting will be scheduled towards the end of the month to inlzoduce the design consultants and to
move forward with the public input process for the project.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Funding for this work is programmed in the adopted budget in C.I.P. No. 9201, Saratoga-Sunns~'ale
Road Improvements, Account No. 4010 (Contract Services).
CC,NSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The proposal would not be approved and the project would not move forward at this time.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FO LLOW UP ACTION(S):
A professional services agreement will be prepared staff and executed by the City Manager.
.&DVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Noti~ng additional.
2 of 3
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Cost Proposal for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Improvement Project.
2. Gateway Specific Plan Implementation Measures.
3 of 3
GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN TASK FORCE
Implementation Measures
Traffic Control/Circulation
1. Study the concept of signalizing Seagull Way intersection. Evaluate possible
signalization of Kirkmont Drive intersection.
2. Consider reducing the posted speed limit in the Gateway Corridor to 35 miles per
hour.
3. Develop plan to locate or relocate bus shelter at appropriate locations along
Gateway Corridor. Ensure that bus shelters are accessible to disabled individuals.
Roads and Right of Way Improvements
Develop a plan to install median islands along length of Gateway Corridor to
provide landscaping, reduce vehicle speeds and create safe, logically placed left
turn pockets into properties.
2. Maintain adequate in,ess and e~ess to commercial centers via left turn pockets
in median islands.
o
Develop plan to install curb and gutter along length of Gateway Corridor.
Consider "chokers' to better control vehicle speed and increase pedestrian safety.
Reevaluate street parking plan. Look at "woonerfs" to increase parki~g and
reduce vehicle speeds.
4. Develop plan to underground existing utilities in the Gateway Corridor. Continue
to under~ound new utilities per current City Code.
5. Develop plan to install distinctive pedestrian crosswalks at Seagull Way,
Kirkmont Drive and Prospect Road intersections.
6. Develop a continuous dedicated bike and pedestrian pathways on both sides of the
Gateway Corridor.
Develop pedestrian trail or other limited public access to Calabasas Creek area
directly adjacent to the Gateway Corridor. Consider installing park benches and
garbage cans along trail. *This item will need to be reviewed by the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
o
Consider installing a major monument in the median and appropriate entw
signage at Prospect Road. Provide landscaping to compliment S.W. comer, such
as planting Oaks or Redwoods. Explore water based landscaping as a possibility.
9. Replace existing railroad crossing with smooth surface.
Building Design*
1. Encourage commercial, retail and professional office development or
redevelopment.
2. Encourage the use of common, natural looking building materials.
3. Promote development and redevelopment that incorporates a traditional small
town feel.
Ensure that sensitive commercial/professional/retail development occurs in areas
adjacent to residential uses by utilizing existing Design Review public hearing
process.
*Items 1-4 are planning issues, and need to be addressed by the Community
Development Director James Walgren.
Landscape and Lighting
1. Develop a landscape plan for planting in median strip and along
pedestriawbicycle pathway to include appropriate street furniture such as benches
and trash receptacles.
Develop a plan to locate mature trees on median strip and along street..Right of
Way. Trees should be spaced so as to maintain the visibility of businesses along
street. Consider permanent, low wattage, decorative white lighting within the tree
canopies.
3. Establish street tree program to plant, maintain and replace trees along the
Gateway Corridor. Consider the creation of a Landscape district.
Develop a plan to install decorative light standards along sidewalk side of corridor
to light paths, parking areas and businesses with pathway lighting directed
downwards.
5. Focus median landscaping on area immediately north of railroad tracks.
o
Establish a group of citizens/business and property owners to encourage
appropriate landscaping and upgrades on private parcels in the Gateway Corridor.
* This item involves planning issues and needs to be addressed by Community
Development Director James Walgren.
Signs*
1.
Develop monument sign program for the Gateway Corridor. Monuments to
display street numbers, name of center and, if feasible, the names of businesses.
