Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-05-2001 City Council Agenda Packet
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 OPEN SESSION-5:50P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM - 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE COMMISSION INTERVIEWS 5:50 p.m. Eric A. Braclmer Public Safety Commission 6:00 p.m. Ronny Santana Public Safety Commission CALL MEETING TO ORDER - 6:1 0 P.M. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS KEEP ONE YEAR ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:15 P.M. .Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Manager CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (2 potential cases) REGULAR 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 August 31, 2001) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City 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. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Foundation CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. Appointment of Heritage Preservation Commission Member Recommended action: Approve Resolution of Appointment. 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 (3) minutes. 2A. Approve Council Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting - July 18, 2001 Recommended action: Approve minutes. 2B. ~2C. Review of Check Register Recommended action: Approve check register. Review planning Commission Action Minutes Regular Meeting.-August 22, 2001 Recommended action: Note and file. 2D. Authorization to Mayor to execute City Manager Employment Agreement Recommended action: Authorize execution of agreement. 2E. Claim of John Yfantis; Claim No. GL-052558 Recommended action: Authorize settlement. 2F. Authorization to City Manager to award contract to National Grant Services for Grant Writing Services Recommended action: Authorize execution of contract. 2 2G. Authorization to City Manager to award contract to Higgins Assocites for Speed Zone Survey Recommended action: Authorize execution of contract. 2H. Authorization to City Manager to award contract to Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District for Storm Water System Protection Inspection Services Recommended action: Authorize execution of contract. 21. Saratoga Preschool Playground Equipment Purchase Recommended action: Approve purchase and adopt resolution appropriating funds. 2J. Authorization to City Manager to execute agreement with the Social Security Administration and Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) Recommended action: Authorize execution of agreement and adopt resolution. 2K. Adopt Resolution authorizing the Destruction of Certain City Records Recommended action: Adopt resolution. 2L. Authorization for payment to PacBell for Service Connections for the Temporary Library and approve amendment to agreement with Duran & Venables. Recommended action: Authorize payment and amend agreement. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may 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 approval ofDR-01-006, UP-01-001 & TUP-01-003; 14380 Saratoga Avenue Applicant: Saratoga Fire District Appellant: F.AC.T. Recommended action: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. OLD BUSINESS Azule Park Master Plan Recommended action: Approve master plan. Heritage Orchard Master Plan Recommended action: Approve master plan. o Saratoga Arts Commission Recommended action: Adopt resolution. League of California Cities Voting Delegate Recommended action: Amend voting delegate appointment. NEW BUSINESS Saratoga Fire District Request for Boundary Line Adjustment Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Village Decorative Lighting Guidelines and Funding Recommended action: Approve guidelines and authorize funding. 10. Authorization to City Manager to Execute Radio Interoperability Agreement Recommended action: Authorize execution of agreement. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Planning Commission Baker Parks and Recreation Commission Streit Finance Commission Mehaffey Library Commission Bogosian Public Safety Commission Bogosian Heritage Preservation Commission Waltonsmith Youth Commission Waltonsmith Gateway Task Force Mehaffey Library Expansion Committee Bogosian CITY COUNCIL ITEMS OTHER CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Tide II) 4 SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS September 8, 2001 September 19, 2001 October 3, 2001 October 9, 2001 October 17, 2001 November 7, 2001 November21, 2001 Ground Breaking Ceremony - Saratoga Community Library Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue .Saratoga, California Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Study Session - Civic Center Master Plan Adult Day Care Center Saratoga, California Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue · Saratoga, California Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 1:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 5 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 ORIGINATING DE~_T.' _~?anager PREPARED ~-~Y:~'--'~ ............. 'x SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: Commission Interviews for Public Safety Commission RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council conduct interviews. REPORT SUMMARY: The following people have been scheduled for interviews: 5:50 p.m. Eric Bracher Public Safety Commission 6:00 p.m. Ronny Santana Public Safety Commission There is one (1) vacancy to be filled on the Public Safety Commission to fill an unexpired term of Paige McClellan. The terms for this one vacancy will expire on April 1, 2004. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Appointments will not be made to the Public Safety Commission. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Adopt resolutions and administer Oaths of Office at scheduled Council Meeting. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Applications of the above named applicants. 2 of 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING ~t~PT~_Manager CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Appointment of Heritage Preservation Commission Member and Oath of Office. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council approve thc attached resolution appointing Phylis Ballingall to thc Heritage Preservation Commission. The terms for this commission will expire on 04/01/04. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is the resolution appointing Phylis Ballingall to the Heritage Preservation Commission. The Oath of Office will be administered and signed by the Commissioner. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Appointments will not be made to the Heritage Preservation Commission. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Update City's Official Roster. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the Council Agenda. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Resolution of Appointment Attachment B - Oath of Office RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOINTING ONE MEMBER TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, a vacancy was created on the Heritage Preservation Commission resulting from the resignation of Jill Hunter; and WHEREAS, a notice of vacancy was posted, applications were received, interviews have been conducted, and it is now appropriate to fill the vacancy: NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves that the following appointment were made for term expiring April 1, 2004, PHYLIS BALLINGALL The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 5th day of September 2001 by the following vote: AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mayor Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, Phylis Ballingall, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. Phylis Ballingall, Member Heritage Preservation Commission Subscribed and sworn to before me This 5th day of September, 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: City CounCil Minutes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting: Study Session/Regular Meeting -July 18, 2001 REPORT SUMMARY: N/A FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Retain minutes for legislative history. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Minutes/July 18, 2001 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 18, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in a scheduled Study Session on July 18, 2001 at the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Vice Mayor Streit called the_Adjourned City Council meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Councilmember Stan Bogosian, Mayor John Mehaffey Dave Anderson, City Manager Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Tom Sullivan, Director of Community Development The following Planning Commissioners were present: PRESENT Cynthia Barry, Mike Garakani, Jill Hunter, Ema Jackman, Li'sa Kurasch, George Roupe, Ruchi Zutshi ABSENT: None Mayor Mehaffey welcomed the Planning Commission. HOUSING ELEMENT Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that Jeff Goldman, Consultant/Parsons Harland Bartholomew & Associates Inc, would present the Administrative Draft of the Housing Element. Director Sullivan pointed out that Mr. Goldman would address the following topics: · Approval process that the Housing and Community Development Department will use to review the Housing Element. · State of California mandates and regulations. · Issues related to timing, the "numbers" and public participation. City Council Minutes July 18, 2001 Director Sullivan noted that the Administrative Draft of the Housing Element contain the methodology of how the City can meet the "Fair Share" assigned to it from Association of Bay Area Govemments(ABAG). Jeff Goldman, Consultant/Parsons Harland Bartholomew & Associates Inc, summarized the purpose of a HouSing Element and the issues he is attempting to address. Mr. Goldman explained that State Law requires that a housing element identify adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards for a variety of housing types meet the community's housing goals. Where the inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels the City Housing Element must contain a program to show how the City will provide for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low and low-income households. Mr. Goldman explained that some communities with conditions similar to Saratoga have successfully used residential-commercial mixed-use programs to show how adequate sites will be made available at suitable densities to meet low and moderate-income housing needs. Under a mixed-use strategy, residential projects are permitted in specified commercial zones, either independently or in conjunction with commercial development, at sufficiently high densities to meet the "adequate sites" provision of state law. Mr. Goldman explained that there are two approaches to a mixed-use strategy: 1) designate specific commercial zones or sites on which residential uses are permitted with appropriate development standards, and 2) designate a mixed-use or residential overlay zone, with separate development standards, that can be applied to commercial zones throughout the jurisdiction. Mr. Goldman explained that the Saratoga Housing Element is based on five strategic goals: 1) accommodating the City's fair share of the region's housing needs, 2) promoting the construction of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households, 3)assisting low-income property owners in improving substandard dwelling units, 4)preserving .the current stock of affordable housing in the City, and 5) assuring non-discrimination in housing. Mr. Goldman explained that once the draft Housing Element has identified all of the City's needs it is sent to the Housing and Community Development Department for review. The HCDD will in mm issue an Advisory Opinion Letter whether the Element does or does not comply with state law. The HCDD has 60 days by law to respond. The final step is to · adopt the Housing Element, send it back to the HCDD who will issue a final opinion. 2 Mr. Goldman briefly explained the five goals of the Housing Element and how the city would achieve each one. Goal 1 - To accommodate the CiW's fair share of the Bay Area Regional Housine Needs for all income groups. This goal can be achieved by designating sufficient vacant land and/or sites with re-use potential to accommodate the City's allocation under the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The City can accommodate the total number of dwelling units allocated by ABAG under the RHND through a combination of vacant residential land, residential or mixed-use projects on vacant commercial land, addition of dwelling units over or behind existing commercial uses throughout commercial districts in Saratoga, approval of second units, and dwelling units constructed or apprOved by permit since January 1, 1999. To meet the needs of the very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, however, several zoning changes will needed to encourage the production of affordable housing. Councilmember Baker pointed out that the original Measure G prohibits increasing the density on a particular piece of land. Mr. Goldman responded that according to state law allowing new secondary units is not a zoning change; furthermore state law may overrule Measure G. City Attorney Taylor commented that Measure G did not change any of the existing provisions in the City's General Plan, it just reaffirmed and readopted those provisions, so any place that secondary units were allowed under the General Plan they could continue to be allowed, there is nothing in the language in Measure G that would preclude the City from implementing the General Plan in a manner that allowed there to be secondary units. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Goldman how he would define a secondary unit. Mr. Goldman responded that under state law it is defined as any separate habitable space that would meet the definitiOn of a dwelling unit. A secondary trait typically has a. cooking facility, a separate entrance, and physically separates from main residence. Commissioner Kurasch questioned how the City would make sure that these secondary units are used as rentals. Mr. Goldman noted that the City would have to set up a monitoring system. Muriel Mahrer, 13577 Myren Drive, questioned if existing illegal secondary units would be , made legal. Mr. Goldman responded that there is nothing to prevent an illegal unit obtaining a permit to legalize the unit. Director Sullivan added that at a Council retreat in May 2001, there were discussions regarding an amnesty program for secondary units. There would be minimal inspections; just to make sure the unit is safe to live in and trade the owner would have to make it a low-income rental unit. Vic Monia, 14665 Granite Way, expressed concern that if secondary units are legalized would it affect the homeowners tax base, would their property value go up increasing their property tax. Mr. Goldman responded that the County Assessors Office would have to determine if a reassessment is needed. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the of the property had to live on the property. Mr. Goldman responded that state law and the City's ordnance on secondary units states that one of the units has to be owner occupied. Meg Caldwell, 13906 Ravenwood, noted that she supports an amnesty program but must be careful on how the City fi.ames the program. Property owners will be hesitant to come forward for permits if their units are labeled illegal. Betty Feldhym, 20841 Franklin Avenue, suggested the City of Saratoga contact the Town of Los Gatos because a few years ago they had a successful anmesty program. Ms. Caldwell asked if residential overlay was consider in other zoning districts such as institutional and quasi public property, for example Civic Center West Valley College Churches etc., perhaps these places could be used as employee living. Mr. Goldman responded that in theory you could apply this concept to those types of properties but it would be up to the Council to consider that option. Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goal 2. Goal 2 - Encourage the construction of housing and affordable to lower and moderate-income households and increase affordable housing options. This goal can be achieved by' increasing the supply if affordable housing and housing options in Saratoga to house additional households and families eaming less than 120% of the Santa Clara County median income. The City will amend the Zoning Code to implement state law requirements at least 25 percent density bonus for any residential project in which at least 10 percent of the units are affordable to very low-income household or 20 percent of the units are affordable to low-income households or 50 percent of the units are designed for seniors. Commissioner Kurasch suggested an additional incentive, to offer inclusionary zoning. Commissioner Kurasch explained the City could require a minimum percent of low and moderate-income housing in all new housing developments or subdivisions or require a percent fee in lieu of building affordable units. This in mm would not require a density percent increase on projects and would allow flexibility in building a fund or making sure there are definitive number of low income units for the future. Mr. Goldman responded that many communities have adopted inclusinary-zoning ordinances, which goes hand in hand with density bonuses and other incentives programs. In addition, Director Sullivan explained that with the completion of the Odd Fellows expansion project the City will be able negotiate with the owners in order to count a small number of units within Phase I and in Phase II all of the single unit apartments will be counted towards meeting the numbers of the Regional. Housing Needs Determination. Vice Mayor Streit asked if whether or not the ten artist studios at Villa Montalvo would count towards the City's RHND number. Director Sullivan responded that there are ten artist units and a caretaker's cottage; all eleven should qualify towards the RHND. Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goal 3. Goal 3 - Assist lower-income homeowners in maintaining their homes. This goal can be achieved by eliminating substandard housing conditions in Saratoga through financial assistance to low-income homeowners who are unable to properly maintain or repair their homes. The City will also continue to provide housing rehabilitation assistance to homeowners earning 80 percent or less than the Santa Clara County median income through the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP). Councilmeml}er Waltonsmith asked if within this program could the city provide financial support to nonprofit groups who provide affordable housing. Mr. Goldman responded yes. For example, Director Sullivan noted that Council would be considering making a contribution to the Housing Trust Fund later this evening. Mr. Goldman continued to exPlain Goal 4. Goal 4 - Preserve existing affordable rental housing. This goal can be achieved by: a) monitohng compliance with state and federal tenant and public notice requirements prior to any change in funding or ownership status, b) provide financial assistance for property maintenance and improvements, or provide assistance in obtaining state and/or federal funding for property maintenance and improvements, c) identify one or more non-profit entities interested in the right of refusal should one or more of the properties become available for sale. Provide financial assistance, or assist the non-profit in obtaining state or federal fimds for acquisition and preservation as affordable rental housing, d) require that any financial assistance is tied to a minimum 30-year affordability covenant binding on all current and future property owners during the effective time period. Cynthia Berry, Chair/Planning Commission, noted that recently an application came before the Commission where there were two structures on the property, both were rental units and the applicant wanted to make it into a single-family house. Chair Berry asked in such conversions, should the City require a property owner keep a secondary unit on the property. Mr. Goldman responded that the primary intent of this program was to preserve existing rental development that were subsidized by state and federal funds in order to keep them affordable. Goal 5 Promote equal .housing oppormni_ty for all Saratoga residents. The City encouraging fair housing practices by cooperating with non-profit housing and citizen organizations can achieve this goal. The City will designate a Fair Housing Coordinator to - monitor and coordinate fair housing activities in the City. The City will also amend the Zoning Code to designate appropriate zones for the location of homeless and transitional housing facilities. John Mallory, Saratoga resident, asked if at the end of five years will the City have another requirement from the state to comply with. Mr. Goldman responded that Housing Elements have to be updated every five years. Marge Bunyard, President/ League of Women Voters, thanked the Council and Mr. Goldman for their efforts to designate affordable housing. Vice Mayor Streit thanked Mr. Goldman for his presentation. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION AT 6:00 P.M IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative ConferenCe Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (2 potential cases.) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken. Vice Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and requested Lode Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit Councilmember Stan Bogosian, Mayor John Mehaffey Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attomey REPORT OF CITY CI,ERK Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Lode Tinfow, Assistant City Manager John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst Ray Galindo, Accounting Supervisor ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JULY 18, 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the', agenda for the meeting of July 18, 2001 was properly posted on July 13, 2001. Vice Mayor Streit announced that with the consensus of the City Council he would like to add art emergency item to tonight's agenda. Vice Mayor Streit reported that Don Whetstone recently sen't the City Council a letter suggesting that the City consider a Saratoga Safety Plaza Center, which would consist of the Sheriff's Department, Saratoga Fire District, and a park. WALTONSMITH/BAKER'MOVED TO ADD AN AGENDA ITEM IN ORDER TO DISCUSS A CITY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person spoke at tonight's meeting: Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittddge Road, commended City Manager Anderson for his efforts in the recen'I approval of the Saratoga Fire District Boundary Drop agreement. Mr. Fan'ell explained the Saratoga Fire Districts second alarm fire response and pointed out the inadequacies. Mr. Farrel'l noted that he has heard that the City Council has been lobbied about a Saratoga Safety Plaza Center. Mr. Farrell noted he fully supports the concept and suggested the Council put an advisory measure on the ballot to see if all residents of Saratoga agree on such a center. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None Vice Mayor Streit noted that it was not the appropriate time to begin the public hearing. Vice Mayor Streit requested that the Council move to Item 8. Consensus of the City Council to move to Item 8. 7 OLD BUSINESS 8. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and authorize execution of contract. Jon Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone noted that the report the City Council received consist of two parts. First, are the result of the pavement survey conducted by the City's consulting contractor, Harris & Associates and the second is the Cooperative Agreement with the City of Cupertino. Director Cherbone explained that the survey result provides information on the City's current pavement network inventory; current network conditions, maintenance recommendations, and budget scenarios. Director Cherbone reported that the current overall condition of the City's streets are rated "Very Good" corresponding to an average Pavement Condition Index of 70 out of 100-point scale. Director Cherbone explained that the agreement with the City of Cupertino is for Prospect Road Paving-from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to Union pacific Railroad crossing. The estimate fro this work is $125,150.00. The City of Cupertino is in the process of bidding this work, and the work should begin in August 2001. Director Cherbone noted that Mark Martin/Harris & Associates was here tonight to give the Council a brief summary of the survey and a ten year budget and conditions scenarios on the City's street system. Mark Martin/Harris & Associates, briefly explained the reason behind a pavement management program and what pavement management is. · Pavement Inventory · Surface Inspections · Condition Calculation/Score · Treatment Decision Tree · Needs Analysis · Budget Scenario Analysis · Historical Treatments Mr. Martin explained the composition of the City's street mileage as follows: · Network - 135 · Arterial- 19 · Collector- 23 · Residential - 93 Mr. Martin reported that 86% of the City's streets are in "very good" or "good" range Mr. Martin reviewed the budget needs for the City at $26 million 10-year need, which is about $2.6 million per year. Mr. Martin explained that if this budget need were followed it would address backlog and average condition to 86 PCI. Vice Mayor Streit thanked Mr. Martin for coming tonight. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT CITYWIDE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CUPERTINO. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS o APPROVE RESOLUTION OF CONFIRMATION OF REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEEDS AND BRUSH ABATEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-047 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEED AND BRUSH ABATEMENT CHARGES Marty Hicks, County Fire Marshall's Office, presented staff report. Mr. Hicks explained that 36 properties in Saratoga were issued weed abatement notices in November 2000. Mr. Hicks noted that twelve property owners requested that the County provide abatement. The total cost for the County to abate these parcel this year totaled $29,555.27. Mr. Hicks explained that in order for the County to recover this cost, it is necessary for the City to adopt a resolution confirming the assessments and directing the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on the property tax bill. Vice Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF WEED AND BRUSH ABATEMENT CHARGES MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF LL-00-005 (517-23- 021AND517-22-111)-15480 PEACH HILL ROAD; APPLICANT: HUSAIN/KHAN APPELLANT: HUSAIN/KHAN/GIBERSON STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Richard Taylor, City Attomey, announced that he must recused himself from this public hearing due to a conflict of interest. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that the Planning Commission granted a Negative Declaration for the lot Line Adjustment on a 6-0 vote and denied the Lot Line Adjustment on a tie vote of 3 to 3. The City code requires that in the case of split vote the matter shall be agendized and voted upon at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission at which a quorum is present, unless, within ten days after the date on which the split vote is taken, the applicant files an appeal to the City Council, in which event, the split vote shall be deemed a f'mal denial by the Planning Commission of the motion. Director Sullivan explained that the Applicant has appealed the denial of the Lot Line Adjustment. In a separate action, neighbors, Alan and Meg Giberson appealed the Planning Commission action, which granted the Negative Declaration. Director Sullivan noted that staff recommends conducting the public hearing and grant the appeal which will overturn the Planning Commission action denying the Lot Line Adjustment and deny the appeal of the Planning Commission action granting the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Director Sullivan explained that at the May 9, 2001 Planning Commission meeting the Applicant requested a Lot Line Adjustment to allow an existing lot line to move approximately 295 feet northerly between two existing parcels with a slope greater that 20%. An existing dwelling located at 15480 peach Hill Road straddles the lot line. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to place existing dwelling on a single parcel. As long as the existing dwelling is located on both parcels, no additional dwellings can be approved for construction. The lot line adjustment will result in the capability of allowing one additional dwelling to be constructed. The numbers of parcels remain the same. The allowable density under the General Plan remains the same. Director Sullivan noted that the Giberson's are appealing the decision of the Negative Declaration because of their concern about any access from Willow Creek Canyon. They indicated that access should be from Peach Hill Road. Director Sullivan noted that as an alternative action the Council may deny the appeal of the Lot Line Adjustment denial and grant the appeal of the Negative Declaration. Jonathan Wittwer, City Attorney, explained that Lot Line Adjustments bring up many legal issues. Attorney Wittwer noted that provisions have been added to the Subdivision Act Map that take precedence over the City's ordinances. The City has to apply the state law, and if the state law does not address something, the City can apply some of it's own ordinance that cover lot line adjustments. City Attorney Wittwer briefly described the findings of the state law. Vice Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Norm Matteoni, 1740 Technology Drive, San Jose, noted that he represents the property owners. Mr. Matteoni noted that the existing Parcel A is the smallest parcel (1.8 acres), has an average slope of 49%, and has a house that straddles the northerly property line. Parcel B is the larger parcel (5.7 acres) average slope of 29%. Mr. Matteoni explained that what is being proposed is moving the line northerly between the two parcels is that the southerly Parcel A would grow in size to 4.6 acres and it's slope would go on average to 29% from 49%. Parcel B comes down in size to 2.45 acres and the slope becomes an average of 30% instead of 29%. The engineers for the property encourage the owners to take advantage of the flattest portions of the overall properties. Mr. Matteoni afidressed Mrs. Giberson's concems regarding the creek habitat and the watershed area. He explained that the northerly portion of the proposed building site would be at a minimum of 150 feet away from the creek and the new building site on the southerly portion of the property would be 250-300 feet away from the creek. In regards to the Giberson's concerns regarding to the properties access, the property owners have agreed, as part of the conditions of the property, that there would be no access through Sunset Drive. Alan Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, provided some background on the project before them tonight. Mr. Giberson noted that this piece of property has been undergoing changes for at least 30-40 years. Mr. Giberson noted that they were first involved with the property 15 years ago when sewer systems were installed, a few years after later a 12 inch water main was placed along Willow Creek, and then ten years ago a development was proposed. Mr. Giberson noted that they protested the development but the City approved it and guaranteed that they would make sure the creek would not be damaged and the project would be mitigated. Mr. Giberson referred to photos showing that the development was not mitigated and the creek and the surrounding vegetation were damaged. Meg Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, explained the disrupted events they experienced when the Kennedy sewer line was installed at Willow Creek Canyon. Mrs. Giberson pointed out all of the destruction that has occurred at Willow Creek Canyon. Mrs. Giberson noted that according to Mr. Matteoni the primary part of the house is on Parcel A, from her research she believes the primary part of the house is actually on Parcel B. In regards to her concerns of the access of the proposed project, Mrs. Giberson referred to a parcel map that was filed when the sewer was put in. Mrs. Giberson noted that this map was from 1985 when an agreement between Kennedy (applicants predecessor) and neighboring landowner Carey, recorded as a "Lot Line Adjustment Parcel Map, which implies an intent to use streets, Sunset Court and Sunset Avenue, for access to the canyon properties, use of which streets have not received any environmental analysis for this project. The map granted a 1.52- acre parcel of land, at the northern tip of the applicant's property, to neighbor Carey. This agreement between Kennedy and Carey memorialized a contract for improvements of access roads: Sunset Avenue and Sunset Court. These two streets do not exist on publicly available maps. Mrs. Giberson suggested that all of these past agreements be discussed and investigated. Mrs. Giberson noted that there are many problems with this project. This project is creating a nonconforming, substandard lot with no street frontage. In order to do that the applicant must apply for a variance, which they have not done. Mrs. Giberson noted that if the City Council would be violating the City code if the Lot Line Adjustment were approved. Darrell Dukes, 15329 Peach Hill Road, noted that he lives two lots north of the proposed project. Mr. Dukes stated that he has lived there for 35 years. Mr. Dukes commented that Peach Hill Road does not need another home, due to the fact that the road only has one lane. Mr. Duke suggested that if this property is developed the road should be widened. Mr. Duke presented a letter signed by six other property owners on Peach Hill Road, all opposing this project. Cynthia Barry, Chair/Planning Commission, noted that the Planning Commission was split, half of the Commission looked at this project as a lot split, which could haVe been done administratively. The Commission participated in the discussion of how two better lots could be made. The totality of that discussion was based on the premise that the Commission was talking about two buildable lots. The Applicant's architect explained to the Commission that they preceded by first locating where they would like the building envelopes and then figuring out the terrain and how they would get the lot split they were requesting. Chair Barry explained that the three Commissioners that were against the lot line adjustment essentially took the position that while there were two legal lots of record that is not equal to two buildable lots. By supporting this lot split moving from a situation that would increase the buildability of these two lots. Chair Barry noted that the two new houses would have to meet the current Hillside Standard, which means two homes could not be built here. Chair Barry noted that in regards to the approval of the N~gative Declaration, the Commission had to make a substantial amount of changes to the language 12 Councilmember Baker asked what types of changes were made to the Negative Declaration. Chair Barry responded that the majority of the issues were that two buildings on this site are not feasible. Also, the geological report shows that there are no major faults within the boundary lines of this property, however there is a major fault 600 feet away from the property line and was not reflected in the Negative Declaration. Mr. Matteoni noted that there are a few issues that have not been addressed. In regards to Mrs. Giberson's concerns of access off of Sunset Drive - the City is not bound by any of the agreements that she referred to. Those agreements were made between the property's predecessors and neighbors. Mr. Matteoni noted that he has not seen any of those records that Mrs. Giberson mentioned. Mr. Matteoni noted that he does not deny that the past events on the property have had an impact on the Giberson's but history cannot be changed. In regards to the fault line on the property, Mr. Matteoni explained it is on southwest portion of the property and zero fault hazards were identified. Mr. Matteoni requested that the City Council deny the appeal and approve the Negative Declaration and grant the appeal and approve the Lot Line Adjustment. Mrs. Giberson noted that she thinks more time should be taken considering this project. The issues regarding the access of the property should be investigated. Mrs. Giberson questioned why the Applicant wants to create the second lot; if the City allows that lot to be created it would allow a future owner to build on it. Mr. Duke requested that the Council send the project to the Building Department. Vice Mayor closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. Councilmember Baker notedthat he agrees with Mrs. Giberson that the only reason why the ApPlicant wants the Lot Line Adjustment is to allow a second house to be built. Councilmember Baker noted that he completely objects to the lot adjustment because he does not want a future house to be built on a substandard lot in the hillside. Councilmember Baker noted that he disagrees with Mr. Duke; one more house would not be a catastrophe on Peach Hill Road, however, if the road is that unsafe than perhaps everyone on Peach Hill Road should consider having the road widened. Councilmember Baker stated that he would vote no on the Lot Line Adjustment and vote against the Negative Declaration on the principal that it is not required. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she visited the property yesterday and realized that the owner bought the property with the intentions of dividing it and building two houses. If the property was a flat piece of property she might support a Lot Line Adjustment, but unfortunately it is an extremely rugged, hilly piece of property. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she opposes building.on 13 substandard pieces of property. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted she is against the Lot Line Adjustment and does not feel she needs to vote for the Negative Declaration. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he could support the development of Parcel A as a buildable lot but does not support creating Parcel B as a separate buildable lot. Vice Mayor Streit explained that Parcel B's slope is too great from the top to the bottom. Vice Mayor Streit stated he would deny the appeal. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED ADOPT RESOLUTION ON AUGUST 15, 2001 DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE o PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15480 PEACH HILL ROAD. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DR-01-005 (386- 06-017) - PALUMBO, 19208 BROOKVIEW DRIVE; APPLICANT: PALUMBO APPELLANT: ESCOLA, KARREN, GROSS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Allison Knapp, Contract Planner, presented staff report. Planner Knapp explained that the applicant has requested Design Review approval to construct a 65 square foot addition to the ground floor of the existing single-story home and a 636 square foot second story addition for a total of 701 square feet. The existing one-story home would then be a two-story home consisting of 3,049 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 21'-2". The site is 9,376 gross and net square feet and is located within an R-l-10,000 zoning district. The General Plan Designation is Residential - Medium Density. The average slope of the lot is less than one percent. No grading or tree removal is proposed and the proposed colors and material match with the existing house. Planner Knapp explained that on June 13, 2001 the Planning Commission approved the project 4-1 subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the resolution written by staff and four additional conditions added by the Commission which are as follows: 1) that the condition of approval be strengthened to prohibit any future change out of windows on the right elevation in order to protect privacy, 2) that the rear balcony either be reduced in size or eliminated, 3) that the windows on the second-story rear elevation be reduced in size, 4) that the applicant provide additional landscape screening to provide year-round privacy screening. Planner Knapp noted that the Applicant revised the project drawings as follows: · Reduced the balcony to 53 square feet. · Reduced the window slider fi:om eight to six feet. · Reduced the number of bathroom windows to one window. · Raised the sill height of the right side of the bedroom windows to 5.5 feet. · Placed cabinetry in fi'ont of both windows to reduce the angle view. · Added trelliswork on the right side of the balcony to further screen privacy. for Planner Knapp reported on June 21,200I the Escolas, the Karrens, and the Gorsses filed an appeal to the Planning Commission decision. In smnmary, the letter states that the Applicant's design fails to address privacy issues that the immediate neighbors identified at the public hearing. Planner Knapp explained that on July 3, 2001 a meeting was conducted at City Hall to discuss the issues. The Community Development Director facilitated the meeting and all parties were present. It was the consensus of the Appellants that no second story with or without a balcony was acceptable. Vice Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Eric Escola, 19224 Brookview Drive, noted his house is immediately adjacent to the project. Mr. Escola stated that tonight he is representing not only his family but also the other two families on the appeal letter. Mr. Escola explained that at the June 13th Planning Commission meeting, the second story addition was approved at 19208 Brook View Drive and because of this decision they filed an appeal. Mr. Escola briefly described the characteristics of the Brookview neighborhood. Mr. Escola noted that it consists of 326 single family, single story, ranch style homes built in the 1950's and 1960's. Since that time 15-second stories have been added to the neighborhood. 84% .of the neighborhood is in favor of keeping the homes single story, ranch style houses. Mr. Escola noted that his group walked the neighborhood and talked to the majority of the property owners. The majority of property owners feel that second story additions change the character of the neighborhood. Currently 94.5% of the existing homes are single story. Mr. Escola noted the there are two points in their appeal: 1. The loss of privacy to the immediate neighbors. They oppose any second story having windows and a deck. Mr. Escola showed a sight map of the views from the Palumbo's proposed second story and also pictures of the current landscaping between the proposed project and surrounding houses. Mr. Escola stated that most of the trees are deciduous. 2. The property owners concern about changes in the character of the neighborhood. After surveying 199/326 property owners surveyed, the majority singed a petition to keep second stories out of this neighborhood. Mr. Escola suggested the Council consider'a single story overlay in the Brookview neighborhood. Cynthia Eikhom, Project Designer/Interhouse Design, noted that she began working with the Palumbo's in early October, with the intention at that time, to design a one- story addition. After extensive design exploration it was concluded that a one-story 15 design would not meet the needs of her clients. Ms. Eikhom explained the reason why the design was changed from a single story addition to a second story addition: 1) An existing large tree with a broad canopy that provides privacy and shade to the backyard would have to be removed, 2) Extending their home with a single story addition would of extended the rear yard set back, which currently is 25 feet. The rear property adjacent to the Palumbo's is the Karren's, which is located 16 feet from that property line. Ms. Eikhom explained that the Karren's recently received a small variance to extend the existing nonconformity and the new roofline is an eye sore to the Palumbo's. The privacy offered by every property, to maintain a 25-foot rear 'yard setback, is not available to the Palumbo's. For these reasons, Ms. Eikhom stated that this is why they designed a a story and a half design, which met the Palumbo's needs and afforded privacy to both the neighbors and the Palumbo's. Ms. Eikhom referred to a letter the Appellants used to rally the neighborhood into signing a petition against her clients project. Ms. Eikhom noted that several statements in the letter were inaccurate and misleading in regards to the Appellants concerns of privacy. Ms. Eikhom explained some of the inaccuracies of the statements to the Council and explained how she and her client have compromised on the design in order to remedied the concerns of the neighbors: · Balcony - reduced the balcony to 20 square feet, which is a reduction of 80% reduction. Ms. Eikhom noted that at this point in time her clients are willing to forgo the balcony in order to satisfy the neighbors concems of privacy. Although, Ms. Eikhom explained that at a meeting with the neighbors regarding the privacy issues, the rear neighbor stated that they had no objection to an adjacent property that had a small balcony, because the size inhibited the use of it. · Reduced the size of the sliding glass door from 8 feet to 6 feet wide. · Reduced the bathroom windows from to two to one. · Improved the evergreen landscaping Ms. Eikhom also noted that the petition stated that this project would accelerate change to the Brookview neighborhood. Responding to that statement, Ms. Eikorn said it is a "subjective interpretive comment". Ms. Eikhom explained that her client has proposed a design using a one and one half story, which is alternative for design concerns for adding a second story, using architectural elements to keep in the character of the neighborhood. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Ms. Eikhom if the Palumbo's met with the neighborhood. Ms. Eikhom responded that she and her clients met at the City's Planning Department. Vice Mayor Streit asked why all of the issues were not worked out as "good neighbors" before it came to the City Council. Ms. Eikhom responded she tried to work this out with the neighbors at the Planning Department. Unfommately, some of the neighbors expressed that they did not want second stow additions at all and a few neighbors said that they do not mind a second stow as long as it doe not have windows. Ms. Eikhom noted that designing a second story without windows was not an option, because of the egress requirement. The balcony was redesigned making it large enough so the door could be opened.. Nan Dole, Brookview Drive, noted that she was not part of the survey because she is putting on a second story. Ms. Dole noted that does not support banning second stow additions. Eugene Craig, Titus Avenue, noted that he has lived in the Brookview neighborhood since 1971. Mr. Craig stated that a property owner has a right to build a second stow only if it does not impose on the neighbors. In regards to this particular project he does not support it. Allan Lynn, 12271 Country Square Lane, noted that although he is not personally affected by this particular request for a second story addition, his concern is future applications of the same request. Betty Joe Stewart, 12517 Palm Tag Drive, noted that she opposes this project. Melanie Karren,, 12515 Woodside Court stated that she is against the entire project. Mrs. Karren noted that she lives directly behind the proposed project. Mrs. Karren noted that she opposes the 16-foot deck and balcony because it would intrude on her family's privacy. Marvin Becker, 12120 Mellowood Drive, noted that he is the president of the Brookview Homeowners Association and has lived there since 1963. Mr. Becker noted that there are 326 homes in this neighborhood. Mr. Becker noted that he reviewed the plans presented by the Palumbo's and it doe not match the description presented by Ms. Eikhom tonight. Bill Gross, 12508 Woodside Court, nOte that he is not directly behind the Palumbos house but, he can see the roof line. Mr. Gross noted that his concern is the president the Council would be setting if this project were approved. Dan Rose, 12250 Titus Avenue, noted that he has lived there for 15 years and opposes this project. Mitch Kane, 12418 Palmtag Drive, requested that the existing character of the Brookview neighborhood be preserved. Mr. Kane requested that the City Council direct the Planning Commission to investigate implementing a single stow overlay. Bob Bowe 12475 Wo°dside Court, noted that he has lived there for 19 years. Mr. Bowe noted that he recently appealed a similar project behind his house because it intruded on his privacy. 17 Ruth Welch, 19131 Bellwood Drive, noted that although this project does not directly affect her home, but wanted to come to tonight's meeting to show support for the appellants. Mrs. Welch noted that when she remolded her home she went to surrounding neighbors and Gordon Cameron, 12517 Brook Glen Drive, noted that he does not support the proposed project. Cynthia Berry, Chair/Planning Commission, noted that the Planning Commission would like direction from the Council to investigate the development of neighborhood overlays. In regards to this project, the Planning Commission approved it because the design is only a one and one half story addition, increasing the total square footage of the house by only 636 square feet and only a 21 foot height increase. Chair Berry noted that unfortunately the privacy issues couldn't be adequately addressed. In regards to the balcony, the planning Commission stated in the Conditions of Approval that the balcony must be reduced or eliminated. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked the number of people opposing this project attended the Planning Commission meeting. Chair Barry responded no, only the immediate neighbors expressing privacy concems. Mr. Escola noted that Ms. Eikhom was incorrect when she stated that his group only collected 191 signatures, actually they collected 194 signatures. Mr. Escola also thanked Chair Berry for explaining to them that they could appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. Ms. Eikhom noted that her client is not in favor of developing two story additions in the Brookview neighborhood. Ms. Eikhom noted their design is a very modest addition and it keeps the neighborhood character. Lisa Palumbo, 19208 Brookview Drive, noted that she met with the neighbors several times trying to change the plans to accommodate her neighbors concerns. Mrs. Palumbo noted that she would also support banning second stories in the Brookview neighborhood. Mrs. Palumbo noted that she has done everything to design a nonintmsive addition. Mrs. Palumbo stated that when the Escola's began remodeling their house they never consulted her in the planning stages. Mrs. Palumbo noted that he team has designed a low profile addition. Vice Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 9:52 p.m. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that because the lot is small and many of the neighbors expressed their opposition, she cannot support the project. Councilmember Baker noted that he is basing his decision on neighborhood compatibly, privacy, view intrusion, and sunlight intrusion. Councilmember Baker noted that second story additions not only impact immediate neighbors but also the entire neighborhood. Although the Palumbo's have designed a very nice addition he cannot support the project. · ..... Vice Mayor Streit noted that he visited the property twice and his main concern are the privacy issues expressed by the immediate neighbors, the bulk in the back of the house, and the balcony. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the overall design is good. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he would vote to grant the appeal and deny the second story addition. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he would be willing to send this project back to the Planning Commission if the neighborhood issues can be resolved Director Sullivan noted that the he has heard nothing tonight that would indicate any compromise on either side. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND DENY THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 19208 BROOKVIEW DRIVE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. Vice Mayor Streit declared a 15-minute recess at 10:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 10:15 p.m. 6. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM (DBE) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-048 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONCERNING DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS PROGRAMS John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone noted that the U.S DOT requires any agency that requests Federal Aid for transportation improvements to implement and maintain a Disadvantage Business Program. This program established an Overall Goal that provides, as a percentage of overall cost for a particular project, an amount that should be paid to contractors and service/material providers listed as Disadvantage Business Enterprises (DBE). Director Cherbone noted that the Overall Goal is computed by considering the proportional availability of DBE's in relation to the total amount of able and qualified finns for the local geographic area. Once this goal is established, it is incorporated into the DBE Program text and presented to Caltrans for approval. Following approval, the Draft DBE Program is made available to the public notices in the local newspapers.. Approval by the City Council is the final step before the DBE program is officially adopted. Once adopted. The DBE Program 3_9 o is implemented and maintained through good faith effort by designated City staff. The overall Goal is updated every year, per Caltrans requirements. Saratoga's Overall Goal is 8.3% for the 2000/2001 fiscal year. Vice Mayor Streit opened the public heating at 10:19 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit closed the public heating at 10:19 p.m. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION CONCERNING DISADVANTAGE BUSINESS PROGRAMS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA MAKING APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 BUDGET Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Reeve explained that the City has been awarded $8,820.00 for FY 1999, and $7878.00 for FY 2000, in Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program (LLEGB) funds from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance. This program provides funds to state and local governments to underwrite projects, reduce crimes, and improve public safety. Analyst Reeve noted that the deadline for the FY 1999 and the FY 2000 is July 31, 2001. An advisory board comprised of the City Manager's Staff, Captain Bacon and Lieutenant Smedlund met to prioritize the Sheriff's Department's desires for additional programs and services. The recommendations are as follows: 1. Expend FY 1999 funds on overtime pay to provide a Deputy on bicycle to patrol Big Basin Way, Wildwood Park, and trails.throughout the summer. 2. Expend FY 2000 funds on two Talon moving mode handheld radars, and various videos, books, literature, and equipment to assist the Student Resource Officer to present training at Saratoga schools. Captain Kevin Bacon, Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department, explained the FY 1999 funds would help pay overtime fees that have accumulated due to the extra patrol placed in the downtown area. Captain Bacon explained that the FY 2000 funds would be used to purchase two Talon radars, which will enable the traffic patrol officers to monitor traffic as they approach the moving vehicle in the opposite direction. With the leftover funds 2O videos, books, and literature would be. purchased to assist the School Resource Officer. Vice Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 10:26 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit closed the public heating at 10:26 p.m. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AND ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. Vice Mayor Streit requested that the City Council move to Item 10. Consensus of the City Council to move to Item 10. NEW BUSINESS 10. HOUSING TRUST FUND CONTRIBUTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution; execute agreement; make pledge. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-052 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT TO FY 2001-02 AND CONTRIBUTING $25, 000 HOUSING TRUST FUND Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that the trust has set a goal of $20 million in voluntary contributions with the possibility of looking at long term permanent funding if this initial effort is successful. As of June 25, 2001, contributions to the Housing Trust Fund total $19.3 million, so the Trust is now only$700,000.00 short of their goal. Several surrounding cities have made donations to the Trust. Within Santa Clara County, the Cities of Saratoga, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Gilroy have not yet committed to making any contribution to the Trust. Director Sullivan noted that staff recommends that the City Council make a pledge to contribute $25,000.00 in fiscal year 2001-02 to the Trust and authorize the execution of a n agreement with the Trust for the city's contribution. Chris Block, Executive Director/Housing Trust Fund, noted that the Housing Trust Fund is almost at it's $20 million dollar goal and 100% of city and county participation. Mr. Block encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution. 23_ Jan Birenbaum, Chair/Teacher Housing Initiative Committee, 20052 Sunset Drive, encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund, and urged the placement of additional funding on the CIP program. Lisa Liu, 20291 Merrick Drive, encouraged the City council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Ms. Liu thanked the Council for agreeing to the placement of an article in the next issue of the Saratogan requesting low-income housing for teachers. Muriel Mahrer, 13577 Myren Drive, noted that the City has taken steps in the right direction but what are still needed are regional answers to Saratoga's needs. Betty Feldhym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, thanked the City Council for having the Housing Element study session and encouraged the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Marjory Bunyard, President/League of Women Voters, encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Bob Hinz, Saratoga resident: encouraged the Council to support the Housing Trust Fund. Dan Stone, Saratoga resident, noted he came to tonight's meeting to encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund for all of his Ann Danner, 14190 Woodview Lane, Board President/HIP, noted that her group provides housing to people with disabilities. Ms. Danner encouraged the City to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Shiloh Ballard, Grace United Methodist Church, encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Beth Wyman, 1223! Fredericksburg Drive, suggested that the City Council double the donation to $50,000.00. Carl Gardino, CEO/Silicon Valley manufacturing Group, encouraged the City Council to approve the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONTRIBUTION OF $25,000 TO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND AND ADOPT RESOLUTION MAKING APPROPRIATE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS. MOTION PASSED 3- 0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 22 Vice Mayor Streit noted that the Council would now here the emergency item regarding the letter received from the Fire District. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Vice Mayor Streit noted that the City Council received a letter from the Fire District dated July 16, 2001 responding to the program Don Whetstone put together to implement a Public Safety Center. Vice Mayor Streit noted that it would be appropriate that tonight the City Council make a- motion to authorize the Mayor to form an ad hoc committee to investigate the ideas of developing a Public Safety Center in Saratoga. Don Whetstone, Vickery Avenue, noted that the letter sent by the Fire District responding to his proposed program has many inaccuracies. Mr~ Whetstone thanked the Council for taking action on this subject. Dave Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive commend the Council for taking action on the letter sent by the Fire Commission. Mr. Dolloffnoted that he feels the Fire District violated the brown act. Hugh Hexamer/Saratoga Fire Commissioner, 20367 Glen Brae Drive, noted that Mr. Whetstone does not understand the urgent need to start construction on the new facility. The Planning Commission already approved the plans and the District will be going out to bid in the near future. Mr. Hexamer commented that to delay the project is going against the 2,000 plus voters who approved the bond to build the new facility. Jeff Schwartz encouraged the City Council to go forward with the course of action outlined by Vice Mayor Streit. Mr. Swartz supports a Public Safety Center in Saratoga. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO FORM AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE A PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 6, 2001 SPECIAL MEETING- JULY 10, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember Baker pulled item 2A from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Baker requested that on page 5, of the minutes of June 6, 2001 during the discussion bY the City Attorney. City Attorney Taylor stated that the septic abatement ordinance states that the City Council makes hardship determinations for an unlimited time - not five years. 23 WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2001 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2001. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER 2C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. APPROVE TREASURER'S REPORT FOR MONTH ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Treasurer's Report. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE TREASURER'S REPORT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 2D. 2E. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 27, 2001 REGULAR MEETING - JULY 11, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT WITH MELISSA EDDY FOR INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve authorization to execute contract. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH MELISSA EDDY. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 24 CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL LIAISON STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Make appointment. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPOINT COUNCILMEMBER WALTONSMITH TO THE CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT 2G. COMMITTEE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO SERVICE THE DEBT ON THE LIBRARY BOND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING AN INCREASE IN THE CITY'S PROPERTY TAX RATE TO FUND DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS ON THE LIBRARY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX RATES FOR DEBT 2H. SERVICE PAYMENTS ON THE LIBRARY GENERAL BONDS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DR-01-01400-013 ' 13921 LOQUAT COURT- APPLICANT/APPELLANT: ADLPARVAR STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01- 045 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION; APPLICANT/APPELLANT-ADLPARVAR; 13921 LOQUAT COURT; DR-01-014 BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DR-01-014-13921 LOQUAT COURT~ DR-01-014. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 25 21. WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION UP-00-013- COX AVENUE AND CUMBERLAND DRIVE - APPLICANT: NEXTEL APPELLANT: MAROLDA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING THE APPEAL OF USE PERMIT APPLICATION UP-00-013 BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2J~ UP-00-013-COX AVENUE AND CUMBERLAND DRIVE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. Councilmember Baker pulled Item 2J form the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Baker requested that if a person is serving on one of the City's commissions, try and make the meetings. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORDS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. OLD BUSINESS SARATOGA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that at its meeting of February 27, 2001, the City Council reviewed draft bylaws for a Saratoga Community Foundation to support a broad range of community interests in the City of Saratoga. Council directed that 26 the Foundation be organized and supported initially by the City in a manner that would facilitate its ultimate transition into an independent entity. Staffhas revised the bylaws to respond to Council direction. The primary changes are: (1) the Foundation will be a membership organization that allows members (Saratoga residents only) to elect Directors and make other policy decisions for the Foundation; (2) the Foundation will become completely independent of the City government on June 30, 2003; and (3) the Foundation will be required to prepare a five year plan with fundraising goals and a plan for. building an endowment and making grants to meet current community needs. As requested by the Cohncil, a copy of the draft bylaws has been posted on the City's web site and copies have been made available in the Community Library. City Attomey Taylor briefly explained that the following are the revisions that were made to the bylaws during the February 27, 2001: Membership · The Foundation will be established as a "membership" organization. The day-to-day activities of the foundation would be administered by the Board of Directors and the Executive Director, but the members of the foundation would have the ultimate authority to select Board members and to set foundation policy. · Any Saratoga resident who pays the minimum annual dues is a member of the foundation. The minimum dues must be between $100 and $250 per year as determined by the Board of Directors. Because the Council emphasized that it wants to encourage participation by both members and non-members of the foundation, section 3.12(a) makes clear that the foundation encourages the involvement of local civic groups, businesses, and non-residents. · Annual meetings will be held in May. These meetings will be used to receive reports on the foundation's operations and to elect members to the Board of Directors. Members are allowed to vote by proxy and the bylaws also allow the membership to act by mail ballot rather than at a meeting. The bylaws allow the Board of Directors to call special meetings of the members and also allow the members themselves to initiate action. This structure allows the members to maintain oversight of Board actions. Sunset on City Involvement · The foundation will become independent of the City government by June 30, 2003. The initial Board of Directors will be appointed by the City Council and will include two members of the City Council. Five Year Plan · The foundation's Executive Committee must develop a five-year strategic plan by the end of the year. (See section 8.03.) The plan 27 must include a vision statement, year-by-year fundraising goals, and an investment plan that allows the foundation to respond to current needs while at the same time building an endowment. Other Revisions Expanding the purposes of the foundation to'include all activities and programs that enhance the quality of life in the city and to include encouraging widespread community participation in foundation programs. (Section 2.01 .) · Requiring annual recognition of foundation supporters. (Section 3.12(a).) · Defining a quorum of the Board of Directors as 51% of the Board or as 34% of the Board if the Board has 15 or more members. (Section 5.04(e).) · Clarifying that no director may serve more than two consecutive terms but that former Directors may serve on committees and may be reappointed as directors after a four-year hiatus. (Section 5.02.) · Clarifying that the Brown Act governs all meetings of the Board only as long as the terms of the Act require it to apply. Once the City is no longer funding the foundation and appointing board members the Brown Act will not apply. (Section 5.04(a).) · Renaming the "Education Committee" as the Development Committee and deleting the "Associate Relations Committee" since its functions can be served by the Community Relations committee. (Section 8.02.) The City Council thanked City Attorney Taylor for all of his works on the Saratoga Community Foundation. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 MEHAFFEY ABSENT. STAFF TO RECRUIT WITH BOGOSIAN AND NEW BUSINESS 11. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH GREG lNG & ASSOCIATES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained the previously the City Council a contract with Greg Ing & Associates for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road improvement Project. At that time the City Council expressed concern that the Street Improvement Project and the 28 Gateway Design Project be integrated so that time is not lost on one project waiting for.the other to be completed. Director Sullivan noted that staff recommends that Council approve a proposal fi.om Greg G. Ing& Associates in the amount of $39,680.99 for the preparation of Design Guidelines for the Gateway Project which will complement the Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Improvement Project. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT PROPOSAL FROM GREG ING-& ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,6580 FOR PREPARATION OF THE SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDEI,INES AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT. 12. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO GEN-CON FOR PHASE I LIBRARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant Manager Tinfow explained that sealed bids for the Saratoga Public Library Project Phase I were due and opened on July 12, 2001. Three bids were received: 1) Ge, n-Con Inc - $1,697,000 2) McCrary Construction CO. - $2, 061,000 3) HRB Construction - $2,305,420. The cost estimate provided by Field Paoli Architecture for Phase I was $1,532 million. Assistant Manager Tinfow noted that Gilbane has worked with Gen-Con in the past and their experience has been positive. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AWARD CONTRACT TO GEN-CON INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,697,000 FOR PHASE I OF THE LIBRARY RENOVATION. PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF 13. CONTRACT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO BARBARA SPECTOR AND CHARLES KILLIAN FOR HEARING OFFICER SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-049 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA APPOINTING A HEARING OFFICER AND ALTERNATE 29 Richard Taylor, City Attomey, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that at its meeting of February 21, 2001 the City council approved an ordinance amending the City Code pertaining to code enforcement. The ordinance established the position of Hearing Officer to hear and decide appeals of the City's code enforcement decisions. Staff distributed a request for proposals to more than 200 potential candidates. Three applications were received and are attached for your information. Each of the applicants would. be qualified to serve as a hearing officer. City Attorney Taylor stated that he attached resolution formally designates Barbara Spector as the heating officer and Charles Killian as the alternate to serve in the event that the primary heating officer has a conflict of interest or is not available. The resolution specifies that the term of the hearing officers would be until September 20, 2002. Staff will enter an independent contractor agreement with each of the hearing officers. City Attorney noted that all of the applicants proposed $175.00 an hour, which is a good rate for this type of service. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AWARD CONTRACT TO BARBARA SPECTOR AND CHARLES KILLIAN FOR HEARING OFFICER SERVICES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. 14. CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS ORDINANCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Cary Bloomquist, administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst BlOomquist explained that the purpose for this report was to introduce the City Council to the proposed Construction and Debris Recycling Ordinance. The California Integrated Waste management Act was passed by the State Assembly in 1989 to divert materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and diminishing natural resources. The bill mandates each California city and county to divert 50% of all solid waste from landfill or transformation facilities trough source reduction, recycling and composting activities by January 2, 2000. Analyst Bloomquist pointed out the City of Saratoga has achieved a 56% diversion rate based upon the present level of source reduction and recycling participation by Saratoga Residents and business owners. Many programs have been implemented to avoid the statutory penalties associated with noncompliance. The only program that has not been implemented is the non-residential - construction and demolition debris- recycling programs. Analyst Bloomquist explained that most contractor already recycle concrete and 30 15. asphalt for reuse on site because it is less expensive than disposal. The County has prepared a Builder's Reuse and Recycling Guide for local contractors that-list firms that assist with deconstmction and reuse of building material and fixtures. Many of these materials can be recovered at little or no cost to the contractor, but because deconstmction and recycling can take more time, it is important to notify contractors early in the permit process of the requirement to recycle. As a condition precedent to issuance of any permit for a building or demolition project that involves the production of solid waste destined to be delivered to landfill, the applicant would pay an administrative fee of $200.00. This fee would compensate the City for all expenses incurred in administering the permit. Analyst Bloomquist noted that the Board of the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority, of which the City is a member, recommends that a recycling ordinance be approved by the City Council for inclusion in its permit conditions. Analyst Bloomquist noted that tonight is an initial introduction of this concept to Council and he will bring this back in September. Councilmember Baker noted that he has great concems regarding this proposed ordinance; although he stated he knows the City needs to do it. Councilmember Baker commented that he is uncomfortable moving forward without full Council to hear and discuss this issues and suggested that the City invite three of the most prominent and most active general contractors who deal in Saratoga to come and tell the City Council how they currently deal with recycling and what is the potential impact. Councilmember Baker noted that following these new guidelines makes the cost of demolishing a house much more expensive. Councilmember Baker noted that he supports the overall concept but requested more data on it. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority JPA has gone over this proposal for the past year and are still waiting for Waste Management to come back with a full program. Vice Mayor Streit commented that the City must get this program started although there are a few issues regarding cost and revenue that haVe not been decided. Vice Mayor Streit thanked Analyst Bloomquist and noted that after Scott Hobson/Green Valley reviews the guidelines and the JPA makes a few financial decisions this should come back to Council. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES VOTING DELEGATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Appoint voting delegate. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer noted that on September 12, 2001 through September 15, 2001 the League of California Cities would hOld their annual conference. One very imPortant aspect of the annual conference is the annual business meeting when the 31 membership takes action on conference resolutions. To expedite the conduct of business at this policy-making meeting each city council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be present at the annual business meeting. The League bylaws provide that each city is entitled to one vote in matters effecting municipal or League policy. The deadline to remm the "Voting Delegate Form" to the League of California Cities is August 17, 2001. Councilmember Baker asked if the voting delegate is restricted to elected officials. Director Sullivan responded that Council could appoint a staff member. WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO APPOINT TOM SULLIVAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR VOTING DELEGATE AND DAVE ANDERSON, CITY MANAGER AS THE ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND MEHAFFEY ABSENT. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS No reportable information. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she encourages the Planning Commission to look into two story overlays. Councilmember Waltonsmith reported that the Chamber of Commerce has recently reorganized, due to the fact that they lost their president and director. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested that the Chamber meet with the City Council to discuss their future. Councilmember Baker referred to a letter he received from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District discussing wood burning fireplaces. Councilmember Baker noted that he feels the ordinance that the Air District is trying to encourage.cities to adopt is too strict. Councilmember Baker suggested that the City encourage the citizens of Saratoga to write letters to our local legislators opposing SBgl0. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None 32 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Vice Mayor Streit declared the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Y~-~~~----~ 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 ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Check Register Certification. IFund# Fund Name Date Manual Void Total 8/17/01 Checks Checks AP CHECKS A86165-86271 1 GENERAL 168,828.72 100 COPS-SLESF 242.86 110 Traffic Safety 150 Streets & Roads 12,628.57 160 Transit Dev 170 Hillside Repair 180 LLA Districts 7,183.80 250 Dev Services 14,681.08 260 Environmental 48.00 270 Housing & Corem 290 Recreation 17,445.93 291 Teen Services 3,296.33 292 Facility Ops 503.31 293 Theatre Surcharge 300 State Park 310 Park Develpmt 4,631.25 320 Library Expansion 400 Library Debt 410 Civic Cntr COP 420 Leonard Creek 7,812.00 700 Quarry Creek 710 Heritage Prsvn 720 Cable TV 730 PD #2 740 PD #3 146,797.50 800 Deposit Agency · 6,131.00 810 Deferred Comp 830 Payroll Agency 990 SPFA · ISubtotal 390,230.35 10,339.08 100.00 10,439.08 PAYROLL CHECKS: B26970-27072 TOTAL IApproved by: Date: PREPARED 08/]7/2001, 8:40:22 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 08/17/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O'. CHECK'DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE H~D-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000003 A & M MOTOR SUPPLY 1024 000739 20025 08/16/2001 001-1035-512.30-01 1280 000740 20025 08/16/2001 001-1035-512.30-01 1926 000741 20025 08/16/2001 001-1035-512.30-01 0000005 A C & E PUBLISHING 071101ACE-4667 000708 08/15/2001 001-3035-532.30-31 0000092 ABAG - COMP SHARED RISK POOL 070601 000547 08/13/2001 001-1020-511.20-01 070601 000548 08/13/2001 001-1030-511.20-01 070601 000549 08/13/2001 001-1040-513.20-01 070601 000550 08/13/2001 001-1045-513.20-01 070601 000551 08/13/2001 001-1060-513.20-01 070601 000552 08/13/2001 001-1065-513.20-01 070601 000553 08/13/2001 001-2010-522.20-01 070601 000556 08/13/2001 001-3030-532.20-01 070601 000557 08/13/2001 001-3035-532.20-01 070601 000563 08/13/2001 001-7020-572.20-01 070601 000564 08/13/2001 001-7025-572.20-01 070601 000554 08/13/2001 100-2030-523.20-01 070601 000555 08/13/2001 150-3005-532.20-01 070601 000558 08/13/2001 250-4010-542.20-01 070601 000559 08/13/2001 250-4015-542.20-01 070601 000560 08/13/2001 290-6005-564.20-01 070601 000561 08/13/2001 291-6010-564.20-01 070601 000562 08/13/2001 292-6020-564.20-01 0000010 ABAG POWER PURCHASING POOL 100014763 000749 20035 08/16/2001 0001547 ACTION TRAILER SALES 12111 000776 20085 08/16/2001 0001963 ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS 000527 08/13/2001 0001964 ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS 000526 08/13/2001 0002407 AMIRKIAI, YOUSSEF 44462 000780 08/16/2001 000781 08/16/2001 001-1060-513.40-23 001-1035-512.40-14 001-0000-210.20-01 001-0000-210.20-01 250-4010-542.40-10 250-4010-444.02-00 AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIES AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIES AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL * ENGINEERING GUIDEBOOK VENDOR TOTAL * QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SH~ED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED QTR. PREMIUM-COMP SHARED VENDOR TOTAL * NATURAL GAS-POWER PooL VENDOR TOTAL * JACOBSON TRAILER REPAIRS VENDOR TOTAL * DENTAL INS. #30710/PDO VENDOR TOTAL DENTAL INS. #5A94A PMI VENDOR TOTAL * TREE BOND REFUND ARBORIST FEES OWED 165.35 159.21 25.80 350.36 56..72 56.72 1,340.24 720.82 1,758.40 799.57 3,216.22 1,001.99 560.52 5,872.12 1,932.19 561.70 1,507.12 242.86 4,737.76 758.57 1,939.04 1,000.51 499.81 203.31 28,652.75 1,610.00 1,6i0.00 518.94 518.94 4,173.09 4,173.09 284.12 284.12 2,500.00 281.73- PREPAR5 7/2001, 8:40:22 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL L PAGE 2 AS OF: 08/17/2001 CITY OF ~OGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0002407 AMIRKIAI, YOUSSEF 0000005 ANDERSON SUPER STORE CTCS61282 000732 08/16/2001 0000005 API FUND FOR PAYROLL EDUCATION 11-08-01 000539 08/13/2001 0001180 AT&T 741-1527 000620 VENDOR TOTAL 001-1035-512.40-14 VEHICLE REPAIR #95 VENDOR TOTAL 001-1040-513.40-01. Y/E SEMINAR #016079 0000005 BAUER, CYNTHIA 72701 000538 08/14/2001 001-1050-513.40-20 08/13/2001 290-6005-445.02-00 0001078 BAY TELECOM 13587 000632 08/15/2001 001-1050-513.40-20 13585 000633 08/15/2001 001-1050-513.40-20 0000593 CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE PROGRAM 1742568 000616 08/14/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 001-1040-413.05-'00 001-1045-513.40-10 290-6005-564.40-10 0001513 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 355079 000543 08/13/2001 355079 000544 08/13/2001 355079 000546 08/13/2001 0001480 CALIFORNIA SURVEYING & DRAFTING 238884 006513 08/16/2001 001-2015-623.60-04 0001523 CALISTOGA MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER CO. 01H0019822873 000689 08/15/2001 001-1060-513.40-15 01H0020005765 000748 08/16/2001 001-1060-513.40-15 CALPELRA 000635 08/15/2001 001-1045-513.30-30 006514 08/16/2001 001~1045-513.40-01 006515 08/16/2001 001-1045-513.40-01 006516 08/16/2001 001-1045-513.40-01 0002112 0000005 CAPRCBM VENDOR TOTAL * LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHGS. VENDOR TOTAL * CAMP REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * PHONE SERVICES DIGITAL PHONES VENDOR TOTAL * LONG TERM CARE #17-01 VENDOR TOTAL ' FINGERPRINTING-1 PERMIT FINGERPRINTING-1 REG. EMP FINGERPRINTING-12 APPS. VENDOR TOTAL ~ BATTERY-DTM 500 VENDOR TOTAL ~ WATER FILTER RENTAL RENTAL-WATER COOLER VENDOR TOTAL * MEMBERSHIP-MIYAKAWA REGISTRATION-MIYAKAWA REGISTRATION-BURNS REGISTRATION-TINFOW VENDOR TOTAL * 2,218.27 131.49 131.49 324.00 324.00 15.01 15.01 25.00 25.00 485.24 698.76 1,184.00 70.16 70.16 32.00 32.00 384.00 448.00 415.80 415.80 38.83 38.83 77.66 195.00 395.0'0 395.00 395.00 1,380.00 PREPARED 08/17/2001, 8:40:22 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 08/17/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000005 CAPRCBM 81301 000707 08/15/2001 0002403 CARROLL, MIKE 000691 08/15/2001 45896 000690 08/15/2001 0000076 CENTURY GRAPHICS 7452 000532 08/13/2001 7451 000533 08/13/2001 0000084 CITY OF Si~N JOSE 107414 000523 08/13/2001 006505 08/16/2001 0000682 CITY OF SARATOGA-PETTY CASH 8/2/01 000626 08/14/2001 8/8/01 000627 ~ 08/14/2001 8/8/01 000628 08/14/2001 8/6/01 000629 08/14/2001 8/3/01 000630 08/14/2001 8/10/01 000631 08/14/2001 8/10/01 000777 08/16/2001 0000005 CITY OF SUNNYVALE 8232001 000625 08/14/2001 0000041 COATE, BARRIE D. 01/542 000685 20020 08/15/2001 0000091 COMMONWEALTH CREDIT UNION 000763 08/09/2001 0000194 .COPELAND, DIANA 1701-31 000668 08/15/2001 1702-31-2 000669 08/15/2001 1703-31-2 000670 08/15/2001 1704-31-2 000671 08/15/2001 1707-31-2 000672 08/15/2001 1708-31-2~ 000673 08/15/2001 1709-31-2 000674 08/15/2001 1710-31-2 000675 08/15/2001 001-1015-511.30-30 250-4010-444.02-00 800-0000-260.10-00 290-6005-564.30-01 290-6005-564.30-01 001-2015-523.40-10 150-3015-532.40-15 290-6005-564.40-51 290-6005-564.40-51 290-6005-564.30-01 290-6005-564.30-01 290-6005-564.30-01 290-6005-564.30-01 290-6005o564.30-01 001-1045-513.40-01 250-4010-542.40-10 001-0000-210.20-01 290-6005-564.40-10 290-6005-564.40-10 290-6005-564.40-10 290-6005-564.40-10 290-6005-564.40-10 290-6005-564.40-10 290-6005-564.40-10 290-6005-564.40-10 ANNUAL CAPRCBM DUES 165.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 165.00 ARBORIST FEES OWED 40.46- TREE BOND RELEASE 2,148.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 2,107.54' BASKETBALL CHAMP SHIRTS 207.10 SOFTBALL CHAMP SHIRTS 215.72 VENDOR TOTAL ' 422.82 CAL-ID CONTRIBUTION 25,186.00 TRAFFIC SIG. MAINT. 2,865.54 VENDOR TOTAL * 28,051.54 SENIOR ESCORT LUNCH .9.95 CAMP SNACKS 8.45 PARKING, FOOD 19.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2.69 CAMP SUPPLIES 16.76 CAMP SUPPLIES 24.58 P;MRKING-SANBORN 4.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 85.50 SAFETY TRAINING 70.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 70.00 ARBORIST SERVICES 1,080.50 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,080.50 CREDIT UNION #16-01 CHECK #: 86168 VENDOR TOTA% * .00 INSTRUCTOR FEE 216.45 INSTRUCTOR FEE 48.10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 120.25 INSTRUCTOR FEE 168.35 INSTRUCTOR FEE 96.20 INSTRUCTOR FEE 192.40 INSTRUCTOR FEE 264.55 INSTRUCTOR FEE 144..30 3,588.42 3,588.42 PREPARE 7/2001, 8:40:22 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL L PAGE 4 AS OF: 08/17/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. .CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000194 COPELAND, DIANA 1712-31-2 000676 08/15/2001 1713-31-2 000677 08/15/2001 1714-31-2 000678 08/15/2001 1715-31-2 000679 08/15/2001 1716-31-2 000680 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 290-6005-564.40-10 290-6005-564.40-10 290-6005-564,40-10 290-6005-564.40-10 0002024 CPSRPTC 000534 08/13/2001 291-6010-564.40-01 0002223 CSMFO 000634 08/i5/200i 00i-i020-5il.40-02 0002~35 CUMMING HENDERSON 95820 000727 20037 08/16/2001 001-1035-512.40-15 0002197 DATA QUICK INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC 01668149 000683 20015 08/15/2001 250-4010-542.40-10 01668149 000684 20015 08/15/2001 250-4020-542.40-10 0000108 DATA TICKET, INC. 4634 006510 08/16/2001 001-2010-522.40-10 0002372 DECATUR ELECTRONICS 93422 006509 19890 08/16/2001 001-2015-623.60-04 0000121 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 157366 000728 08/16/2001 150-3015-532.40-15 0002404 EDDY, MELISSA 1 000694 08/15/2001 001-1040-513.40-10 '0000005 ESTERSEN, REBECCA 8092001 000783 08/16/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 0000156 FORBES, RYAN 1396-31 000641 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 1397-31 000642 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 0002253 FRICKE-PARKS PRESS, INC. INSTRUCTOR FEE 168.35 INSTRUCTOR FEE 144.30 INSTRUCTOR FEE 72.15 INSTRUCTOR FEE 168.35 INSTRUCTOR FEE 192.40 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,996.15 ANNUAL CONFERENCE REG. 209.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 209.00 MAILING LIST-RECRUITMENT 25.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 25.00 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 278.72 VENDOR TOTAL * 278.72 GIS INFORMATION UPDATE 25.00 GIS INFORMATION UPDATE 25.58 VENDOR TOTAL * 50.58 CITATION PROC. 6/01 100.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 100.00 RADAR HOLSTER UNITS 494.94 VENDOR TOTAL * 494.94 SIGNALS & LIGHTING '996.04 VENDOR TOTAL * 996.04 INTERIM FIN. DIR. CONS. 4,991.00 . VENDOR TOTAL * 4,9~1.00 CLASS REFUND '1~9.00 VENDOR°TOTAL * 19.00 INSTRUCTOR FEE 420.00 INSTRUCTOR FEE 245.00 VENDOR TOTAL ~ 665.00 PREPARED 08/17/2001, 8:40:22 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 5 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 08/17/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. qHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-IssuED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0002253 FRICKE-PARKS PRESS, INC. 212347 000640 19837 08/15/2001 0000162 G. N. RENN, INC. 423450 000737 20030 08/16/2001 425172 000738 20030 08/16/2001 0000164 GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT 360868 000742 19913 08/16/2001 360867 000743 19913 08/16/2001 362201 000745 19913 08/16/2001 361437 000746 19913 08/16/2001 362309 000744 08/16/2001 0002316 GENERAL ELECTRODYNAMICS CORP. 306 006598 19822 08/16/2001 '0002323 GENOFF, RICHARD C. 003 006500 19796 08/14/2001 0002402 0000183 7/01 GULDNER, MARIA 000693 08/15/2001 000692 08/15/2001 HAKONE GtMRDEN FOUNDATION 000525 08/13/2001 0001813 I.M.P.A.C. CARD SERVICES D. SURDIN 000571 08/13/2001 D. SURDIN 000572 08/13/2001 C. BOYER 000573 08/13/2001 A. SULLIVAN 000580 08/13/2001 A. SULLIVAN 000581 08/13/2001 A. SULLIVAN 000582 08/13/2001 A. SULLIVAN 000583 08/13/2001 D. ANDERSON 000575 08/13/2001 D. ANDERSON 000576 08/13/2001 D. ANDERSON 000577 08/13/2001 A. SULLIVAN 000584 08/13/2001 A. SULLIVAN 000585 08/13/2001 A. SULLIVAN 000586 08/13/2001 A. SULLIVAN 000587 08/13/2001 A. SULLIVAN 000588 08/13/2001 290-6005-564.40-41 001-1035-512.30-20 001-1035-512.30-20 001-3030-532.30-01 001-3030-532.30-01 001-3030-532.40-14 001-3030-532.40-14 150-3005-532.30-01 001-2015-623.60-04 310-9010-622.40-10 ACTIVITIES GUIDE-FALL VENDOR TOTAL * GAS, DIESEL & PETROLEUM GAS, DIESEL & PETROLEUM VENDOR TOTAL · GARDENING S~PPLIES GARDENING SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT REPAIR HAND BLOWERS-ST. DEPT VENDOR TOTAL · WHEEL LOAD WEIGHERS VENDOR TOTAL · MAINT. PROGRAM-SOD INSP. VENDOR TOTAL * 250-4010-444.02-00 ARBORIST FEES OWED 800-0000-260.10-0q TREE BOND REFUND 001-3030-532.40-71 001-1005-511.30-01 001-1005-511.30-01 001-1005-511.40-51 001-1005-511.40-04 001-1005-511.40-04 001-1005-511.40-04 001-1005-511.40-04 001-1020-511.40-04 001-1020-511.40-04 001-1020-511.40-04 001-1020-511.40-04 001-1020-511.40-04 001-1020-511.40-04 001-1020-511.40-04 001-1020-511.40-04 VENDOR TOTAL · HAKONE RENT 7/01 VENDOR TOTAL * OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES INTERVIEW PANEL SNACKS CITY,COUNCIL SP. MTG. CITY COUNCIL SP. MTG. CITY COUNCIL MTG. EXP. CITY COUNCIL MTG. EXP. MAYOR/MGR. LUNCH MTG. LUNCH MTG.-HAKONE LUNCH MTG.-WVC FIRE BOUNDIMRY DROP MTG. FIRE BOUNDARY DROP MTG. FIRE BOUNDARY DROP MTG. FIRE BOUNDARY DROP MTG. FIRE BOUNDARY DROP MTG. 3,727.95 3,727.95 1,152.66 1,131.19 2,283.85 14.42 83.27 20.00 60.66 345.51 523.86 4,852.20 4,852.20 4,631.25 4,631.25 210.78- 3,983.00 3,772.22 821.00 821.00 32.39 24.15 22.45 12.00 26.09 45.24 67.08 27.17 ' 97.32 61.73 ' 8.25 27.17 9.14 3.29 12.30 ~7/2001, 8:40:22 ~ EXPENDITURE APPROVAL L] PAGE 6 PREPARE] PRO( ~9L AS OF: 08/17/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE H~D-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0001813 I.M.P.A.C. CARD SERVICES ~ = A. SULLIVAN 000589 08/13/2001 001-1020-511.40-04 CHAMBER MIXER 52.89 A. SULLIVAN 000590 08/13/2001 001-1020-511.40-04 CHAMBER MIXER 22.90 A.~SULLIVAN 000591 08/13/2001 001-1020-511.40-04 .CHAMBER MIXER 13.46 M. WALKER 000758 08/16/2001 001-1040-513.30-01 UPS-SONICAIR 71.75 M. WALKER 000759 08/16/2001 001-1040-513.30-01 UPS-SONICAIR 161.75 M. WALKER 000760 08/16/2001 001-1040-513.30-01 UPS-SONICAIR 67.25 M. WALKE~ 000778 08/16/2001 001-1040-513.30-01 BINDERS-BUDGET 85.28 L. BURNS 000569 08/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-02 JOBS.COM 400.00 L. BURNS 000570 08/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-03 PAPER 15.10 L. MIYAKAWA 000607 08/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-02 ORAL BOARD FOOD 10.07 L. MIYAKAWA 000608 08/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-02 ORAL BOARD FOOD 53.31 L. MIYAKAWA 000609 '08/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-02 ORAL BOARD FOOD 17.32 L. MIYAKAWA 000610 08/13/2001 001-1045-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.46 C. BOYER 000574 08/13/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 PUNCHED COPY PAPER 77.54 A. SULLIVAN 000578 08/13/2001 001-1050-513.40-21 POSTAGE 187.68 A. SULLIVAN 000579 08/13/2001 001-1050-513.40-21 POSTAGE 11.17 R. KIRK 000592 08/13/2001 001-1060~513.30-02 J;~NITORIAL SUPPLIES 56.40 R. KIRK 000593 08/13/2001 001-1060-513.30-02 PAINT 134.07 R. KIRK 000594 08/13/2001 001-1060-513.40-14 REPLACE EXHAUST FAN 25.38 L. CONN 000602 08/13/2001 250-4010-542.30-01 STAFF LUNCH 79.77 L. CONN 000603 08/13/20011 250-4010-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES . 27.87 L. CONN 000604 08/13/2001 250-4010-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 26.83 L. CONN 000605 08/13/2001 250-4010-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.09 L. CONN 000606 08/13/2001 250-4010-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 43.16 B. TUCKER 000595 08/13/2001 290-6005-564.40-01 LEADER TRAINING LUNCH 156.38 B. TUCKER 000596 08/13/2001 290-6005-564.30-01 MISC. CAMP SUPPLIES 989.58 L. MERRIM~ 000597 08/13/2001 290-6010-564.40-51 EXTREME ADVENTURE I 105.00 L. MERRIMAN 000598 08/13/2001 290-6010-564.30-01 SUPPLIES WHH 35.79 L. MERRIM~ 000599 08/13/2001 290-6010-564.40-51 EXTREME ADVENTURE II BBQ 41.69 L. MERRIM~ 000600 08/13/2001 290-6010-564.40-51 EXTREME ADVENTURE II 220.87 L. MERRIMAN 000601 08/13/2001 290-6010-564.40-51 EXTREME ADVENTURE II 194.35 VENDOR TOTAL * 3,874.93 0000201 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 000764 08/09/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 RETIREMENT PLAM #16-01 CHECK #:. 86169 VENDOR TOTAL * .00 0002405 INSTRUMENT CONTROL SERVICES, LLC 4953 000771 20086 08/16/2001 001-1035-512.40-14 CNG STATION EMERG. REPAIR 4,242.73 VENDOR TOTAL * 4,242.73 0000204 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM 30054877 000736 20028 08/16/2001 001-1035-512.30-01 VEHICLE BATTERIES 33.43 30055104 000747 20028 08/16/2001 001-1035-512.30-01 VEHICLE BATTERIES 90,62 VENDOR TOTAL * 12~.05 0000213 JOBS AVAILABLE 116147 000542 08/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-40 RECRUITMENT AD 46.00 4,320.95 4,320.95 VENDOR TOTAL * 46.00 0001987 JOE A. GONSALVES & SON PREPARED 08/17/2001, 8:40:22 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 7 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 08/17/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O'. CHECK./DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE }{AND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0001987 JOE A. GONSALVES & SON 000772 20111 08/16/2001 000773 08/16/2001 0602406 JOSHI, REKHA 49108 006506 08/16/2001 49108 006507 08/16/2001 0002249 KNAPP, ALLISON 12 000686 08/15/2001 0000005 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 000765 08/13/2001 0000005 LU, MEI-CHIEN 8092001 000782 08/16/2001 0001839 MBIA MUNISERVICES COMPANY 20000950 000524 08/13/2001 0000005 MCGOWAN, DEBORJ~q 81401 000721 08/15/2001~ 0002399 METAL FAB, INC. 18036 000545 08/13/2001 0000272 METRO PUBLISHING INC. 747 000541 08/13/2001 748 000687 20017 08/15/2001 0000273 MEYER, GREG 000617 08/14/2001 000618 08/14/2001 000619 08/14/2001 0000274 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER 2001060847 000767 20112 08/16/2001 0000277 MIKE'S GARDENING 001-1020-511.40-10 001-1020-511.40-10 250-4010-444.02-00 250-4010-444.02-00 250-4010-542.40-10 001-1005-511.40-04 290-6005-445.04-00 001-1040-513.40-10 291-6010-445.05-00 150-3005-532.30-01 001'-1030-511.40-40 250-4010-542.40-40 290-6005-564.40-10 290-6005-564.40-51 290-6005-564.40-10 001-9010-622.40-12 LEGAL SVCS. 8/01 3,000.00 GOVT. VIDEO TAPE 20.75 VENDOR TOTAL ' 3,020.75 TREE BOND REFUND 2,672.00 ARBORIST FEES OWED 26.00- VENDOR TOTAL * 2,646.00 CONTRACT PLANNER SERVICES 3,206.25 VENDOR TOTAL * 3,206.25 LCC CONVENTION-BOGOSIAN CHECK #: 86170 VENDOR TOTAL ~ .00 CLASS REFUND 19.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 19.00 SALES TAX AUDIT 500.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 500.00 CAMP REFUND 159.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 159.00 MONUMENT COVERS .226.80 VENDOR TOTAL * 226.80 NOTICE OF VACANCIES 24.38 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES 91.88 VENDOR TOTAL * 116.26 REISSUE CHECK #83352 156~.00 REISSUE CHECK #83352 150.00 REISSUE CHECK #83352 4~.00 VENDOR T~TAL * 354.00 LITIGATION SERVICES 7/01 1,242.55 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,242.55 395.00 395.00 PR[ [7/2001, 8:40:22 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL Lt PAGE 8 PRO( 9L AS OF: 08/17/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000277 MIKE'S GARDENING 8/1/2001 000733 19916 08/16/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 GREENBRIAR 7/01 8/1/2001 000734 19916 08/16/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 HORSESHOE DR. 7/01 8/1/2001 000735 08/16/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 MISC. SPRINKLER PARTS 0002160 MUSICALME, INC. 1916-31-2 00065] 1917-31-2 000654 1918-31-2 000655 1919-31-2 000656 1920-31-2 000657 1921-31-2 000658 1922-31-2 000659 1923-31-2 000660 1924-31-2 000661 1925-31-2 000662 1926-31-2 000663 1929-31-2 000664 1933-31-2 000665 VENDOR TOTAL * 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 0000292 NATIONAL PLAN COORDINATOR 000762 08/09/2001 0002370 NEOPOST 10339957 000567 20006 .08/13/2001 10339957 000568 08/13/2001 0002356 NOLL & TAM 01929 006499 19960 08/14/2001 0000295 NovAKovICH, MATT 72701 006517 20059 08/16/2001 72701 006518 20059 08/16/2001 0000297 O. C. MCDONALD 7217 000688 08/15/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 001-1050-613.60~06 001-1050-613.60-06 001-9010-622.40-10 001-3030-532.40-10 001-3030-532.40-14 001-1060-513.40-14 150-3005-532.30-01 0001997 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 134348356-001 000621 08/14/2001 VENDOR TOTAL * RETIREMENT PLAN #16-01 VENDOR TOTAL * MAIL MACHINE SM75 MAIL MACHINE SM75 VENDOR TOTAL * MASTER PLANNING VENDOR TOTAL * HERITAGE ORCHARD MAINT. HERITAGE ORCHARD MAINT. VENDOR TOTAL * WINDOW A/C UNITS VENDOR TOTAL * COMPUTER SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL * 185.00 65.00 26.50 276.50 51.35 154.05 154.05 154.05 128.38 154.05 154.05 154.05 154.05 154.05 51.35 154.05 77.03 1,694.56 CHECK'#: 86167 .00 9,877.54 495.86 10,373.40 3,317.16 3,317~16 26,000.00 9,325.00 35,325.00 3,250.00 3,250.00 150.1'2 150.12 1,500.14 1,500.14 0000302 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 000756 19975 08/16/2001 001-1060-513.30-02 SUPPLIES-BLDG. MAINT. 193.98 PREPARED 08/17/2001, 8:40:22 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 9 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 08/17/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000302 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 000753 19915 08/16/2001 001-3030-532.30-01 SUPPLIES-PARKS 36.68 000754 19915 08/16/2001 150-3005-532.30-01 SUPPLIES-STREETS 273.78 000755 08/16/2001 150-3010-532.30-01 MISC. SUPPLIES 205.28 VENDOR TOTAL t 709.72 0000307 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 000720 08/15/2001 001-1060-513.40-23 BUILDINGS 17,502.64 000709 08/15/2001 001-3030-532.40-23 PARKS 380.32 000711 08/15/2001 150-3015-532.40-23 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 575.81 000710 08/15/2001 150-3025-532.40-23 MEDIAN IRRIGATION 5.83 000712 08/15/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 QUITO LIGHTING DIST. 1,980.06 000713 08/15/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z5 200.01 000714 08/15/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z9 21.87 000715 08/15/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Zl0 4.86 000716 08/15/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z14 4.86 000717 08/15/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z18 4.86 000718 08/15/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z24 PRKG. DIST. 198.21 000719 08/15/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z22 14.82 000779 08/16/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Zl6 21.78 VENDOR TOTAL * 20,915.93 0000005 PARAMOUNT THEATRE 000766 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP 8/16/01 TOUR CHECK #: 86171 VENDOR TOTAL * .00 0000005 PECK, LINDA 8092001 000785 08/16/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 19.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 19.00 0000979 PETROTEK 063757 000726 08/16/2001 150-3005-532.40-15 GAS PUMP MAINT./CARDS 248.59 VENDOR TOTAL * 248.59 0002368 PRATT, RANDY 2179-31 000666 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 90.00 2183-31 000667 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 60.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00 0000005 RADISSON HOTEL SACRAMENTO 9/12-9/13 000723 08/'16/2001 001-1005-511.40-04 LCC CONF. HOTEL RE~. 311.36 VENDOR TOTAL * 311.36 0000334 REED & GRAHAM, INC. 470025 000750 20029 08/16/2001 150-3005-532.30-01 STREET REPAIR PRODUCTS 10.00 470026 000751 20029 08/16/2001 150-3005-532.30-01 STREET REPAIR PRODUCTS 10'.00 470290 000752 20029 08/16/2001 150-3005-532.30-01 STREET REPAIR PRODUCTS 66.96 VENDOR TOTAL * 86.96 0000338 ROYAL COACH TOURS 100.00 100.00 PREPAR i17/200], 8:40:22 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL PAGE 10 PRO( ~39L AS OF: CITY OF %TOGA VEND NO VENDOR N~34E INVOICE VOUCHER P.O.' CH~CK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE It~MND-ISSUED NO NO NO 'DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000338 ROYAL COACH TOURS 000774 19989 08/16/2001 000768 19929 08/16/2001 000769 19929 08/16/2001 000770 19929 08/16/2001 0000345 SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS 286 000537 08/13/2001 0000346 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 000696 08/15/2001 000695 08/15/2001 000697 08/15/2001 000698 08/15/2001 000699 08/15/2001 000700 08/15/2001 000701 08/15/2001 000702 08/15/2001 000703 08/15/2001 000704 08/15/2001 000705 08/15/2001 000706 08/15/2001 0000589 SARATOGA LANES 3828-31 000643 08/15/2001 0002281 4126006 0001535 1907-31 SCHWAAB INC. 000724 08/16/2001 SHADDOX, ERIN 000644 08/15/2001 0000005 SHASTRY, RAMPRASAD 72701 000565 08/13/2001 0002179 8/8/Ol 0002351 29121 29121 0002728 SHINN, CORINNE A. 000682 20014 08/15/2001 SIDEMARK CORPORATE FURNITURE 006511 19965 08/16/2001 006512 19964 08/16/2001 SMART & FINAL 290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP 9/6/01~BUS 523.25 291-6010-564.40-51 TEEN TRIP 8/14/01 491.04 291-6010-564.40-51 TEEN TRIP 8/15/01 635.96 291-6010-564.40-51 TEEN TRIP 8/16/01 550.02 VENDOR TOTAL * 2,200.27 001-1045-513.40-40 RECRUITMENT ADS ~43.72 VENDOR TOTAL * 543.72 001-3030-532.40-22 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 468.49 150-3025-532.40-22 MEDIARS/P;LRKWAYS 1,675.38 180-3040-532.40-22 FREDERICKSBURG 17.34 180-3040-532.40-22 GREENBRIAR 179.39 180-3040~532.40-22 MCCARTYSVILLE 211.50 180-3040-532.40-22 TRICIA WOODS 189.81 180-3040-532.40-22 ARROYO S;~RATOGA 121.78 180-3040-532.40-22 LEUTAR CT. 79.47 180-3040-532.40-22 BONNET WAY 223.22 180-3040-532.40-22 GLASGOW CT. 17.34 180-3040-532.40-22 PRIDES CROSSING 218.14 180-3040-532.40-22 BELLGROVE 3,197.98 VENDOR TOTAL * 6,599.84 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 41.40 VENDOR TOTAL * 41.40 001-1020-511.30-01 STAMP-CMO 62.48 VENDOR TOTAL * 62.48 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 325.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 325.00 291-6010-445.05-00 CAMP REFUND 438.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 438.00 250-4010-542.40-10 PC MINUTES 8/8/01 45'0.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 450.00 001-2010-622.60-06 OFFICE'FURNITURE-CD .699.05 250-4010-642.60-06 OFFICE FURNITURE-CD 2,305.51 VENDOR TOTAL * 3,004.56 PREPARED 08/17/2001, 8:40:22 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 11 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 08/17/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. OHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE H/%ND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUqgT 0001728 SMART & FINAL 000528 08/13/2001 000529 08/13/2001 000530 08/13/2001 000531 08/13/2001 0000375 SOUTH BAY METRO OFFICIALS 000681 08/15/2001 0000005 STAPLES 38748 000622 08/14/2001 0002325 THE MOORE STORE ~W18176-00 000637 19967 08/15/2001 0002401 THE.SPINNAKER RESTAUR~T 000775 19990 08/16/2001 0000398 TLC 000761 08/09/2001' 0001795 TLC ADMINISTRATORS INC. 8/01 000540 08/13/2001 0000323 U.S. POSTMASTERS 000638 08/15/2001 000639 08/15/2001 0001402 U.S. TRUST CO. N.A. 080901 000613 08/14/2001 080901 000614 08/14/2001 080901 000611 08/14/2001 080901 000612 08/14/2001 0000414 UN-GM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA 000615 08/14/2001 0000155 URI/HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES SW 166261 000725 20027 08/16/2001 0002028 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SERVICE 290-6005-564.30-01 290-6005°564.30-01 290-6005-564.30-01 290-6005-564.30-01 290-6005-564.40-10 001-1050-513.30-01 001-1040-513.30-01 290-6005-564.40-51 001-0000-210.2~-01 001-0000-210.20-0~ 290-6005-564.40-21 291-6010-564.40-21 420-8020-713.70-01 420-8020-723.70-02 740-8010-713.70-01 740-8010-723.70-02 001-0000-210.20-01 150-3015-532.30-01 OVERNIGHT CAMP FOOD 110.65 CAMP SNACKS/SUPPLIES 62.15 FAMILY BBQ SUPPLIES 182.32 CAMP SNACK SUPPLIES 79.44 VENDOR TOTAL * 434.56 SUMMER SOFTBALL UMPIRES 502.52 VENDOR TOTAL * 502.52 OFFICE SUPPLIES 54.98 VENDOR TOTAL * 54.98 PAYROLL CHECKS 1,096.52 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,096.52 SR. TRIP 9/6/01-DEPOSIT 1,100.00 VENDOR TOTAL ~ 1,100.00 SECTION 125 REIMB. ~16-01 CHECK #: 86166 VENDOR TOTAL * .00 SECTION 125 ADMIN. 175.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 175.00 BULK MAIL-CAMP SURVEYS ' 94.05 BULK MAIL-WHH 313.50 VENDOR TOTAL * 407.55 LEONARD RD.-PRINCIPAL 5,000.00 LEONARD RD.-INTEREST 2,812.00 REASSESSMENT 1993-PRIN. 125,000.00 REASSESSMENT 1993-INT.. 21,797.50 VENDOR TOTAL * 154,609.50 LTD INSURAMCE 9/01 1,594.85. VENDOR TOTAL ~ 1,594.85 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPPLIES 235.17 VENDOR TOTAL ' 235.17 534.57 534.57 PREPARE] ~7/2001, 8:40:22 ~ EXPENDITURE APPROVAL PAGE 12 PROGRJ~ 39L AS OF: 08/17/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR N/~IE INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. C~ECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION JM~IOUNT 0002028 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SERVICE M7190065BH 000730 20031 08/16/2001 001-3030-532.40-30 PAGER-MOONEY M7190065BH 000731 20031 08/16/2001 001-3030-532.40-30 SERVICE FUND CNG. MT190065BH 000729 20031 08/16/2001 260-5015-552.40-20 PAGERS-CHERBONE, MCQUEEN 0002369 VERMONT SYSTEMS, INC. 6874 i 000722 19955 08/15/2001 001-1065-613.60-06 6873 000757 19955 08/16/2001 001-1065-613.60-06 0000005 WARMINGTON, CAROLYN 80101 000535 08/13/2001 0001582 WEST VALLEY - MISSION PS-739 006498 08/14/2001 290-6005-445.02-00 001-1040-513.40-41 VENDOR TOTAL * PC CHG. SYSTEM/TECH SUPP. RECTRAC SOFTWARE/TRAINING VENDOR TOTAL CAMP REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * FINAL BUDGET VENDOR TOTAL * 00004~2 WHITLINGER, JOHN 3803-31 000645 08/15/2001 290-6005-5'64.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 3804-31 000646 08/15/200I 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 3806-31 000647 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 3810-31 000648 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 3811-31 000649 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 3817-31 000650 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 3818-31 000651 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 3819-31 000652 08/15/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 0000440 XEROX CORPORATION 083045175 000623 08/14/2001 600245126 000624 08/14/2001 0000005 YALUNG, ROBERT 52801 000566 08/13/2001 001-1050-513.40-30 0000005 YIP, LIUS;%N 80101 000536 08/13/2001 0000005 YODER, SHARR 8092001 000784 08/16/2001 VENDOR TOTAL * MONTHLY LEASE 5100A 001-1050-513.40-30 MONTHLY LEASE 4 COPIERS VENDOR TOTAL * 292~0000-260.00-00 DEPOSIT REFUND. VENDOR TOTAL * 290-6005-445.04J00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * TOTAL EXPENDITURES **** GRAND TOTAL *********** 24.00 .79 48.00 72.79 1,375.62 7,780.82 9,156.44 119.00 119.00 685.66 685.66 148.00 185.00 259.00 22~.00 222.00 259.00 296.00 296.00 1,887.00 2,286.08 771.81 3,.057.89 300.00 300.00 87.00 87.00 26.00 26.00 390,230.35 10,439.08 400,669.43 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 DEPT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Kristin Borel AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Actions, August 22, 2001 RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Note and file. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the Planning Commission action minutes of August 22, 2001. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): N/A ALTERNATIVE 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 DATE: PLACE: TYPE: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: ABSENT: STAFF: Commissioners Hunter, Jackman, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry Commissioner Garakani, Kurasch Director Sullivan, Planner Livingstone, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF Al r FGIANCE MINUTES - Draft Minutes from Regular Plarming Commission Meeting of August 8, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda_ The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 16, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CAI ENDAR RESOLUTION FOR V-01-007 (386-18-003) NGUYEN, 18621 Kosich Drive; - Request for Variance approval to construct a new 439 square foot garage in the rear yard setback approximately five feet from the rear property line. The proposed garage will be attached to the existing single story house. Maximum height of the structure will be 12 feet 11 inches. The 10,788 square foot parcel is located in the R-l-10,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) Staff has prepared a resolution with £indings approving tlu's variance. (APPROVED 5-0) RESOLUTION FOR V-01-014 (386-18-003) NGUYEN, 18621 Kosich Drive; Request for Variance approval to construct an addition into the required exterior side yard setback. The proposed side yard addition would intrude 13 feet into the required 25- foot exterior side yard setback facing Kosich Drive. The 10,788 square foot parcel is located in the R-l-10,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) Staf£/zas prepared a resolution with findings denying tIu's variance. (APPROVED RESO DENYING VARIANCE 5-0) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AUGUST 22, 2001 PAGE2 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 public 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 agenda, or in written 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, written communication should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. 1. UP-01-007 SPRINT, Saratoga Los Gatos Road 8z Farwell Avenue; - Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right-of-way. The site is located in the R-I-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) (CONTINUED TO SEPT. i2) 2. V-01-010 (517-20-034) - TIMMONS, 20200 Mendelsohn Lane; - Request for a Variance approval to construct an approximate eight foot tail sound wall in the front yard setback across the front of the property, where three feet in height is normally required. The site is located in the R-I-20,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED R, ESO DENYING VARIANCE 5-1, ROUPE OPPOSED) GPA-01-001 (CITYWIDE) - GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT; - The 2000 Housing Element update is a comprehensive statement by the City of Saratoga of its current and future housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing to meet those needs at all income levels. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify current and projected housing needs and set forth goals, policies, and programs that address those needs. The Housing Element has been prepared to meet the requirements of State law and local housing objectives. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 5- 0) DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT AT 10:02 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, September 12, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: City Manager Employment Agreement RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to Mayor to execute agreement with Dave Anderson, City Manager. REPORT SUMMARY: The approved contract will be available during the Open Session of tonight's City Council meeting once it has been discussed and approved by the City Council during the Closed Session portion of tonight's agenda. The agreement will reflect direction from Council and will be approved as to form by the City Attorney. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: An agreement would not be executed. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: City Clerk will forward a certified copy of the fully executed agreement to Mr. Anderson. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 ORIGINATING ,l~T:~~n.._ager PREPARED BYe, f .,~. ?~' ~/~ ,/ / AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Claim of John Yfantis; Claim No. GL-052558 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize ABAG to settle claim not to exceed the amount of $1,755.00. REPORT SUMMARY: Histor~ The Quito Road Sidewalk Project required the City to remove and replace a section of Mr. Yfanits driveway. Mr. Yfanits decided to hire his own contractor. The City agreed to reimburse Mr. Yfanits, with his concurrence, the cost of $1,755.00 the City would of incurred if the City's contractor would of done the work at $5.00 a square foot. On August 24, 2000, the City issued a check for the amount of $1,755.00 to pay for the section of driveway damaged during the sidewalk construction on the property located at 14135 Quito Road, Mr. Yfantis indicated that he would pick the check up at City Hall, but he never came to claim the check. On March 28, 2001 Mr. Yfantis proceed to file a claim against the City in the amount of $4,427,50 ($7.00 per square foot plus additional costs for claimed damages). The claimant provided no records to document the costs incurred with this repair. After several attempts by Lori Hardacre, Claims Examiner/ABAG, to obtain additional records to substantiate the costs incurred. Due to the fact that Mr. Yfantis never provided additional documentation to justify the higher costs per square footage than the City's contractor would have charged, the amount owed on this claim would be equal to what the City's contractor would have charged to repair the affected 357.5 square feet of driveway. Once the Council authorizes ABAG to settle claim, they will send Mr. Yfantis a letter with the settlement amount and informing him that he must accept the offer within 45 days. If Mr. Yfantis fails to accept the settlement within the specified time period, the City's Risk Manager will send him a rejection notice on this claim. By issuing a rejection notice, we limit to six months the time within which Mr. Yfantis can pursue litigation in this matter. FISCAL IMPACTS: The claim will be paid in the amount of $1755.00 from the originally designed account #160-9010-622.40-10. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The claim will not be settled. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council could decide not to settle the claim. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Process settlement of claim and notify claimant. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A 'ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Original check issued to claimant on March 24, 2001 Attachment B - Supplemental Claims Report from ABAG 2 of 2 --,3 :~00 oO 0 0 o~ oO o~ 0 Z 08/21Z2001 09:13 F.~ 5104647979 ABAG W¢omp ~001 2. SSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS · Representing Cl[y and Co(~n~y Governmenu of t~e San Francisco Bay Area August 21, 2001 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ABA G PLAN C o R P O R A'T IO N CLAIMANT(s): DATE OF LOSS: 'CITY CLAIM #: ABAG CLAIM #: YFANTIS, Jol'm 7-1-2000 00/0~ SA - ? GL-052558 SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM REPORT Dear Ms. Boyer: FACTS ALLEGED I~Y THE CLATM~k~T: The claimant has presented a claim for dama§e to his property located a: 13135 Quito Road. The clMmant asserts that, when the City's contractor cut out a four-foot wide section of his driveway and installed the sidewalk, the constr~clion created a height differential in the driveway area of approYlmately two inches- When the c]~im~ported the creation of this ~--ip hazard, the City's contractor then removed a 13' x 27.5' portion of the claimant's driveway. The intent was to re-lay the driveway so it would tie in. to the sidewalk, at .a level grade. The claimant decided to obtain his own contractor to make rep/dr to bis driveway and have the City pay for the dama§ed portion. DAMAGES CLAIMED: Originally r_he claimant requested reimbursement for $1,755 to pay for the section of driveway dama§ed in the sidewalk construction.. The .City issued payment to the claimant on. 8/24/2000, but the ~.lM~an~ never came to City Hall to claim the check. With presentation of this claim, the claimant presented a new claim figure of $4,427.50 (632_5 square feet at $7 per SF), representing replacement of the entire driveway. The claimant is seeking payment from the City for $4,950 which the claimant describes as "not the total cost incurred by me, but the city's ~fair' contribution to the cost-" The claimant provided no records (such as engineer reports, estimates, invoices or cancelled checks) to document the costs incurred with this repair. CLAIM STATUS: Following receipt of this claim, I attempted to contact the cia/ma_ut to obtahu additional information about these damages. Specifically, the claimant never provided any estimates, invoices or engineer reports as referenced in his claim notice to substantiate the clMm of $4,950. In Icav/ng voiccrnail messages for m~, ,thc claimant repeatedly asscrtccl that he ha~ presented all the information he intends to submit on this claim, and he made reference to having his attorney contact me. We never received a response to my .letter of 6/7/01 requesting that the claimant have his attorney contact me to discuss this claim. INSP~J'TION: On 5/30/01 I inspected the driveway at 13135 Quko Road. The claimant's lower section of driveway matches extremely wen with the existing grade level and preexisting concrete color. I obtained photographs showing the current condition of this driveway, duplicates of which .are enclosed for your rev/ew. ABA6 h4ailing Address: P,O. Box 2050 Oakland, Callforn!