2. Develop a plan to locate monument sig-ns along the public ROW at shopping
center driveways.
3. Develop design, standards, including a Gateway logo, for monument signs.
4. Evaluate and update as necessary,, existing signage and sign pro,ams of each
commercial center.
5. Develop special sign regulation for the Gateway Area.
6. Limit but do not prohibit neon and other window signage.
*Community Development Director James Walden will address items 1-6.
Miscellaneous*
1. Reconcile street number anomalies (i.e. odck'even) along Saratoga-Sunn~wale
Road.
Consider new shorter street name for Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to avoid
confusion with Saratoga Avenue.
*Community-Development Director James Walgren will address items 1 & 2.
Gr'e~ G. ln~ &Ass°ci'M
l~ndsc~.4~ctmectu~ #2444
1585 The Mmciedz, Suite 201
San Jose, California 95126
408.947.7090
Fax 408.947.7099
May 8, 2001
Mr. John Cherbone
Public Works Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Improvement Project, Saratoga, California
Dear Mr. Cherbone:
In response to your letter dated May 1, 2001 requesting a cost proposal for protressional
services. We at Greg G. lng & Associates (GIA) consider it to be an honor'to be chosen
as one of the three finalist in the selection process. Enclosed is our cost proposal based
upon our proposal dated March 16, 2001.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Should you have any
questions regarding the content of this proposal please do not hesitate to give me a call.
We are looking forward to working with you in the near future.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg G.,.h/g & Associates
L~t~Ydsca~ ~rchi;ect #2066
MAY 8, 2001
SARATOGA-SLqNNYVALE ROAD IMPROVEMEN'I' PROJECT
For The Ci~' of Saratoga
COST PROPOSAL:
(As Related to our Proposal dated March 16, 2001)
Based upon a Budget of 2.8 million dollars
Description of Professional Services:
1.0 Project Organization and Schedule
Kikuchi 20 hrs. x S137.50
InvemoD' and Analysis
2.0
S.."750.00
3.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Design
3.1
3.2
3.3
Aerial Photo Mapping Topographical
Background research of existing information
Visual documentation of the areas
Analysis ofadjacem land uses
2.4.1 Meeting w/staffto review, information
Kikuchi ' 80 hrs. x S 137.50
Wade 32 hrs. x $125. O0
Topographical Part A
Topographical Part B
S 11,000.00
S 4.000.00
5 18,000.00
S 15,000.00
Development
Develop several conceptual design concepts based upon research.
3.1.1 Meeting w/Staffto review design concepts
3.1.2 Community,' Meeting
Kikuchi 80 hrs. x S 137.50 Sll. O00. O0
Wade 40 hrs. x S 125.00 $ 5.000.00
Preliminary Design
3.2. l Character and identi~- studies for the gateways and corridor
3.2.2 Refinement of the conceptual designs into a preliminary, design.
3.2.3 Meeting w/staffto review conceptual preliminaD, plan.
3.2.4 Community meeting
Kikuchi 80 hrs. x S 137.50
Wade 40 hrs. x S 125. O0
S 11,000. o0
S 5,000.00
Final Development Plan
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.2.7
Establish the identity, and character of the corridor
Further refinement of the preliminary, design into the final design.
Meeting wistaffto review final design
3.2.8
3.2.9
Communiw meeting
Presentation to CiD' Council
Kikuchi 90 hrs. x $137.50
Wade 40 hrs. x $125. O0
$12,375.00
$ 5,000.00
4.0
Construction Documents
4.1 Engineering Plans
DSW 706 hrs. x S 85.00
$ 60.000.00
4.2
Landscape Architectural Plans
Kikuchi 240 hrs. x S 137.50
Wade 200 hrs. x $125. O0
S 33.000.00
$ 25.000.00
4.3 Bid and Specifications
Kikuchi 60 hrs. x $137.50 $ 8.250.00
Total: $226,3 75. O0
5.0
Project Manage~nent/Site Observation,q:ield Staking
6¥ot Included in this ContracO
Will be determined after construction documents and specifications are completed.
ADDITIONAL SERYqCES:
Both oanies, prior to proceeding with work, will perform any additional services beyond the scope of
this a~eement and our proposal dated March 16, 2001 only under written approval. Any revisions to
the final desi~s after they have been approved will be considered additional services and will be billed
on a time and material basis in accordance with the attached hourly rate schedule.
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
Sen'ices performed will be billed monthly as percentage of work is completed. All
invoices are due upon receipt. Upon 14 days after invoice date, the invoice will be
considered past due and accrue interest at the rate of 1-1/2% per month or 18%
annually. All work will stop after 14 days past due.
Direct expenses are in addition to the compensation for professional ser¥ices, and
shall include the actual expenditures made by GIA in the interest of the project at a
cost plus 30%. Direct expenses include the following: Blueprints, photocopies, CAD
plots, postage and shipping, fax and long distance phone calls, film, mileage at .46
mile, traveling expenses, lodging, etc.
o
Should either party commence any litigation hereto, the prevailing party in such
litigation shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs as determined by the
court of jurisdiction.
4. Limitation of liability is the compensation paid to Greg G. Ing& Associates.
5. ."Landscape architects are licensed by the State of California."
TIME FRAME OR SCHEDULE:
The estimated time fi.me to complete the landscape design will take appro 'ximately nine to
ten (9) to (10) months fi'om the issuances of the design contract. Upon the signing of the
contract Greg G. Ing& Associates will determine a specific project timetable at the
commencement of the project with city staff.
Greg G. Ing& Associates takes no responsibility for the client's time to make decisions upon
revieuAng plans submitted for client's approval and direction.
Greg G. lng & .&sSociates upon being selected will provide the City of Saratoga with all
insurance certificates prior to execution of the contract.
This proposal will be honored for 60 days from the date it was prepared after it shall become
null and void.
Respect~lly submitted.
!
/"' Stev~n J. ~uch.
Landscape Architect ~2066
Greg G. lng & Associates
SCHEDULE OF HOURLY RATES
Effective from January 1, thru December 31, 2001
The following rates are applicable professional services to hourly rate contracts,
extra work items, and per diem accounts: -
Classification
Steven J. Kikuchi or Greg G. lng
Project Manager
Ron Wade
Senior Landscape Architect
Kathy Strickland
Associate Landscape Architect
Computer Technician
Clerical
Hourly Rate
$137.50
$125.00
$ 115.00
$ 85.00
$ 65.00
ALI. lED
EN;INEERIII;G
COMPANY
2001 C. BAR~ RAT~ 8CJ~DC,/[3:
A. liOUPJ_y F~!r - OFFIC~ WORK
Principal En~ineer/Englneering Hanager
Senior Enqineet
Land Surveyor
Prc~ect Engineer/Survey Coordinator
Asslstan~ Engineer
Computer/Design Draftsma~
Senior Draftsman
Draf:sman
HOLiLy FEES - FIELD WOR~
2-Person Field Party
3-Person Field Party
Field Engineer/inspector
$i00.00
92.00
83.00
72.00
63.00
60.00
55.00
50.00
190.00
66.00
ReDroductions and other expL~.ses
Other Ou:s£de :har~es a~/o: Servi:es
Transportation
CADD Opera:or
GPa Survey Equipment
In-House Reprod~ctlo~s
22 x 34 Xerox Vellum
22 x 34 Xerox Bond
22 x 34 Bluelines
i1X 17 Xerox Bond
!! x 8.~ Xerox Bond
Cost . 15%
Cost + 10%
$0.335 per mile
$8/hr.
$35.C0 per hour
$.00 ea
1.So ea.
1.50 ea.
.20 ea.
.i0 ea.
DMnM G~tz
Cone,~tir~ C~v;I EnMnee~
8uwevc~ & La~l I~nee~e