~ ?.4~0~-2050 (510) 4~-790o l~ax: [5]0J 454-7989 plan@abag.ca.gov Location: Joseph P. Bott MetroCenter i0] 5§h[h $[reet Oakland, ('alibrnia g460?~17S~ _. 08/21/2001 09:13 FAX 5104647979 ABAG WComp ~002 City of Saratoga Y'FANTIS Claim #GL--052558 August 21, 2001 Page 2 CITY INFORM&TION: We have received information from Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, which has been relayed to her by Public Works D/rector John Cherbone. The City has confn-med that the clalmant's driveway did require adclitional work to repair the grade level after the sidewalk was installed. The cost basis for the City's contractor to make the necessary repair to this section of driveway would have amounted to $1.755. The City confn~ns that this would be the maximum mount owed to the claimant to reimburse any costs incurred for this repair. LIABn,ITY: Probable. The City has confirmed that a height differential was created at the claimant's property as a result of the cut-in of the City sidewalk; It' was therefore necessary to make repair to the claimant's driveway. The claimant chose to hire his own concrete contractor to make this repair, though the cl~iraant has failed to present any records to substantiate the costs incurred. In the absence of any documentation to justify a higher cost per square foot than the City's contractor would have charged, the amount owed on this el,lin would be equal to what the City's contractor would have charged to repair the affected 357.5 square feet of driveway. RESERVE " The property damage reserve has been adjusted to $1,755. This reserve will be adjusted accordingly when further information about this claim has been obtained. RECOMMENDATION,. It has been our mnderstandin§ during our investigation of this claim that the City intended to reimburse the cIaimant for the $1,755 cost to repair the driveway. Based upon the findings noted above, we concur that settlement should bc authorized on this cIaim. We therefore request authority to offer settlement for the amount of $1,755. Based upon the claimant's reluctance to cooperate with our investigation of this Claim, we suggest that this settlement be presented to the claimant as a fuun offer that must be accepted within 45 days. We also request that the City authorize issuing a rejection notice on. this claire'if the claimant fails to act on this settIement offer within the specified time period. By issuing the rejection notice, we limit to six months the time within which the claimant can pursue litigation in this matter. If a hazard was the direct result of the manner in which the City's contractor installed the sidewalk at the claimant's residence, {t is likely that the City's contract agreement with the contractor would serve to indemnify the City on all damage elS/ms resulting from this construction, /f the C/ty wou/d w~nt to eons/der l~resenting a subrogation claim to the contractor for recovery2 of these damages, please provide a co.vlt of the contract agreement for our review. In the alternative: we may al~o want to consider ~irnl~lll tendgring this claim to the contr~wtor and request defense and indemnity for the City under the terr~ of the contract agreement. 08/21/2001 09:14 FA~ $104647979 &BAG WComp ~003 City of Saratoga YFANTIS Claim #GL-052558 August 21, 2001 Page 3 REMARKS: I look forward to receiving a response from the City to confirm whether authority to settle this claim will be forthcoming, as well as whether the City wishes us to p~lrsue the tender or subrogation options which may be available for these d~mages. If you have any questions about this or any other matter, please contact me at 510-464-7936. Leri Hardacre Claims Examiner Enclosure SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 SUBJECT: Follow up report on Grant Writer Service Providers RECOMMENDED ACTION (S): Award grant writing service contract to National Grant Services and authorize City Manager to execute the same. REPORT SUMMARY: At the June 6, 2001 regular meeting, staff presented a report to Council regarding professional Grant Writing Services for the City of Saratoga including how other Cities in the area apply for grants. The report concluded the Cities of Cupertino, Los Gatos, Campbell and Sunnyvale processed their own grant materials at the individual department level. Due to higher levels of staffing, these cities are able to handle this function with little disruption to the individual departments. The June 6 report also provided information on professional grant writing service providers. Contained in the table below is a summary of these providers.. Grant Service Vendor: Type of Services: Fee Structure: National Grant Services Grant Proposals, Project $1,000 retainer fee Administration, Public plus 10% of amount Outreach. rewarded up to $250,000.00 SeligerAssociates Grant Writing, research, $2,000.00 fiat fee. Business Plans. Other fees depend upon project size. Revisions Grant Services Proposal Writing, review. $65.00 an hour, minimum fee of $1,200.00. Grantwriting, Fundraising and Grant Writing, Fundraising $1,000.00 research Development Services fee; $2,000.00 - $2,500.00 proposal writing fee. Bonnie J. Hale Technical Writer/Editor, $60.00 an hour, Grant Writer, minimum fee of Developmental Editing $1,200.00. Retainer of 50% of projected costs. Based upon this listing, Council directed staff to send out a Request for Proposal (R.F.P.) to each provider listed below and come back to Council at a later meeting date with a recommendation. Only two Grant Writers responded to the RFP, National Grant Writing Services and William M. Dingfelder, Ph.D. Listed below is a comparison table of the two candidates: Grant Writer: Fee Structure: Other Costs: Services City Government Provided: Experience Level: National Grant Fee based upon $1,000.00 one- Grant proposal Extensive Services performance, time retainer services and Range is 10% - fee. Mileage Project 6% of grant reimbursement Administration awarded~-Fee per current Services. schedule attached IRS adopted mileage rate. William M. $2,000.00 - $500.00 per Grant proposals, Limited Dingfe!der, $2,500.00 flat fee day fee in government-to- Ph.D. depending upon addition to government size and travel proposals, and complexity of reimbursement public hearing project, if required to assistance. be present. Summary: Due to their extensive experience working with local government, nearby location and performance based fee structure, staff recommends National Grant Services be retained as the grant service provider for the City of Saratoga. FISCAL IMPACTS: None until service requested, then a one-time retainer fee of $1,000.00 will need to be incurred in order to receive services. 2 of 3 CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION (S): City staff will continue to perform grant-writing services. ALTERNATIVE ACTION (S): Consider retaining the services o£William M. Dingfelder FOLLOW UP ACTION (S):- None. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - R.FPs for National Grant Services and William M. Dingfelder. 3 of 3 To: Cary Bloomquist/Public Works Department From: Duke Foster/National Grant Services jUly 20, 2001 Dear Mr. Bloomquist: Enclosed is information about our grant and project services. The Brief Outline of Services summarizes what we do and basically how we assist agencies finance their desired projects.' We propose complete grant services or partial services (your option). The beauty of our services is that we do not get paid (other than the retainer fee) until we successfully secure funding. We only pursue grants that the agency or organization desires and we tell the organization from the offset total costs, advantages, disadvantages and explain if there are any "strings attached". We generally include our fees in the grant proposal budget and if we find that the granting agency does not allow full compensation, we discuss the fee with you prior to submittal. Our specialties have been geared toward environmental projects such as riparian restoration, re-vegetation, fisheries, wetlands, RT&E, watersheds and related public access projects. Most recently we are completing an acquisition for Bear River Recreation & Park District involving wetlands and I'm working on an LAE for Otis Ranch acquisition in Yolo County as well as wetlands/watershed restoration in Lagoon Valley and the Suisun Marsh Natural History Association. We have 14 associates'that specialize in areas such as the arts & humanities, criminal justice, parks & recreation, at-risk-youth, sewer & water, streetscapes, forestry, fisheries, trails, social issues and public works. The grants secured in the past seven years have varied from $15,000 to $1.1 million. The projects have also varied from Cultural Dance to complete Watershed Restoration. Yours truly, Duke Foster Project Coordinator E-mail: duke@volcano.net 19221 RED 'HILL MINE ROAD · PINE GROVE, CA 95665 pHONE (209) 296-5657 · FAX (209) 296-5659 NATIONAL GRANT SERVICES Partners in Project Funding & Development BRIEF OUTLINE OF SERVICES Our purpose is to assist countries, cities, counties, state & federal agencies, special districts, American Indians, for profit and non-profit organizations. Our services include securing grants/loans and/or completing construction phases (Grant proposal services and/or project administration). Upon our first visit with an organization, we establish a "wish list" of their desired projects or-programs. We then research funding sources to match one or more of their desired projects/programs. Our sources include: state, federal, foundation, corporate and private funds (we also secure fixed goods as needed ie. office equip., vehicles etc.). We lobby for legislative support at the federal, state and local levels to insure projects are recognized and we solicit endorsement.q fromlocal and national groups as needed. We cooperate with the organization by completing all phases of the project, or portions thereof (Some organizations desire to utilize their staff for segments of the work and/or grant solicitation). A one-time retainer fee of $1,000 initiates our services. The standard fee for grant proposal services is 10% and.reduces to 6% for larger projects. Generally, we perform both grant proposal services and project administration services for approximately 25-35% ' of the project costs. Each project often requires a different type of specialist. We select specific individuals for each project.from our list of affiliates. Once both parties have signed an agreement, National Grant Services continues to research potential funds for the projects designated by the organization ("wish list"). NATIONAL GRANT S] RVICF_.,S Partners in Project l~undtng & Development 19221 Red Hill Mine Roa~ Pine Grove, CA 95665 Phone (209)296-5657-E-mail duke(a~volcano.net PROJECT SERVICES GRANT PROPOSAL SERVICES. Develop project scope with the agency Review and solicit all potential grant sources Collection of data pertinent to project Consider alternatives for creative financing and support Conduct public hearings as necessary Secure permits, resolutions, CEQA and NEPA documents and pertinent forms Preparation of all forms required for grant application Direct contact with key staff members of funding agencies, state and federal legislators as needed Provide architectural renderings and photographs of project as required PROJECT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES On-site project review: Scope, description and enhancement potential Process all forms necessary for successful project completion including payment requests and project accounting Architectural and engineering design Component review of.' Classifi6ation-: Topography Vegetation Accessibility Compatibility needs Potential conflicts Project priorities Area and facility inventory Applicable standards Demand and activity analysis Transportation and growth Budget and finance Ensure timely project development and completion Coordinate project facilitation with appropriate inspectors, contractors, and architects for a successful and beneficial project Lode fair San Joaquin Fair Stanislaus Fair Merced County Fair Chowchilla/Madera Fair Quick Power Calaveras COG City of Vacaville City of Turlock City of Fresno City of Corona City of Angels Camp City of Turlock of Manteca City of Lodi City of Colusa Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail CA Kindergarten Association Lakota Sioux Lockwood Fire District Sunrise Recreation & Parks Ramona Recreation & Parks Bear River Recreation & Parks Placer Count), Fall River Wild Trout Foundation SPEAR (Suicide Prevention) Count)' Surfer Creek Theatre Renewable Technologies Inc. Nevada Union H.S. Found National Grant Services Client List July~ 2001 Yolo County RCD A-PAL (Hmnanc Society) Calaveras County Arts Miners Foundr)' Colusa CounB Adaptive Sports (ADA) Cultural Dance Hook & Ladder Foundation Volcano CSD Moke. Hill Sanitary Dist. River Pines CSD CA State Parks - Sierra El Mercado (revitalization) Campbell Timber Mendocino Redwood Co. Wild Rice Growers Assoc. Sierra Buttes Coalition Northern Tribal Com~cil Nash Ranch Road Assoc. Cai-Coast Shasta Rail Foundation Beliexc Mission (Mexico) Cultural Center (Mexico) Suism~ Marsh Assoc. Modesto City Schools Half Way Ranch (Teens) lone Skate Park Loyalton Valle), Restoration Jenny Lind Vet. Memorial Contra Costa Flood Control Dist East Bay Municipal Utility Dist. Jackson Valley Irrigation Dist. Nevada Irrigation Dist. Vista lmgation Dist Sierra Pine Park Vocational Training & Employ. Issels Foundation (Medical Research) Contra Costa Water District Quick Power tBiomass Energy) NATIONAL GRANT SERVICF-~ REFERENCES Amador County Rod Schuler Director, Public Works 500 Argonaut Lane Jackson, CA 95642 (209) 223-6429 Cultural Dance Ensemble Beatriz Ross Artistic Director 40048 Michelle Street Fremont, Ca 94538 (510) 659-8592 Jenny Lind Veterans Memorial District Jerry Allen, Past Chairman P. O. Box 548 Valley Springs, CA 95252 (209) 772-9650 City of Lodi Parks and Recreation Dept. Ron Williamson, Director 124 N. Stockton Street Lodi, CA 95242 (209) 333-6742 San Joaquin County Fair Forrest White, General Manager 1658 S. Airport Way Stockton, CA 95206 (209) 466-5041 Bear River Recreation & Park District Gary Clarke, Chairman 22937 W. Hacienda Dr. Grass Valley, CA 95949 (530) 268-7275 Nevada Irrigation District Aria Baragar, Chief of Admin. P.O~ Box .5348 Auburn, CA 95604 (530) 823-2466 City of Tuflock Parks and Recreation Department Abe Rojas, Past Director P.O. Drawer T Tudock, CA 95381 (209) 667-8561 City of Vacaville Community Services Department Bob Fardngton, City Landscape Architect 40 Eldridge Avenue, #14 Vacaville, CA 95688 (707) 449-5656 Vista Irrigation District John Amodeo, General Manager 202 W. Connecticut Avenue Vista, CA 92083 (760) 724-8811, ext. 134 Jackson Valley Irrigation District Hank Willy, Manager 6755 Lake Amador Drive Ione, CA 95640 (209) 274-2037 East Bay Municipal Utilities District Marcel Moranton, Supervisor Pardee Center Valley Springs, CA 95252 (209) 772-8259 NATIONAL GRANT SERVICES Partners in Project Funding and Development FEE SCHEDULE GRANT PROPOSAL SERVICES Client agrees to pay for grant proposal services on a performance basis, whereby the consultant shall be paid a percentage of the grantAoan amount for successful funding of a grant/loan proposal. To initiate consultant services, a retainer fee of $1,000 shall be paid to consultant. Upon notification, recommendation and/or approval that a project or program will be awarded a grant and/or loan amount for a client, the consultant shall be compensated as budgeted in the grant/loan proposal or as follows: Grant/Loan Cost Estimate Percent of Compensation $1 to $250,000 10% $250,001 to $500,000 8% Above $500,000 *6% *Payments to consultant exceeding $200,000 will be negotiable Retainer Fee: The client employs consultant to commence research and collect all required and necessary documents and information to complete and submit a project proposal for a potential grant and/or loan funds. Refusal of Funds: If client refuses to accept funds that have been approved and/or recommended and would be granted to client, consultant will be compensated one-half the standard fee. Upon signing of an agreement by client, full compensation shall be made to consultant. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES Compensation for project administration services shall be a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 35% of the total project costs. Other Costs and Expenses: Client shall be charged $95.00 per hour for meetings requested by client, in excess of three meetings per project. Mileage reimbursement shall be according to current standard IRS adopted mileage rate. Food and Lodging shall be based upon average costs within area being served. Allowable rates from a funding source will prevail. FS/6-01A William M. Dingfelder, Ph.D. Development & Grantwriting Consultant 431 Mary Watersford Road Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004 (610) 667-5071 Fax: (610) 667-7932 'E-mail: Narberth@aol.com http://www.libertynet.org/~grants July 18, 2001 Cary Bloomquist Public Works Analyst City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 950'/0 Dear Mr. Bloomquist, Thank you for your letter of July 13, in which you issued a request for services to Grant Writing Professionals. Please consider this letter and the attachments as .my application and response to your letter. As my resume indicates, I have 20 years experience in the development/fundraising field: 12 serving on staff at nonprofit organizations, and eight years (so far) running my own one-person business. While I have many skills, I typically help nonprofit organizations seek funds from corporate, foundation, and government funding sources, and also locate these funding sources when required. I've also helped written government-to- government proposals (most recently, for Philadelphia's Mayor's Commission on Literacy) as well as an occasional for-profit firm (e.g., Scholastic, Inc., in a proposal to 'the NYC Board of Education). I'm experienced, creative, effective, and affordable. Here are my specific responses to the different criteria you listed: Preparation of all forms...: I am able to prepare all forms required for grant applications in a timely manner. I've written proposals to the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, uS Dept. of Education, US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Institute for Museum and Library Services, PA Humanities Council, PA Council on the Arts, and other funders. I've also written to many national and local foundations (e.g., Kresge, Kellogg, Ford, Pew) as well as corporate funders (e.g., Sun, SmithKline, Rohm and Haas). I suspect that most proposals would be for federal, state, or county funds rather than corporate or foundation support. However, I know that municipalities increasingly seek such support. For example, here in Philadelphia the William Penn Foundation_ substantially supports Fairmount Park, the city's park system. Cary Bloomquist July 18, 2001 Page Two I work on a flat-rate basis, not a contingency or commission basis. For a single proposal to a government agency, typically in response to a single Request for Proposals, I charge $2,500. For proposals to multiple non-governmental funders (that is, a proposal that will be sent to different corporate and foundation prospects), I charge $2,000 to write the "core proposal materials": the cover letter; full proposal (executive summary, narrative, budget, and list of attachments); and a two-page letter of inquiry, the preferred method of initial contact with some funders. (In that case, the funder decides if they want a full proposal on the basis of the letter of inquiry). To research and develop a list of potential funding sources for each project - corporate, foundation, and government prospects - I charge $1,000. Typically, ! am able to work out of my Philadelphia, PA-based office. For many initiatives, that works fine, and I have many clients I've never met in person: we communicate via phone, fax, e-mail, FedEx, or US Mail. (I don't charge anything extra for such communication time or methods of communications). If, however, a proposal or my work with the City of Saratoga required my presence there, I would ask for reimbursement for all of my travel costs plus a fee of $500 per day, including travel time. I do make every effort to travel as inexpensively as possible. Review and solicit all potential grant sources: I have access to several databases (e.g., Foundation Center publications, Internet research), and can also research federal and state funding opportunities comprehensively. Collect data ...: I work well with different staff, administrators, or program officers at all levels. Typically, I send a questionnaire or interview them on the phone, depending on what is convenient for them. I secure all information necessary to write a strong, · compelling proposal. Provide alternatives ...: I'm a creative person and would be able to develop viable alternatives to government support, including fee-for-service options, corporate/public cooperative programs or sponsorships, and individual support. It is often best to have a local representative, such as a city official, actually make the solicitations rather than me or any other consultant: that approach has more credibility. However, I would help develop solicitation strategies, write talking points, or otherwise help as much as possible in terms of such alternatives for funding. The fee I would charge for developing and supporting such alternative activities would vary, depending on how much time it takes, but it would certainly be under $500 per project.. Cary Bloomquist July 18, 2001 Page Three Assistance in conducting public hearings: I would be able to help the best by providing talking points, answers to the most likely potential questions/concerns/objections, and synopses of a given project's strengths. Again, the amount I would charge for each such public hearing would vary, but would be under $500 per project. Secure permits...: Frankly, this is one area i don't have much experience with, beyond obtaining signatures on certifications/assurances for government proposals. I'd certainly be able to make phone calls, written requests, etc. for such paperwork once I became oriented and further on the "learning curve" for this part of the work. I would charge under $500 per project for such activities. ...Develop project scope: I have substantial experience in doing this, and would be able to do it as part of my grantwriting activities (and thus at no additional cost). Provide architectural renderings and photographs ...: I've worked with architects, photographers, and project officers in the past to obtain such documentation, and it is very straightforward. Again, this is typically part of the grantwriting process, and thus I would not charge for such activities. Establish contact...: I'm very experienced in securing information from funding agencies as needed, although I've had less experience in working with legislators and their staff. Such contacts are fairly routine, and I'm able to get the information I need typically without much delay on the part of the people I'm dealing with. This is part of the grantwriting process, and I would not charge extra for such activities. I don't really serve as advocate or representative for my clients in terms of more substantial contacts (e.g., in "selling" a project or making a case for funding): again, project officers would have more credibility in such an activity rather than an outside consultant. In short, I think I have the qualifications and experience to do this job well. In all honesty, if you have two consultants who are equally qualified and competitive in _terms of their rates, you might want to consider someone who lives nearby: it would cost you a lot less for meetings, and you'd probably be able to have more meetings with them. Trust. me, I'm not trying to talk myself out of this work, but I try to be honest with everyone, and that's my honest assessment. I would be pleased to send sample proposals, have a conference call with you and your colleagues, or otherwise help as much as I can to elaborate on my services -just give me a call at (610). 667-5071, or e-mail me: narberth~aol.com. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Bill Dingfelder William M. Dingfelder, Ph.D. Development & Grantwriting Consultant 431 Mary Watersford Road Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004 (610) 667-5071 Fax: (610) 667-7932 E-mail:. Narberth@aol.com http://www.libertynet.org/-grants Summary of Information on My Services I am an independent development (fundraising) consultant to nonprofit organizations. I have 20 years experience in the field: 12 years serving on staff at nonprofits, and 8 years running my own one-person business. While I have many strengths, I typically write proposals on behalf of my nonprofit clients to corporate, foundation, and government funding prospects. I can also undertake a wide variety of other development writing services, such as letters to alumni, parents, friends, and major gift prospects; speeches for nonprofit officers and trustees; text for development or marketing publications; capital campaign literature, reports, and brochures; and much more, including research of corporate and foundation funders. I am experienced, creative, effective, and affordable. Typically, clients hire me for one or more of the following services: · 'Researching at least 20, and usually more, potential foundation and corporate funders, for a fee of $1,000; · ' Thoroughly editing and revising an existing proposal, for $1,000; · Writing the "core" corporate or foundation proposal from scratch, for $2,000. The client can then send the proposal to as many potential funders as possible, at no extra charge. Some proposals which are more involved, such as applications to government agencies, take more time: I charge $2,500 for such work. As noted above, I work on a for-fee basis, not on a contingency or commission basis. I don't charge extra for local travel, telephone, fax, e-mail, FedEx, or any other routine charges. While I wOuld have to charge for non-Philadelphia-region travel, this is rarely necessary: I have helped many clients across the country without such travel, and it has worked out well, enabling the client to save money. Additional information on myself and my services is provided on my web site at the above address, or I will be pleased to send such information to you at no obligation. Thank you for considering my services, and I look forward to hearing from you. William M. Dingfelder, Ph.D. Development & Grantwriting Consultant 431 Mary Watersford Road Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004 (610) 667-5071 Fax: (610) 667-7932 E-mail: Narberth@aol.com http://www.libertynet.org/-grants CurricUlum Vitae Current position 10/92 - present Independent Development Consultant, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania I am self-employed as a development and grantwriting consultant. As such, I advise nonprofit institutions nationwide on fundraising and related activities, strengthening both operating and capital campaign activities. I also develop targeted fundraising materials for these clients, 'including grant proposals, brochures, and direct mail text. In over four years of consulting activities, I have helped more than 75 nonprofits nationwide raise funds. These have included healthcare, human services, educational, cultural, environmental, religious, and other organizations. Previous positions 10/89 - 10/92 Directoro~f Corporate, Foundation, and Government Relations Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia 3/87 - 9/89 Associate Director of Development/Foundations Hahnemann University, Philadelphia 10/84 - 2/87 College Development Officer, Gratz College, Philadelphia 6/83 - 9/84 Director of Foundation Relations, Moore College of Art, Philadelphia 2/81 - 5/83 Development Researcher, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia Education Ph.D., Religion, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 1981 M.A., Religion, .Colgate-Rochester D.S., Rochester, NY, 1976 B.A., Philosophy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, 1974 Professional publications Articles on fundraising issues and techniques in Chronicle of Philanthrophy, Fundraising Management, NSFRE Journal., PhiladelphiaBusiness Journal, and other publications. William M. Dingfelder, Ph.D. Development & Grantwriting Consultant 431 Mary Watersford Road Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004 (610) 667-5071 Fax: (610) 667-7932 E-mail: Narberth@aol.com http://www.libertynet.org/~grants Curriculum Vitae - page two Additional Activities * I have served as a member of a visiting reaccreditation team with the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. My particular focus was on governance and administrative issues. I also coordinated the self-study process and edited the 1987 self- study report at Gratz College. * I have published freelance articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Magazine and other periodicals. * I served as reviewer for new pharmaceutical protocols as a member of an FDA- mandated Human Research Review Board of the Philadelphia Association for Clinical Trials, Radnor, PA. * i thrive on challenges: I have appeared on Jeopardy, won a Waterford Crystal writing contest, completed a marathon, won a national playwriting competition, etc. References: Available on request. William M. Dingfelder, Ph.D. Development & Grantwriting Consultant 431 Mary Watersford Road Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004 (610) 667-5071 Fax: (610) 667-7932 E-mail: Narberth@aol.com http://www.libertynet.org/~grants Partial list of clients Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia American Alliance for Theatre and Education, Tempe, AZ Asociacion Puertorriquenos en Marcha, Philadelphia Audreys Ark for Animals, Syracuse, NY Bloomsburg University, Bloomsburg, PA Carriage House (facility for the elderly), South Amboy, NJ Citizens Committee for New York City Clean Air Council, Philadelphia Drexel University, Philadelphia Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, VA Educating Children for Parenting, Philadelphia Elwyn Institute, Elwyn, PA Franklin Institute (leading science museum), Philadelphia Giving of Self Partnership (inner-city community center), Philadelphia Harrisburg Shakespeare Festival, Harrisburg, PA La Salle University, Philadelphia Literacy, Inc., NYC 'Mercy Health Corp. :' Fitzgerald Mercy, Mercy Haverford, and Misericordia Hospitals Metropolitan Ecumenical Ministry, Newark, NJ Mind-Body Wellness Center, Moss Rehab, Philadelphia New Jersey Intergenerational Orchestra, Princeton, NJ Pediatric Dental Fund, East Hampton, NY Pennsylvania College of Podiatric Medicine, Philadelphia Philadelphia Zoo Saunders House, a care facility for the aged, Philadelphia Speaking for Ourselves, an advocacy group for mentally disabled individuals · TouchStone Center, an educational resources organization in New York City University of Pennsylvania: Institute of Contemporary Arts, Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts Wayne State Univ. Dept. of Communication; ACE Community Arts Initiative, Detroit William M. Dingfelder, Ph.D., Development & Grantwriting Consultant 431 Mary Watersford Road, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004 (610) 667-5071 Fax: (610) 667-7932 E-mail: Narberth@aol.com http://www.libertynet.org/'grants References Brian Elderton VP for Institutional Advancement La Salle University 1900 W. Olney Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19141 (215) 951-1540 elderton~lasalle.edu Ken E. Kirby, Senior VP The Franklin Institute Science Museum (215) 448-1283 ken~franklininstitute.org Debby Diserens, Director of Foundation Relations National Academy of Sciences ddiserens~nas, edu Kenneth D. Cobum, MD, MPH, Sr. VP PennCARE (610) 402-7580 coburn, pc~penncare, org SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: Speed Zone Survey- Approval of Proposal RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve proposal from Higgins Associates to conduct a speed zone survey and authorize the City Manager execute a Professional Services Agreement for the same. REPORT SUMMARY: In order for law enforcement officials to legally enforce moving violations within posted speed zones and special driving zones (school zones, etc.) within the City, a speed zone survey must be conducted every five years in accordance with the California Vehicle Code. The survey's purpose is to verify that all posted speed limits are valid. Attached is a list of the roadways included in the survey, which have posted speed limits. Over the past few months, staff has been working on the retention of a qualified consultant for the work..The City received one proposal from Higgins Associates in the amount of $29,870. Higgins Associates has experience in conducting speed surveys, owns certified speed survey radar' and speed classification traffic counting equipment, and has qualified personnel necessary to conduct such surveys. It is therefore recommended that Council approve a proposal from Higgins Associates, in the amount of $29,870 for the Saratoga Speed Surveys, and authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement for the same. FISCAL IMPACTS: Funding for this work is programmed in the adopted budget in General Engineering, Account No. 401.0 (Contract Services). CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The proposal would not be approved and the project would not move forward at this time. The ability of peace officers to issue citations for the violation of certain local traffic laws would be invalid until survey is conducted and adopted by the City Council. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): A professional services agreement will be prepared by staff, and executed by the City Manager. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cost Proposal for the Saratoga Speed Zone Survey. 2. List of Streets included in the Survey. 2 of 2 HIGGINS ASSOCIATES 1335 First Street, Suite A, Gilroy, CA 95020 · 408 848-3122 · fax 408 848-2202 · e-mail info@kbhiggins.com August 9, 2001 Morgan Kessler City of Saratoga 13777 Fmitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Revised Proposal to Conduct Speed Surveys for City of Saratoga, California Dear Morgan, In response to your letter dated July 9, 2001, and the subsequent telephone conversation on August 7, 2001, we submit this revised proposal to conduct speed surveys for the City of Saratoga, California. Higgins Associates has experience in conducting speed surveys, owns certified speed survey radar and speed classification traffic counting equipment and has qualified personnel necessary to conduct such surveys. I believe that our firm has the experience needed to successfully complete the proposed project. The speed surveys will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the latest California Vehicle Code and the Caltrans Traffic Manual. The speed survey report will be overseen, reviewed and stamped by a Registered Engineer. According to your requirements, the speed surveys will be conducted at seventy (70) locations within the Saratoga City limits. Some locations will require radar gun surveys, whilst will require 24-hour tube counts (for lighter volume streets). To supplement the data collected for this project, the City of Saratoga will provide previous studies, traffic volumes, accident records (Switers) and existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on the roadway segments. Included in the scope of work are the following tasks · Identify the exact location of each of the speed survey collection points. Conduct a field visit to each site to verify the method and exact location for the speed survey. Determine the actual dates and times that the speed survey data will be collected in coordination with you and/or the City of Saratoga Public Works personnel. o Perform a minimum of one hundred (100), readings at each collection point, i.e., fifty (50) readings on each travel direction, using manual radar speed survey. The survey radar device AO I-AT revised proposal.wlxl Morgan Kessler August 9, 2001 Page 2 will be calibrated. The speed surveys will be conducted in good weather conditions and under normal traffic conditions. The speed surveys will be completed within six (6) weeks after we receive the attached Authorization to Proceed. This will allow sufficient time to compile the data and repeat surveys at certain locations, if necessary. .4. Analyze speed survey data. Calculate values including the 50t~ percentile (median speed), 85~' percentile (critical speed), the 10 mph pace speed and the percent of vehicles observed within the 10 mph pace speed. Based on the analysis, we will evaluate the posted speed limit at eaCh location and make recommendations on whether the speed limits are appropriate. This will include field verification of all existing speed limit sign locations and sizes, which will be illustrated on a City base map. Recommended changes and additions will also be illustrated and submitted to the City of Saratoga in hard copy and electronically. It is expected that on meeting will be needed .with City staff. Existing school sign locations will be identified during the speed surveys. As a part of our analysis, we will make recommendations on whether the school signs are located correctly for radar enforcement. Provide three copies of a report presenting the findings and concluSions of the analysis with appropriate tables and graphics. This, report will be submitted to the City of Saratoga no later than two (2) weeks after the speed surveys have been completed. Higgins Associates has extensive experience in GIS (Geographic Information System) presentations and it is recommended that the speed limits and survey results be properly mapped using the ArcView GIS software. Asan optional task we thus suggest that the survey results be integrated into the City's GIS system and a database developed to support ArcView mapping. Several color maps can be prepared showing existing posted speed limits, existing traffic volumes, accident locations, median and critical speeds fi:om the survey results, recommended speed limit adjustments by location, locations of school signs and recommendations, etc. Should this optional task be undertaken, report size Arc View maps will be included in the report. Presentation size maps for meetings and/or hearings will also be provided after the draft maps were reviewed and approved by city staff. Computer files and the database will be provided as a part of the final product. The ArcView software allows the comparison of posted speed limits and the actual travel speeds, highlights problem locations and supports recommendations for improvements. Since the maps are produced in digital format, they can be easily posted on the Internet or imported into other formats. The graphical presentation of the results of the speed survey study can be very powerful in communicating with the public and policy makers. A0 I-AT revised proposal.wpd Morgan Kessler August 9, 2001 Page 3 Not included in the above scope of work are additional analyses beyond what are specifically outlined above, attendance at more than one staff meeting, or any public hearings. The total fee for completing the basic scope of work, which includes Tasks 1 through 6, is $25,730. This budget will not be exceeded without your approval. The cost, including the optional task, is $29,870.Work beyond the above outlined scope will be billed on a time and expenses basis in accordance with the attached fee schedule. Any additional work will be billed on a monthly progress basis with terms of net 30 days and 1 ~% service charge on past due accounts. Collection costs, including attorney fees, are the responsibility of the client. If the scope of work and conditions are acceptable, please sign and return a copy of the attached Authorization to Proceed form to authorize us to proceed. For your reference, I have enclosed copies of exhibits fxom a speed survey study previously prepared by Higgins Associates. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project. Re~6ect~lly submitted, // Keith B. Higgins, CE, TF_/ ~ kbh:ycs/llb/mm enclosure AO 1-AT revised proposal.wpd CITY OF SARATOGA SPEED SURVEY Tasks and Fee Estimates Associated with Manual Radar and Tube Speed Surveys Submitted by Higgins Associates August 9, 2001 Personnel and Hourly Billing Rates President Principal Associate Clerical Cadd Count Total Total Associate Planner Tech Tech Hours Fee ~ks $170 m $14~3 $10____.~__1 $58 $74 $4__.__~__8 I Field Visit 6 6 6 18 $1,752 2 Manual speed surveys and tube counts 1 I 4 210 216 $10~797 $ Analyze Speed Survey Data 1 2 14 17 $1,870 4 Recommendations for Speed Limit Signing 1 16 4 2 16 39 $4~ 162 5 Recommendations for School Signs 1 16 4 2 16 39 $4f162 ~Tables and Gra hi~p..~_~~ ~4 ~4 6 ~4 4 22 $~ Subtotal - --~ 4'--'-~ 38 '-"---~ 3'"'""~ 21--'--~-- 35-"-"~-- $25,12-'-"--'-~ Printing $101 Mileage $500 ITotal Fixed Fee (Basic) $25,730 Optional Task Ilncludes Tasks I to 6 7 ArcView GIS Mapping (Optional~) ' 1 4 32 2 $4,090 Printing $50 Subtotal 0 4 32 2 0 0 0 $4r140 " ITotal Fixed Fee (with Optional Task) $29,870 Ilncludes Tasks 1 to 7 A00-atbud HIGGINS ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERS FEE SCHEDULE Effective through December 2001 PERSONNEL Classification R~tWHour President Principal Associate Senior Associate Senior Consultant Senior Planner Associate Engineer Associate Planner Assistant Engineer Assistant Planner Senior CAD Technician CAD Technician, Designer Assistant CAD Technician Clerical Traffic Count Supervisor, Field Technician Messenger, Traffic Count Technician Minimum Consultation Fee Expert Witness (Rates Available Upon Request) $170 $143 $138 $133 $125 $111 $101 $ 90 $ 85 $ 85 $ 74 $ 58 $ 58 ~ 48 $ 37 $350 SUB-CONSULTANTS Professional Service by Others Cost + 10% EXPENSES Materials, External Copying & Printing, Phone, Fax-Cost + 15% Internal Copying - Letter Size $. 10 per single-sided page + labor Large Sheet Prints Large Sheet Plots Auto Expenses Travel Expenses - Ledger Size -Bond or Blueline - Vellum - Mylar $.20 per single-sided page + labor $2.00 per D size sheet + labor $4.00 per D size sheet + labor $6.00 per D size sheet + labor $.40 per mile Cost + 10% Fee-2OOl.wgd January 19, 2001 HIGGINS ASSOCIATES 1335 First Street, Suite A, Gilro¥, CA 95020 · 408-848-3122 · fax 408-848-2202 · info~kbhi~10ins.com /jr thc $co1~¢ ojr work, jr¢¢, terms ojr_paymcnt, and condJtion~ described in the migg~n$ ~q$$ociat¢$ l~rOl~OSal are acc¢_ptable, tdcase sign and return a copy ojr this jrorm /or our /i/es. Thank you. LETTER OF AGREEMENT ACCEPTANCE/ AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Project Name: Accepted By: City of Sarato?~, California - Speed Surveys (Signamre) (Print) (Client) Street or Mailing Address Dated: on behalf of City, State, Zip Contracted Fee Confirmation $19,560 (Taaka I - 6) w/Optional Task $22,840 Deposit Amoum ~Purchase Order No. If billing should be sent to a different person or location, please complete below: Attemion: Address: A0 I-AT rt~ised proposal.wpd Street Name Allendale Ave. Allendale Ave. Allendale Ave. Arroyo de Arguello Arroyo de Arguello Austin Way Beaumont Ave. Bohlman Rd. Brookglen Dr. Bucknall Cox Ave. Cox Ave. Cox Ave. Cox Ave. Cumberland Dr. Farwell Ave. Fruitvale Ave. Fruitvale Ave. Fruitvale Ave. Fruitvale Ave Fruitvale Ave Glen Brae Dr. Herriman Ave. Herriman Ave. Johnson Ave. McCoy Ave. McCoy Ave. McFarland Ave. Mendelsohn Ln. Miller Ave. Miller Ave. Montalvo Rd. Monte Vista Ave. Mt. Eden From Fruitvale Portos Chester Comer Wardell Hwy. 9 Herriman S'ly City Limit Bellwood Saratoga Sara-Sunnyvale RR Tracks Saratoga Paseo Presada Scotland Fruitvale Sara.-L.G. Burgundy Allendale Allendale Saratoga Scotland Sara.-Sunnyvale Beaumont Prospect Paseo Presada Quito Saratoga Sara.-L.G. Cox Brookview Sara. L.G. El Camino Grande Pierce w( ) Portos 46 Chester 40 Quito 35 Wardell 33 RR Tracks 40 Hwy. 9 32 Glasgow 40 Sixth 17 Prospect 40 Quito RR Tracks 40 Saratoga 40 Paseo Presada 61 Quito 40 Cox 40 Sara-L.G. 24 Burgundy 25 Allendale 68 Saratoga 68 Burgundy 68 Allendale 68 Cox 40 Beaumont 40 Saratoga 40 N'ly City Limit 60 Quito 40 Villanova 40 Devon 40 Sara.-L.G. 28 Brookview 40 Prospect 40 Cul-de-sac 24 Valley Vista W'ly City Limit 21 L(mi) .45 .35 .36 .34 .44 .34 .55 1.3 .62 .62 .99 .26 .23 .54 .61 .68 .70 .28 .70 .28 .76 .43 .22 .23 .20 .26 .60 .53 .47 .41 .63 .51 #Lanes 2/4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ex.Zone (mph) 35 35 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 35 35 25 25 25 25 35 35 35 35 25 25 25 25 35 25 30 25 25 25 25 25 Sample 102 101 103 54 57 58 54 51 59 109 102 102 102 53 57 102 102 Il0 102 102 57 110 102 101 56 101 57 57 54 55 51 59 85% 35 36 35 29 30 29 30 27 30 40 40 33 34 30 30 39 39 39 40 39 28 33 28 39. 30 35 30 '29 32 32 30 35 5O% 32 32 32 27 28 27 28 25 28 36 36 30 31 28 28 36 37 36 38 36 26 29 26 36 28 32 26 27 29 28 27 33 10mphP. 27-36 27-36 27/36 22/31 23-32 21-30 23-32 20-29 23-32 31-40 32-41 25-34 26-35 24-33 23-32 31-40 32-41 32-41 32-41 31-40 22-31 25-34 21-30 31-40 23-32 27-36 22-31 24-33 24-33 24-33 22-31 27-36 %Within 85.3 85.1 85.4 90.7 96.5 98.3 96.3 94.1 96.6 83.5 86.3 91.2 92.2 98.1 98.2 89.2 88.2 95.3 95.0 87.5 98.2 90.9 93.1 84.2 98.2 87.1 89.5 98.2 92.6 89.1 94. t 96.t Acc. Rate 1.44 1.67 1.50 0 1.29 2.73 4.9 .71 2.03 1.6 3.6 .67 1.22 3.6 1.52 1.22 2.8 2.26 3.9 Street Paseo Presada Pierce Rd. Pierce Rd. Pierce Rd. Pros )ect Rd. Pros )ect Rd. Pros )ect Rd. Pros )ect Rd. Pros )ect Rd. Pros ~ect Rd. Pros ~ect Rd. Quito Rd. Quito Rd. Quito Rd. Quito Rd. Quito Rd. Sarahills Saratoga Ave. Saratoga Ave. Saratoga Ave. Saratoga Ave. Saratoga Ave. Saratoga Ave. Saratoga Ave. Saratoga Ave. Saratoga Ave. Saratoga Creek Dr. Sara-Sunnyvale Rd. Sara-Sunnyvale Rd. Sara-Sunnyvale Rd. Sara-Sunnyvale Rd. Sara-Sunnyvale Rd. Sara-Sunnyvale Rd. Sara-Sunnyvale Rd. Sara-Sunnyvale Rd. Scotland Dr. Seagull Way Seagull Way Sobey Rd. Sobey Rd. Ten Acres Titus Ave As of 6/27/01 From Dundee Hwy. 9 Mt. Eden Surrey . E'ly City Limit Stelling Sara- Sunnyvale Miller Law. Expwy Law. Expwy E'ly City Limit S'ly City Limit Woodbank Pollard Allendale Yorkton Verde Vista Big Basin Seagraves Douglass Fruitvale Dagmar Vineyard Cox Cox N'ly City Limit Cox Saratoga Vista Verde Vista Verde Blauer Blauer UPRR UPRR Prospect Saratoga Sara-Sunnyvale DeSanka N'ly Quito Ten Acres Brockton Brockton To W( ) L(mi) Bucknall 40 .6 I Mt. Eden 22 1.02 Surrey 18 .91 Sara- Sunnyvale 24 .70 Stelling Var. .40 Sara- Sunnyvale Var. .42 Miller 99 .92 Law. Expwy Var. .77 Miller Var. .77 E'ly City Limit 90 .17 Law. Expwy 90 .17 Bicknell Var. .60 Pollard Var. .75 AIlendale Var. .27 Yorkton Var. .45 Baylor Var. .48 Pierce Var. .80 Seagraves 40 .40 Douglass, Var. .23 Fruitvale 40 .6 i Dagmar 70 .35 Fruitvale 70 .35 Cox 70 .25 Vineyard 70 .25 N'ly City Limit 70 .60 Cox 70 .60 Kosich 40 .51 Vista Verde .66 Saratoga .76 Blauer .68 Vista Verde .76 UPRR .66 Blauer .68 Prospect .35 UPRR .35 Glasgow 40 .50 DeSanka 40 .32 Cox 40 .58 Ten Acres Var. .5 S'ly Quito Var.' 1.19 Allendale Prospect 40 .65 #Lane~ 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ~x. Zone ~h) 25 25 25 30 25 35 40 40 40 35 35 30 25 30 35 35 25 35 35 35 40 40 40 40 40 40 25 35-40 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 25 25 25 30 30 25 Sample 52 52 55 103 53 105 103 I01 104 103 101 101 101 102 104 53 102 103 105 102 104 106 110 106 104 55 52 52 58 56 52 53 85% 28 29 28 35 32 38 40 44 44 36 34 30 35 38 40 29 38 39 38 46 43 41 42 44 45 29 34 30 33 34 34 30 50% 26 27 26 33 30 35 37 41 39 32 30 28 32 35 37 27 36 36 36 36 38 37 38 40 42 27 32 28 30 31 31 28 lOmphP. 20-29 23-32 21-30 27-36 24-33 30-39 32-41 36-45 34-43 26-35 27-36 23-32 28-37 30-39 33-42 23-32 32-41 31-40 31-40 38-47 34-43 32-41 33-42 36-45 36-45 23-32 28-37 23-32 25-34 26-35 27-36 23-32 94.2 '98. I 96.4 95.1 92.5 88.0 86.4 82.2 76.0 73.8 83.2 90.1 92.2 84.6 90.4 100 96.1 94.2 93.3 85.3 75.0 81.1 80.9 87.7 79.8 98.1 96.2 98.1 87.9 96.4 96.2 94.3 Acc. Rate 2.4 5.6 .91 .91 3.3 1.2 2.5 1.0 3.9 5.8 .59 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works PREPARED BY4--~ J~~"~' AGENDA ITEM: ~'~'/ CITY MANAGER: ~7~~ SUBJECT: Storm water System Protection Inspection Services Agreement Between Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District and City of Saratoga, City of Campbell and Town of Los Gatos RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Receive report from staff. Authorize City Manager to execute Inspection Services Agreement between Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District and City of Saratoga. REPORT SUMMARY: On August 23, 1995, the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a new National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to the cities within Santa Clara County that drain into San Francisco Bay. The new permit replaces the initial five year permit issued in 1990, and subsequently amended in 1992, to control the discharge of pollutants into San Francisco Bay via storm water runoff. The NPDES Permit is required in Santa Clara County by federal Clean Water legislation because San Francisco Bay is identified as an impacted body of water. Storm water System 'Protection Inspection services are an integral Component of the obligation of Saratoga to protect the natural waters of the State under the terms and conditions set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. In response to results of continuing water quality monitoring in the southern part of San Francisco Bay that indicate persistent, unacceptable levels of these pollutants, and because of intense lobbying efforts of environmental groups, the new five year NPDES Permit requires more aggressive regulation of industrial and commercial activity. One area of increased oversight is mandatory, systematic field inspection and reporting of those business sites with the highest potential for discharge of pollutants to the storm drain systems within Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District (CFD) currently performs annual hazardous material storage inspections of all business sites within the City of Campbell and the Town of Los Gatos. The proposed agreement will include the City of Saratoga in the agreement and provides the scope of these annual inspections would be expanded to include storm water pollution protection at each of these targeted facilities. CFD staff would perform the inspections and forward the result of those inspections to the West Valley Clean Water Program Manager for follow-up and enforcement actions, if necessary, to ensure compliance with the City's storm water pollution prevention ordinance. The inspection reports and compliance efforts will be included in Saratoga's annual NPDES reports to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. FISCAL IMPACTS: Funding for this work is programmed in the adopted budget in General Engineering, Account No. 4010 (Contract Services). Saratoga will pay the District $75.00 per hour for inspection and inspection-related services, plus an amount equal to 15 percent of such service fee for overhead expenditures, up to a maximum of $1,000.00 per year. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Inspection service agreement will not be approved and the City will not meet the NPDES requirements. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Forward the agreement to the Santa Clara County Fire District. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Storm water System Protection Inspection Services Agreement Between Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District an City of Campbell, City of Saratoga, and Town of Los Gatos 2 of 2 STORMWATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF CAMPBELL, CITY OF SARATOGA, AND TOWN OF LOS GATOS THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on July 1, 2001, between the SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (hereinafter "District"), CITY OF CAMPBELL, CITY OF SARATOGA, and TOWN OF LOS GATOS (herinafter the Cities and the Town collectively described in this AGREEMENT as "Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga"). RECITALS WHEREAS Campbell, Los Gatos.and District entered into an AGREEMENT on March 5, 1996 thereafter amended on May 1, 1997, whereby the District provided stormwater protection services to Campbell and Los Gatos; and Bo WHEREAS District is experienced and equipped to conduct facility inspections and is authorized by State law to enter into a contract to provide stormwater system protection inspection services; and Co WHEREAS Campbell, Los Gatos and District desire to continue their contractual relationship by entering into this AGREEMENT whereby District personnel will provide such services as specified in the AGREEMENT, Scope of Services, Exhibit "A" hereto, and any written amendments which hereafter may be agreed to by the parties; and Do WHEREAS Saratoga desires to enter into an agreement with the District for District personnel to provide such services as specified in this AGREEMENT, Scope of Services, Exhibit "A" hereto, and any written amendments which hereafter may be agreed to by the parties; and Eo WHEREAS Stormwater System Protection Inspection services are an integral component of the obligation of Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga to protect the natural waters of the State under the terms and conditions set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, No. CAS029718, any amendments thereto and/or any renewals thereof, issued and approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region; and Fo WHEREAS Campbell/Los Gatos each have individual agreements with the West Valley Sanitation District (hereinafter WVSD) for collection of fees in each jurisdictions for the purpose of stormwater program management and stormwater program maintenance, including industrial stormwater system protection inspection services. Page 1 CFPD URP Inspection Contract June 6, 2001-Final Draft STORMWATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT 1. OBLIGATIONS OF DISTRICT. The District agrees to: ao Provide the services of trained and knowledgeable personnel to perform stormwater system protection inspection services as specified in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Comments or concerns by District regarding the stormwater system protection inspection program shall be directed to the West Valley Clean Water Program Manager (hereinafter "WVCWP Manager") for review and periodic program modification; such modifications shall be incorporated into the Stormwater System Protection Inspection Program pending agreement by all parties to this AGREEMENT. Such stormwater system protection inspections shall occur during routine fire safety and/or hazardous materials inspections. Provide reports, as necessary for Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga to fulfill NPDES permit documentation and reporting requirements, to the WVCWP Manager on an annual basis. Report format and contents shall be as specified in Exhibit A. c. Ensure that appropriate District personnel have received applicable technical, law enforcement, and safety training to adequately and safely perform the services. d. Provide all necessary equipment, vehicles, uniforms, and other associated materials, office space, and staff support .to provide the services required by this AGREEMENT. Provide and use inspection forms, order violation and referral forms, which are approved by the WVCWP Manager and which satisfy applicable Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga NPDES Permit obligations to document and enforce the stormwater system protection inspection program. Provide annual invoicing to the WVCWP Manager for Payment of services, with copies directed to Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga. Invoices must describe services rendered under this AGREEMENT and state the rates therefore pursuant to Provision 7 herein in the manner detailed in Exhibit A. Invoicing shall separate charges for services rendered separately for Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga. g. Provide general information on the facility inspection program to the WVCWP Manager and CampbelVLos Gatos/Saratoga as needed. 2. OBLIGATIONS OF CAMPBELL/LOS GATOS/SARATOGA. Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga agree to: Provide the District with copies of all relevant written local regulations, policies, procedures, public improvement plans, permit documentation, and other information as requested by the District, and necessary for District to perform its services under this AGREEMENT. Page 2 CFPD URP Inspection Contract June 6, 2001-Final Draft STORMWATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT b. Remit payment to District within forty-five (45) days after receipt of invoices for services rendered under this AGREEMENT, in accordance with the WVSD accounting cycle. c. Provide handouts, such as Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Urban Runoff Program (URP) brochures, as appropriate. d. Provide designated representatives to assist District in coordinating this program and District's performance described herein. DESIGNATION OF PERSONNEL TO PROVIDE SERVICES. The District shall designate and identify to the WVCWP Manager the name, experience level, and training of personnel who will be providing primary program supervision of services under this AGREEMENT. The District shall provide notice to the WVCWP Manager of designee prior to the time of assignment, unless an emergency requires that such notice not be provided until after assignment has occurred. Any changes in designated personnel shall be advised to the WVCWP Manager within 15 working days of such changes. SCOPE OF AUTHORITY. Should an inspection by District personnel reveal or disclose a potential violation of an applicable URP ordinance, rule, or regulation, the inspector in charge of the inspection shall note and report the violation to the WVCWP Manager and forward a copy of the violation notice as follows: Potential violations that are found during regular Hazardous Materials inspection duties and involve an active discharge of such materials directly into or that reach a catch basin, storm drain, or water body shall be forwarded to the appropriate regulating agency's police dispatch. All other potential URP violations that do not fall into those described in 4.a. above shall be noted and referred to the WVCWP Manager with a copy to the appropriate regulating agency for further action as specified in Exhibit A. No District inspector shall have authority to enter into any AGREEMENT regarding abatement, delay, or alternative procedure without first obtaining the consent of Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga, as applicable. If District personnel are refused access to any premise for inspections pursuant to this AGREEMENT, the District shall refer such inspection problems to the appropriate city or town representative for disposition. o TERM OF AGREEMENT. Unless terminated earlier pursuant to Provision 6 of the AGREEMENT, this AGREEMENT shall have a three (3) year term commencing on July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2004 with the option of extending the AGREEMENT for two (2) additional one (1) year periods upon mutual agreement and by written amendment pursuant to Provision 15 of the AGREEMENT. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. Any party to the AGREEMENT may terminate this AGREEMENT with or without cause on 30 working days written notice to the other three parties. Upon termination by any party, the District shall be entitled to payment for services rendered but not invoiced as of date of the term. Page 3 CFPD URP Inspection Contract June 6, 2001-Final Draft STORMWATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT TERMINATION OF EXISTING AGREEMENT. The City of Campbell, the Town of Los Gatos and the District entered into an Agreement on March 5, 1996, thereafter amended on May 1, 1997, whereby the District provides stormwater protection services to Campbell and Los Gatos. By entering into this new AGREEMENT and signing below, all three parties agree to terminate the current Agreement on June 30, 2001 without any further action and begin a new contractual relationship which shall include the City of Saratoga as well. PAYMENT. Campbell agrees to pay the District $75.00 per hour for inspection and inspection-related services, plus an amount equal to 15 percent of such service fee for overhead expenditures, up to a maximum of $11,000 per year. Los Gatos agrees to pay the District $75.00 per hour for inspection and inspection-related services, plus an amount equal to 15 percent of such service fee for overhead expenditures, up to a maximum of $5,000 per year. Saratoga agrees to pay the District $75.00 per hour for inspection and inspection- related services, plus an amount equal to 15 percent of such service fee for overhead expenditures, up to a maximum of $1,000 per year. Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga shall pay for services rendered related to inSPections conducted within their respective jurisdictions. Payments shall be for services actually rendered by a District employee in inspection services pursuant to this AGREEMENT (as referred to in 1.a. above). INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed herein that the District and its employees, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be independent contractors and not agents or employees of Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga. As independent contractors no employees of the District shall obtain any fights to retirement benefits, medical benefits, leave, or any other benefits that accrue to Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga employees. District agrees to make its employees available to testify in any litigation or prosecution brought regarding the subject of the work to be performed under this AGREEMENT. District shall be compensated for its employees' costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by the District or is based on allegations of District's negligent performance or wrongdoing. 10. WORKER'S COMPENSATION. District shall maintain Workers' Compensation coverages as required by California law and its employees shall be considered employees of District in performing services under this AGREEMENT. 11. OWNERSH~ OF RECORDS AND AUDIT. All original records of inspections, orders, and other documentation regarding the stormwater program shall be retained and maintained by the District for a minimum of five (5) years. Access to and copies of such records shall be made available to Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga, and the WVCWP Manager upon request. District shall maintain the records in an appropriately secure manner. Some or all of these records may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Freedom of Information Act, and/or other applicable regulations and shall be managed accordingly. Page 4 CFPD URP Inspection Contract June 6, 2001-Final Draft STORMWATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT DistriCt acknowledges that these services are conducted under State and Federal law as well as local authority. District shall make its non-confidential records and written procedures, available for review by State and Federal authorities as they may lawfully direct. In addition, Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga may accompany or otherwise review District performance of this AGREEMENT as they may choose. 12. INDEMNIFICATION. In lieu of and not withstanding the pro rata risk allocation which might otherwise be imposed between the Parties pursuant to Government Code Section 895.6, the Parties agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by a party shall not be shared pro rata but instead the parties agree that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each of the parties hereto shall fully indemnify and hold each of the other parties, their officers, board members, employees and agents, harmless from any claim, expense, or cost, damage or liability imposed for jury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party, its officers, employees or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such party under this AGREEMENT. No party, nor any officer, board member, employee, or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the other parties hereto, their officer, board members, employees or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such other parties under this AGREEMENT. 13. NONDISCRIMINATION. All parties shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations including Santa Clara County's policies concerning nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in contracting. Such laws include but are not limited to the following: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sections 503 and 504); California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code Sections 12900 ct seq.); and California Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102. The Parties hereto shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, .religion, ~sex/gender, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, political beliefs, organizational affiliations, or marital status in the recruitment, selection for training including apprenticeship, hiring, employment, utilization, promotion, layoff, rates of pay or other forms of compensation. Nor shall the Parties discriminate in provision of services provided under this contract because of age race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical conditions, political beliefs, organizational affiliations, or marital status. 14. WAIVER. No failure on the part 'of any party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this AGREEMENT constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this AGREEMENT. Page 5 CFPD URP Inspection Contract June 6, 2001-Final Draft STORMWATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT 15. GOVERNING LAW. This AGREEMENT shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this AGREEMENT shall be in the appropriate court in the County of Santa Clara. 16. AMENDMENT. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this AGREEMENT is effective unless made in writing and signed by all Parties hereto the District and Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga. ~ 17. NOTICES. Notices or communications to be given under this AGREEMENT shall be given as follows, unless a party designates a change in its address to the other parties in writing. TO DISTRICT: SCC Central Fire Protection District Hazardous Materials Division 14700 Winchester Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 Telephone: (408) 378-4010 Fax: (408) 378-9342 TO CITY OF CAMPBELL: Department of Public Works 70 N. First Street Campbell, CA 95008-1423 Telephone: (408) 866-2747 Fax: (408) 376-0958 TO TOWN OF LOS GATOS: Department of Parks and Public Works 110 E. Main Street P.O. Box 949 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Telephone: Fax: (408) 399-5770 (408) 354-8529 TO CITY OF SARATOGA Department of Public Works 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Telephone: Fax: (408) 868-1241 (408) 354-8529 TO WEST VALLEY CLEAN WATER PROGRAM MANAGER. 18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Telephone: (408) 354-4734 Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Fax: (408) 395-7653 18. CONSTRUCTION. Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT shall be construed as intended to create or to create a Joint Powers Agency of any kind. 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the AGREEMENT between the District/Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga. No terms, conditions, understandings or AGREEMENTS purporting to modify or vary this AGREEMENT, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound, shall be binding on either party. Page 6 CFPD URP Inspection Contract June 6, 2001-Final Draft STORMWATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, District and Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga have executed this AGREEMENT as of the date indicated next to their signatures. SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By Chairperson, Board of Directors Date CITY OF CAMPBELL ' By Bernard M. Strojny, City Manager Date Approved as to form and legality: Leslie Orta, Deputy County Counsel Attest: Phyllis Perez, Board Clerk, Approved as to form: William Seligmann, City Attorney Attest: TOWN OF LOS GATOS By Debra Figone, Town Manager Date Anne Bybee, City Clerk, Approved as to form: Orry Korb, Town Attorney Attest: CITY OF sARATOGA · By Dave Anderson, City Manager Date Marian V. Cosgrove, Town Clerk Approved as to form: Richard S. Taylor, City Attorney Attest: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Page 7 CFPD URP Inspection Contract June 6, 2001-Final Draft STORMWATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT Scope of Work Exhibit A I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ao The objective of the Stormwater Protection Inspection Program (Inspection) is to verify protection of the municipal storm drain system fi.om non-stormwater discharges originating fi.om industrial/commercial facilities that have been identified as being significant contributors to stormwater pollution. It is recognized that many of the identified pollutants of concern and sources of significance are currently addressed through other existing inspection programs, such as Hazardous Materials Storage Inspections. In an effort to streamline inspection efforts and to relieve Undue regulatory burdens to the business community, Urban Runoff Pollution CURP) inspections will be conducted in combination with existing Hazardous Materials Storage Inspections. The purpose of the URP inspection component will be to address discharges that are not within the current regulatory authority of the Hazardous Material Inspection Program (or other existing inspection programs, including but not limited to source control, pretreatment, and POTW inspections, Health and Safety Inspections, and Hazardous Waste Inspections), but are illegal under local stormwater ordinances. Bo The Central Fire Protection District (District) shall integrate into and/or modify its existing fire safety and/or hazardous materials inspection programs to provide URP inspections for the City of Campbell, Town of Los Gatos, and facilities in Saratoga that are within the jurisdiction of the District. The information used to define the URP inspection components, such as types of URP facilities and URP activities, shall be maintained in a District database. Data reports required for reporting to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) shall be provided by the District to the West Valley Clean Water Program (WVCWP) Manager with a copy to Campbell/Los 'Gatos/Saratoga representatives in order to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit reporting obligations. ri. BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS A. URP Facilities: Categorization by a facility's potential for polluting stormwater based solely upon the nature of business. URP facilities are defined as those facilities whose activities involve the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials and may be categorized as conducting one or more of the following activities. 1. Auto Repair - installation, modification, cleaning, repair and/or replacement of motor vehicle chassis, body, or parts. 2. Cleaners - fabric cleaning. 3. Machine Shop - manufacture, modification or repair of metallic parts. 4. Paint ~ application, distribution, packaging or selling. Page 1 CFPD URP Inspection Contract June 6, 2001-Final Draft STORMWATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT 5. Pesticide - application, distribution, packaging or selling. 6. Photo/Print - developing, processing, or producing. 7. Other URP Facilities- generate hazardous waste, discharge to sanitary sewer or store underground tanks (i.e., facilities which conduct URP activities but which have not yet been categorized). B. URP Activities: Categorization of a facility's potential for pollution based upon activities actually conducted on-site. URP Activities are defined as on-site activities that take place at a facility, which may adversely impact storm, water. 1. GEN - hazardous waste generators. 2. POTW - permitted dischargers to sanitary sewer or Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). 3. UST - underground storage tank site. Co Inspection Assignments: The Inspection Assignment is determined by the complexity and/or compliance of a facility storing, using or handling hazardous materials. Inspection assignments are not static and can change from year to year based upon actual field conditions. The following are inspection assignment characteristics: EC/DFM inspections are conducted by engine company personnel and Deputy Fire Marshals. These inspections typically involve simple hazardous materials. These inspections typically do not involve underground storage tank facilities. These inspections typically include facilities that are in good compliance standing. HM-2 inspections are conducted by hazardous materials response team personnel. These inspections typically involve moderate hazardous materials facilities whose storage amountS exceed 55 gallons (liquids), 500 pounds (solids) or 200 cubic feet (gases) and underground storage tanks. These inspections typically include facilities that are ingood compliance standing. HMSP inspections are conducted by hazardous materials specialist personnel. These inspections typically involve more complex hazardous materials facilities whose storage amounts exceed 55 gallons (liquids), 500 pounds (solids) or 200 cubic feet (gases) and typically involve underground storage tank facilitates. Additionally, these inspections typically include facilities that are upgrading or are experiencing compliance problems. STORMWATER INSPECTION PROGRAM. The basic components of the Stormwater Inspection Program shall include, but is not limited to: A. Training. District shall provide URP training at least annually for all inspectors performing URP Inspections. District shall make available appropriate staff to attend and Page 2 CFPD URP Inspection Contract June 6, 2001-Final Draft STORMWATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT Bo participate in relevant and necessary Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Meetings and/or Workshops that impact the Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga Stormwater Inspection Program. Such occurrences shall be adequately notified and requested by the WVCWP Manager (Cross reference: Contract Provisions 1 a, 1 c, and all of 4). Recordkeeping and Documentation. District shall keep and maintain all data and documentation required by the Stormwater Inspection Program. Documentation and/or report submittals for Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga shall be directed to the WVCWP Manager as follows: Data. Data maintained by District shall be updated on an on-going basis and shall include the most current information regarding all facilities receiving URP Inspections. Such information includes but is not limited to: a. Name of Facility b. Address of Facility c. URP Facility Type d. URP Activities e. Inspector Type Assigned f. Inspection Quarter g. Business License Status Reporting. Per Contract Provision lb, lf, 4 and 10a, a report shall be completed by the District and submitted to the WVCWP Manager no later than forty-five (45) days after the fourth Inspection Quarter ends. All submittals will be verified by the WVCWP Manager against previous year reports. The report shall include details of the following items: Contract Provision 3 (designation of personnel, modifications only), Exhibit A Section III.A (staff training), Exhibit A Section III.B 1 (facility information), Exhibit A Section III.B3 (forms, modifications only), Exhibit A Section III.C and E (inspection/violation reports), Exhibit A Section m.F (program evaluation), and Contract Provision 1 f (invoices to WVCWP, CampbelVLos Gatos/ Saratoga), including a list of the facilities inspected in each jurisdiction during the invoice period). Forms. District may revise or modify existing forms and/or create new forms as appropriate, provided they adequately address Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga URP inspection obligations. All forms used in conjunction with URP .Ir_aspections shall be approved by the WVCWP Manager. Co Inspections. Stormwater Inspections shall be integrated into existing or modified Hazardous Materials Storage Inspections. At a minimum, the following (non-hazardous) stormwater issues shall be addressed during a URP inspection: Visual inspection of documentation of on-site storm drain system, including location of on-site catch basins, adjacent water bodies and outfalls at the site, shall be verified. Such information may be included in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Hazardous Materials Business Plan or other related document(s). Page 3 CFPD URP Inspection Contract June 6, 2001-Final Draft STORMWATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT Visual inspection of site for evidence of recurring or chronic non-stormwater discharge(s) and/or contamination in and/or near catch basins, adjacent water bodies and outfalls. Outreach. District shall make available and distribute appropriate and applicable URP brochures, manuals and other information. District shall provide feedback regarding handout material and request adequate supplies of materials fi.om the WVCWP Manager. Available materials may include: 1. The Bay Begins -Brochure. 2. Pests Bugging You - Brochure. 3. Automotive related Industrial BMPs - Brochures and Manual. 4. Mobile Cleaners BMPs - Manual 5. Oil Recycle information for small quantity generators - Brochure (produced by Santa Clara County Household Hazardous Waste Program). 6. Others - as made available Violation Enforcement, Referral and Follow-up. A copy of the URP inspection form and information regarding referral of related observed potential URP violations shall be given to facility subsequent to the inspection. Observatiorts which involve discharge violations regulated by separate (inspection) programs, including but not limited to hazardous materials storage ordinances, source control, hazardous waste, and health and safety, shall be managed per existing District protocol. A copy of noted observed potential URP violation(s) and referral to appropriate agencies shall be provided to the WVCWP Manager in accordance with Exhibit A Section 111.C2 above. Other Observed Potential URP Violations. During inspections observed potential URP violations not covered under Section m,E.1, above shall be determined to be "active" or "passive". Active observed potential URP violations are-defined as violations which involve actual discharges which occur outdoors, is exposed to rain and/or stormwater runoff, occurs near, in or at a storm drain, catch basin, outfall, or adjacent water body. Active potential observed violations shall be referred by District in a timely manner to the WVCWP Manager with copies to appropriate Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga representatives for follow-up actions. A copy of follow-up reports shall be provided by Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga, as applicable, to the WVCWP Manager and made available to the District upon request. A copy of noted violation(s) and referral to appropriate agencies shall be provided to the WVCWP Manager in accordance with Exhibit A Section III.B2 above. Evaluation. Evaluation analysis and recommended Program modifications shall be prepared and submitted by the District in accordance with Exhibit A Section III.B3. At a minimum the evaluation should include the following: Page 4 CFPD URP Inspection Contract June 6, 2001-Final Draft STORMWATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT 1.. 1. Evaluation of staff training, field inspections, including feedback on outreach materials (see Exhibit A Section 1TI.D. above). 2. Summary of typical observed potential violations, and general program efficiency (referral/follow-up procedures, public awareness and participation). 3. Areas for Program improvement. 4. Suggestions for assisting facilities in understanding and implementing BMPs etc. Such evaluation, analysis and/or recommendations will' require at least one annual meeting with the WVCWP Manager. Prior to Campbell/Los Gatos/Saratoga submittal of its annual report to the RWQCB, the District shall review pertinent sections of the report for content accuracy. Page 5 CFPD URP Inspection Contract June 6, 2001-Final Draft MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation PREPARED BY: ~ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Preschool Play Equipment RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): 1. Adopt resolution accepting and app;opriating $22,145 in donations for playground equipment. 2. Authorize staffto sign the contract for the purchase and installation ora play structure. REPORT SUMMARY: In May and June, the parents of the children in the Recreation Department's Preschool program held a fundraising drive to raise money for playground equipment. To date, $22,145 has been raised and donated to the City to purchase and install equipment. The families, along with the Preschool Director, viewed several play structures and picked one that they felt met the needs of the program. One family wanted to pay for the actual structure and donated $12,000 to cover the cost. Additional expenses for this project are for grading, preparing the site, installing a redwood border around the area, wood fiber to cover the ground, and installation of the playground equipment. This project was sole sourced to Kompan, Inc. They are the only company that manufactures the play structure selected. FISCAL IMPACTS: The total cost for purchasing and installing the playground equipment is $24,004. $22,145 of this amount will be paid for with donations and currently in the General Fund reserve. The remaining balance of $1859 is in the approved budget for this project. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Complete project. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: - Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution accepting and appropriating donations for preschool play structure. 2. Contract for the purchase and installation of the play structure. RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $22,145 FOR PURCHASE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION OF A PLAY STRUCTURE. WHEREAS, parents of children in the Recreation Department's Preschool program raised $22,145 in the Spring of 2001 toward the purchase of playground equipment; and WHEREAS, the Recreation Department's 2001-2002 budget has additional funds budgeted toward purchase of playground equipment in the capital project #0104 Community/Senior Center Remodel, and WHEREAS, Kompan, Inc. has agreed to install a fully certified play structure for $24,004; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: To authorize Recreation staff to sign the contract with Kompan, Inc. for the purchase and the installation of a play structure, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to adjust the City of Saratoga's Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget for the appropriation of donated funds according to the following entries: Increase Decrease 001-9010-522.40-10 0104 Community/Senior Center Remodel $22,145 001 - 1010-551-50.02 Contingency $22,145 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: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk Coun~ilRpt Kompan, Inc. P. O. Box 1010 Forestville, CA 95436 Phone: 707 887-9737 F/~(: 707 887-9691 _Company Information Your Area Associate Margaret Brown Phone: 800 222-9046 FAX: 707 887-9691 SALES ORDERf °'~ i Jun 26, 2001 Version Vendor ID I BT · Tax Exempti ~-Tax Exempt Customer PO # . Est. Ship Date ;OLD TO: Contact Name Division Address 1 Address 2 City State Zip Client ID 1016 David Mm)ney City of Saratoga/Public Works Service's 19700 Allendale Ave. Saint_pga CA 95070 SHIP To: Contact Company Address 1 Address 2 Cay Slate Zip David Mooney City of Saratoga/Public Works Sen~ce'= 19700 Allendale Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 Phone Re: 408 868-1247 FAX 408 868-1278 Site Name Saratoga Community Preschool , Site Type Vendor ceteloa Desoril~Uon City of Saratoga/Public Works Sewice's List P,Hoe Amount BTC Custom Earlywod<s unit $12~34.00 Sealant 1% CA Sealant Charge $122.34 Install Installation (see attached proposal) $7,431.00 $12,234.00 $7,431 .i Carrier: Contact Kompan CA 48 hours before delivery at 707 887-9737 SrpeC__4=_! Insl~uotions Please review your order carefully to make sum all the information is correct then sign and return to Kompan inc. Make check or purchase order to Ko~ Inc~ Your order w~l not be processed without signed acknowledgment_ Sianed by Date Subl~M Tax 8.000% Installation/Labor *Shipping & Handling $12,356.34 $988.51 $7,431 TOTAL Weight $398.00 Changes to this order could result in an up charge. $21 mpan, Inc. P. O. Box 1010 For~stville, CA 95436 Phone: 707 887-9737 FA)(: 707 887-9691 Contractors License # 796146 Proposal Saratoga Community Center 19700 Allendale Ave Saratoga Phone: contact: David Mooney Job Speoiflcations: S~ope of Work CA 95070 No: oa~: June 20, 2001 cl~nt City of Saratoga/Public Works Service's 19700 Allendale Ave. Samtoga, CA 95070 Phone: 408 868-1247 Contract 01 O2 04 Site grading and preparation for installation of play equipment. Furnish and Install base reck to raise existing grade at east end of play area. Compact base reck and level as sub-base. Supewised Installation only of Earlyworks Villa per drawing. All spoils to be spread on site from foolings. Includes I supewisor for 1 day. Details to follow. Furnish and install 2" x 12' redwood border around play area, 160 lin.feet w/cap and ADA accessibility. Fumish 50 cubic yards of engineered wood fiber. No installalion included. PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH A COPY OF YOUR TAX EXEMPT CERTIFICATE, IF APPUCABLE .~70.50 $830.50 $1,200.00 $3,350.00 $1,180.00 Seven thousand four hundred thirty one and 00/100 do~a~ ($ 7,431.00 Payment in full upon. completion of project. charflle and legal fees assaeiated with iJolle~lion. Monday, October 1,2001 s~j.~um KOMPAN INC. .Sarato.qa Community Preschool: Attachment "A" General Notes installation includes: Mobilization Equipment Layout Drilling for Footings 1 Supervisor for I Day Installation Excludes: Engineering. Bonds, Permits, Protection, Core Drilling Paving. Relocation of Existing Utilities. Damage to Underground Utilities. Dewatering, Erosion Control or Repairs, Security Fencing, Security Patrol, Disposal of Rubber tires or any Other materials deemed toxic waste, Plumbing, Disposal/Removal of existing equipment, Grading, Site Preparation, Resilient Surfacing Removing / Reinstalling existing surfacing Removing spoils off site Delivery of equipment, Offloading equipment Labor and Tools for Installation and assembly of components Concrete and Installation of Footings If any of the following are encountered Additional charges will be required as change orders: Digging in rock. Hard rock. or Unstable Soils Existing ground cover materials interfering with installation Play equipment shortages and/or damage causing delays or requiring a return trip or a Separate mobilization Customer requirement to work over 8 hrs per day or 40 hours per week This proposal is based on 5 days per week, 8 hours per day (40-hour week), at a mutually agreeable schedule, and is valid for 60 days unless extended by - written statement from Kompan Inc. Owner or General must place call to Under.qround Service Alert (800) 227-2600 (A minimum of 48 hours prior to start of work) Thank you for contacting Kompan Inc. ' If you have any questions or need additional information please call Dave Earl at (707) 887-9737 Owner,Signature Date *If the enclosed proposal is accepted, a signed copy of this form will be required prior to Kompan's work on the project. / Aug-El-01 01:39P P.O~ Change Order Kompan Inc. P.O. Box 1010 Forestville, CA 95436 1-800-222-9046 Original contract date: _6/26/01 Date: 8/21/01 Owner: City of Saratoga Contractor: Kompan Inc. Project name: Saratoga CommunityConter Change order number: 0001 You are directed to make ,~e fOllowin~ chnge~ in this contract: Modification from Suporvisexl Installation of Kompan Early Works playstructure to Full Installation by certified Installation contractor. The original contract sum was: Net amount of previous change orders: Total orisinal contract amount plus or minus net change orders: Total amount of this change order: The new contract amount including this change order will be: The contract time will be changed by thc following number of days: The date of completion as of tho dn~c of this change order is: $21,173.85 $21,173.85 ~2,830.00 $24,003.85 ( )Days Contractor: Kompan Inc. Company name PO BOX 10tO Address Forestvill¢, CA 95436 City, State, Zip August 21, 2001 City of Saratoga Nnln~ 19700 Allendale Ave, Address Saratoga, CA {)5070 City, State; Zip August 21, 2001 Date SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ~~-'~ ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: ~2~~ SUBJECT: Medicare Coverage for Employees Hired Prior to April 1, 1986. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Adopt resolution authorizing the City of Saratoga to enter into a Section 218 Agreement with the Social Security Administration and Public Employee Retirement System (PERS). REPORT SUMMARY: Current law mandates that employees hired prior to April 1, 1986, are not required to contribute to Social Security's Medicare; employees hired after that date are required to contribute, and as such, are earning qualifying credits towards Medicare benefits. An individual must have 40 (forty) quarters of qualifying employment to be eligible for Medicare benefits. These qualifying quarters may be earned at any employer where Medicare taxes were paid, at the City of Saratoga for employees hired prior to 1976 or after April 1, 1986, and/or at the City of Saratoga after a new Section 218 Agreement goes into effect. One may also be eligible through a spouse's qualifying employment. During negotiations with saratoga's Employee Association the City committed to enter into a Section 218 Agreement with PERS and Social Security Administration allowing employees hired prior to April 1, 1986, to participate in Social Security's Medicare plan. There is a cost to the employee of 1.45% of earnings and an equal cost to the employer. FISCAL IMPACTS: The cost to the City is 1.45% of participating employees' salary, or approximately $680 per year per employee. Ten (10) employees are eligible to participate in the Section 218 Agreement (current employees hired between 1976 and April 1, 1986), however, in an initial poll, only three (3) employees indicated that they would participate. The estimated annual cost is $2,040. The remaining seven (7) employees may have qualified for Medicare outside their employment with the City. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The City would not be able to provide employees hired prior to April 1, 1986, the opportunity to qualify for Medicare, as previously agreed. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Direct staff to forward a copy of adopted resolution to PERS. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENT: Resolution to enter into a Section 218 Agreement with the Social Security Administration and PERS. ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. O0- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO ENER INTO AN AGREEMENT VgITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION WHEREAS, The City Of Saratoga, hereinafter designated as "Public Agency", desires to establish a "deemed" retirement system pursuant to Section 218(d)(6) of the Federal Social Security Act composed of positions of members of the Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter designated "Present Retirement System", desiring "Medicare-Only" coverage, and to include services performed by individuals employed by the Public Agency in positions covered by said "deemed" retirement system, as members ora coverage group established by Section 218(d)(4) of said Act, in the California State Social Security Agreement of March 9, 1951, providing for the coverage of public employees under the Health Insurance system established by said Act as amended; and WHEREAS, State and Federal law and regulations require, as a condition of such coverage, that a division be authorized by the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System; and WHEREAS, it is necessary that the "Public Agency" now designate any services which it desires to exclude from coverage with respect to such coverage group under said Health Insurance system; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Public Agency to set forth the modification, if any, of the benefits and contributions under the Present Retirement System that may result from coverage under the said insurance system with respect to such coverage group; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: that the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, be and hereby is requested to authorize the foregoing division; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon receipt of authorization from the Board of Administration a division shall be Conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 218(d) of the Social Security Act, and applicable State and Federal laws and regulations; that each eligible member of the Present Retirement System at the time of the division shall be furnished a form to permit the member to elect whether or not his services should be excluded from or included under the said California State Social Security Agreement as hereinbefore provided; with such "Medicare-Only" coverage effective as to services performed prospectively; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following services with respect to said coverage group of the Public Agency shall be excluded from coverage under said agreement only as member elects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that with respect to the said coverage group the benefits and contributions of the Present Retirement System shall not be modified in any way; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the division shall be given to members of the Present System not less than ninety days prior to the date of the division; provided however, that notice shall be given to employees becoming members of the Present Retirement System after the date of such notice up to and including the date of the division on the date on which they attain membership in the system, and that Dave Anderson, City Manager, is hereby designated and appointed to conduct such division on behalf of the Public Agency in accordance with law, regulations, and this resolution, including the fixing of the date and thc giving of proper notice thereof to members of the Present Retirement System and to all such eligible employees; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Public Agency will pay and reimburse the State at such time and in .such amounts as may be determined by the State the approximate cost of any and all work and services relating to such division. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the 5th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mayor Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: /-___ ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: ~ ~./_~~a~ DEPT HEAD: ~~/ ~. ~¢/ . SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing the destruction of certain City records RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution REPORT SUMMARY: In accordance with the City's established retention schedules, attached is a resolution authorizing the destruction of certain records in the Administrative Services Department as listed in Exhibit A, for your review and approval. Upon adoption of the resolution, the records will be destroyed. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Records will not be destroyed. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None Required ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS WHEREAS, Government Code Section 34090 et seq. authorizes City department heads to destroy certain records, documents, instruments, books or paper after the same are no longer required with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and the written consent of the City Attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That it does hereby authorize the department heads to destroy those certain records, documents, instruments, books or paper under their charge as described in Exhibit 'A'. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 5~h day of September, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: AB SENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mayor Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 2 of 2 'EXHIBIT A' FISCAL RECORDS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT RETENTION Location/Box# Description Records Date Retention Date 52 Yellow Cash Receipts (copiesI fl6408-9022 1988-89 Jun-01 Finance Vendor Files Letters: A-G 1995-1996 Jun-01 Finance Vendor Files Letters: H-O 1995-1996 Jun-01 Finance Vendor Files Letters: P-X 1995-1996 Jun-01 Finance Pink Cash Receipts (copiesI #33485-35883 & 59955-62090 1995-1996 Jun-01 Finance Cash Receipts #25651-36550 1996-1996 Jun-01 Finance Cash Receipts (pinkI 1984-1985 Jun-01 Finance Business Licenses S-Z 1994-1996 Jun-01 Finance Business Licenses MC- S 1994-1996 Jun-01 Finance Business Licenses F-L 1994-1996 Jun-01 19A AP Warrant Copies ' 1992 - 1996 Jun-01 5D Cash Receipts - Building, Rec. 1997-1998 Jun-01 4A Cash Receipts - Bank Transfers 1997-1998 Jun-01 7D Edit List 1997 Jun-01 Reviewed by ard Taylor, City Attorney Mitzie'Ed~'y, Interim Finance Director SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: Lorie Tinfow DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Authorize Expenditures for Utility Connections to Temporary Library RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Move to authorize City Manager to execute an increase to the existing City construction contract with Duran & Venables, Inc. in the amount of $43,000 for performance of work needed to establish utility service for the temporary library. 2. Move to authorize City Manager to pay $10,488.61 to Pacific Bell for construction and removal of one building terminal and entrance cable at the temporary library. REPORT SUMMARY: The Saratoga Library is under construction for approximately the next 18 months. During that time, Council directed staff to establish a temporary library to serve the public. There are a number of utilities to be connected in order for service to be provided. At this time, staff is requesting authorization to expend funds for communication, sewer and electricity connections. Pacific Bell will provide the communication services. They require payment of both connection and disconnection fees totaling $10,488.51 in advance before beginning the engineering work needed to provide service. The attached letter provides more information. In addition, a contract with Duran & Venables was extended by Council on July 10, 2001 to allow the company to perform site and roadway improvements related to the temporary library. At that time, costs for all site work were rough estimates. An additional $18,000 is necessary to pay for the installation of power poles and other site work to carry the utilities. Staff is investigating the best way to manage sewer needs. Up to now, we had planned to install holding tanks under the temporary library and have them pumped regularly. A cost estimate for that service revealed expected costs to be between $3080 and $4520 per month, depending on number of times per week service is provided. Total costs over 18 months would run between $55,440 and $81,360. We believe it may be possible and most cost effective to connect to an existing sewer line through Sacred Heart, and estimate costs necessary for that connection to be approximately $25,000. If connection proves infeasible, staff will return to Council with an agreement between the City and a sanitation company for tanks and pumping services. FISCAL IMPACTS: Funding for this work is programmed in the adopted budget in CIP No. 0103 Library Expansion - Account No. 4010 Contract Services. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The opening of the temporary library will be delayed. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): City Manager will sign the letter of confirmation and authorize the check to be drawn. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: · Letter of confirmation between Pacific Bell and the City of Saratoga. 2 of 2 FROM SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING ~758 No~h Brst Room: 200 5an JOS~, CA 95134 (THU) 8, 30' 01 1i '05/ST. ii '04/N0. 4261671726 CIJSTOME COP August 30, 2001 CitY of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 Attention: Loft Tinfow, Assistant City Manager RE: Saratoga Library Temporary Facility Dear Ms. Tinfow, "['his is to confirm arrangcm.¢nts made between Loft Tinfow and Dave Clark, of' Pacific Bell, for the construction and removal of one building tefminal and eutrvaxcv cubic at Lhe Saratoga Library temporary t,acility. It is under~oofl that CilF of Saratoga shall: Pay in advance a non-refundable lump sum of $10,488.61 which represents the cost tbr the above described work. CWBO Billing # GMCN401367. Payment includes a 33% tax component of $3,093.16 collected for Federal Income Tax in a~;;ordance with California Public Utilities Commission d~ci~iou 87-09-026. The cutover of all working circuits, including Hicap circu~ (ie: Ti's, etc.) are the responsibility of the customer. This process is completed on a service order basis mid is handled through thc busLaess oll~cc. The quoted charges do not include expenses for service order labor charges. These charges, if applicable, would be .quoted by your business Officc/Marketh~g Kcprcscntafiv¢. If you r~clU~St fi,at work b~ don(: on an overtime b,,sis, there will be additional charges to the above quote. Future network cable reinforcements of secondary terminals require customer billing. Pacific Bell sh,'dl:. A. Not be responsible for any delay in completing its work duc to causes beyond their control, llave the right to allocate matorials and labor to construction projects which, in its sole discretion, it deems most importanl to serve thc needs of their customers. B. Retain ownership of the facilities, C. Du~ to ohange$ in the cost of labor m~d materials, the 'figure quoted above will apply for only 30 dayu. If you agree to the foregoing, please date and slim the Pacific Bell copy of this letter ,'md remm it with your check made payable to Pacific Bell in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Your cheek should be received at lea.qt thirty days in advance of the work rcquir~m~nts. All work and charges shall be in accordance with Pacific Bell's tariffs on file with the Calitbmia Public Utilities Commission. FROM SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING 3z~76[1 klo~th ~r~! Stm~t Floem: 208 San Jo,~e, CA ~13~ (THU) 8, 50' 01 11'05/ST. 11 '04/N0, 4261671726 If Lt,~r~ arc any £urth¢r questions, please call me on (408) 493-7123. Sincerely, Dave Clark Engineer Thc above understanding ,agreed to and DATED 2001 APPLICANT TITLE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Thomas Sullivan, AICP AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISION APPROVAL OF SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT APPLICATIONS; DR-01-006, UP-01-002, LL-01-003 & TUP-01- 003 at 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the action of the Planning Commission contingent upon the transfer of property where the project encroaches into the Memorial Plaza. REPORT SUMMARY: The applications the Planning Commission considered were for Design Review and Use Permit to allow the demolishment of the existing Fire Station and construction of a new 13.325 square foot facility at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. The Use Permit was also to allow the deviation from standards as provided in Section 15-55.030 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Saratoga Fire District also. requested a Lot Line Adjustment so that the entire facility could a placed on Fire District property, as-designed, a portion of the .facility encroaches into the Memorial Plaza by 529 square feet. The District also requested approval of a Temporary Use Permit to allow the fire operations to be located at 20473 SaratOga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The Planning Commission also ~anted a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. This has not been filed with Santa Clara County. The Fire District property is zoned P-A Professional and Administrative Office District. ThiS zoning district allows as a conditional use, police and fire stations and other public buildings, structures and facilities. The basic zoning standards for the P-A zone are: P-A Zoning Requirements 25 ft. Front Yard Setback Interior Side Yard Setback 10 to 25 ft. None Exterior Side Yard Setback 15 ft. None 30 ft 35 ft Height Structure Site Covetable 30% Proposed Project None Nearly 100% ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): Grant the appeal, effectively reversing the Planning Commission action approving the proposed Fire Station. Remand the application back to the Planning Commission with direction that the, project be redesigned to reduce or eliminate the need to waive zoning standards. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): This depends upon the alternative the City Council might select. If the City Council selects the recommended action, the follow up action would be to process ihe construction documents in a manner consistent with other development activities. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The Public Hearing has been properly advertised. The Hearing was noticed in the July 18. 2001 issue of the Saratoga News, notices were mailed on July 18, 2001 to property owners and interested parties an the Public Hearing Notice was posted on the same day. The hearing was continued at the appellants' request to September 5, 2001. ATTACHMENTS: Draft City Council Resolution upholding the Planning Commission action to approve the project. A copy of Planning Commission Resolutions #DR-01-006, UP-01-002, LL-01-003. and TUP-01-003 A copy of Planning Commission minutes of their regular meetings of June 13.2001 and June 27, 2001. A copy of the june 13, 2001 Staff Report to the Planning Commission A copy' of a Memorandum from the Community Development Director to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 2001 (with attachments) A packet of material supplied by the Appellant dated July 9, 2001 A packet of material supplied by the Applicant dated August 28, 2001 found in Zoning Ordinance Section 15-55-030, in order to approve the project as proposed. Maximum Coverage allowed in the P-A Zone District The maximum coverage allowed in the P-A Zone is 30%. The project proposes nearly 100C7/c. The Planning Commission used the discretion in Section 15-55.030, in order to approve the p~-OJect as submitted. Land Trade Between the Fire District and the City The Planning Commission considered the proposal and approved the Lot Line Adjustment conditioned upon the Citx' Council a~eeing to the trade of real property. It was noted that the Fire District would be receiving land from the City's Memorial Plaza while the City would receive land that would be in the flowerbed in front of the station. On-site Parking Requirements The Zoning Ordinance requires in Section 15-35.0301r) that there be one parking space for each employee, and such additional spaces as max, be prescribed by the Planning Commission. The proposed project has zero par'king spaces on-site, however Staff and the Commission viewed this to mean on the largest number of Fire Department Personnel that would likely be at the Station at any given time. The day shift was chosen due to the additional five administrative staff persons. The eight Fire Fighters eitl~er going on or off duty were added together. A total of 20 individual employees are being provided 21 parking spaces due to the fact that the Fire District owns the Contempo property. The Planning Commission conditioned the project in a manner that required that the parking be revisited prior to the Temporary Use Permit expiring. · Temporary Use Permit to Allow the Contempo Building to serve as the Fire Station During Construction The Planning Commission had jurisdiction in this matter, but felt that having the Fire Station in the same general area better served the public. ~ · Environmental Determination/Negative Declaration The Planning Commission determined that there would be no environmental impact of rebuilding the fire station in the same location. FISCAL IMPACTS: Not Applicable CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The Saratoga Fire District would have to resubmit a substantially revised project in order to move forward with the planned replacement of the existing station. NOV,:. THEREFORE, the Ci~' Council of the CiD' of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That the action of the Planning Commission approving applications for the Saratoga Fire Station: DR-01-006, UP-01-002, LL-01-003, and TUP-01-003 is upheld. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 5 da3' of September, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mavor Cathleen Boyer, City. Clerk RESOLUTION NO. .Attachment A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING DR-01~006, UP-01- 002, LL-01-003, AND TUP-01-003 FOR A FIRE STATION TO BE LOCATED AT 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted duly advertised Public Hearings on June 13. 2001 and June 27. 2001, during which all interested parties were allowed to speak: and WHEREAS, following the Public Hearings, the Planning Commission discussed all pertinent issues within their authority; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the Public good would be served bx' wanting the various applications; and WHEREAS; On September 5, 2001 the City Council of the City of Saratoga conducted a continued Public Hearing during which all interested parties were allowed to speak: and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings: 3. 4. 5. That the proposed structure avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy in that this is a commercial area and there are no views into private yards. and That there is no private landscape to preserve, but as conditioned, the Fire District must relocated and protect the existing olive trees, and That the perception of excessive bulk and height have been addressed through roof and structure design, and That the bulk and height of the proposed Fire Station are in keeping with the neighborhood in that it has similar bulk and height to the Federated Church. That the proposed location of the Fire Station. is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and purposes of the P-A district in that it is a conditionally allowed use that provides community facilities, and That the proposed location of the Fire Station and its operation will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that it will not increase traffic, noise or congestion, and That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Chapter 15 of the City of Saratoga Municipal Code in that one of those provisions (Section 15-55.030) allows the Planning Commission to consider deviations from zoning standards. File No. DR-01-006, · -01-002, LL-01-003 ~r TUP-01-003; 1-,~80 Saratoga Avenue The Fire Stanon will be compatible in terms of bulk and height xvith (i) c.'astmc residennal and commercial structures on adjacent lots, m that the des~ is modeled after the Federated Church on the adjacent lot to promote a similar des~n to thc immectiate neighborhood: and (ii) the natural em~onment: and shg not unreasonably Unpatr the light and air of adjacent'properties: not-(ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to urili=e solar enerD'. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current ~admg. topog'raphy and erosion control standards used by the Ciry, such as mmimzmg thc amount of cut and fill. The proposal includes 221 Cubic yards of fi,ti and 10 cubic yards of fill. Also, the plan incorporates proper drainage measures to retain as much storm water n site as possible. Now', THEKE~=OKE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga docs hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideranon of the site plan, architectural draxOngs, plans and other exhibits submitted in connecnon with this matter, the applicauon of DR-01-006: SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT for Design Review approval be and the same .is hereby granted subject to ~he following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The devdopment shall be located and constructed as shox~"n on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the folloxxmag shall be submitted to the planning Division stuff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construcuon plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. i. All apphcable recommendaUons of the City Arbonst shall be adhered to and included as a separate plan page. ii. 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 foundaUon inspection by the City, the RcE or LLS of record shall provide a written certificauon that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." b. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans mcorporaUng this Resolution and Arborist report as a separate plan page. File No. DR-01-006,, ' -01-002, LL-01-003 ~ TUP-01-003; Attachment 2 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION No. DR-O1-006 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT; 14380 Saratoga Avenue V~IHEREAS, the Cra, of Saratoga Planning Commission has recen'ed an apphcauon for Design Review approval for the consu'ucuon of a new 13.325 square foot fzre station on a 9.274 square foot parcel; and WHEU.E~. the Planning Commission held a dui5' nonced Public Heanng at which tame all interested parties were given a full oppormmry to be heard and to present evidcncc: and WHEV, F_.4S, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been detcrmmcd: The height, devations and placement on the site of the proposed Fire Station. when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood: and (ii) commun~t-y view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference ~vith views and privacy, m that the location of the proposed Fire Station is compatible with the struct-ures on adjacent propemes. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as pracncable by desig,nmg structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and xvill be in keeping with the general "appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that the 'applicant is proposing 'improvements to the impacts on Memorial Plaza, and mitigating impacts to the olive trees by transplanting and replanting equal value trees. These .improvements include the applicant providing a new dnnking fountain and refurbishing the existing park benches at Memorial Plaza. The proposed Fire Stauon in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the percepuon 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 Fire Station into the surrounding environment in that the rooflines are well amculated and uses materials and colors to minimize excessive bulk and mass. Also, the design is modeled after the adjacent Federated Church to the rear to increase compatibility with the neighborhooc[ File No. DR-01-006,, -01-002, LL-01-003 & TUP-01-003; ln_,ct0 Saratoga Avenue 10. 11. ~, No excavated soft shall be storedbelow the canopies of anv trees. h. An international SocieU' of Arboncutture certified Arbonst must do any rrcc pruning.. Prior to issuance of a Building Perrmt, the applicant shall subrmt to thc. C~rx-. m a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, secuntT m thc amount of $4,166 pursuant to the report and recommendaUon by the Citx' Azbonsr to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arbonst shall inspect thc site to vcri~' compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection bx' thc Arbonst and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall bc rcicascd future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with thc Arbonst's recommendations. A_ny future sale of the Temporary Fire Station site at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, shall have a covenant running with the land stating that the New Fire Station shall retain enough spaces to meet its parking requirement of 1 space for each employee., FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 12. Roof covering shall be ~e retardant: Uniform building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 14. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance xi~ith the provisions, city of Saratoga' Code Article 16-60. Early Warning Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire district for approval. 15. Automatic~ spnnlders are required for the new 12,000 sq. ft. building. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. NFPA 13 is required.' PUBLIC WORKS 16. Figure 5 as contained in the traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates Inc, dated February 6, 2001 shall be completed prior to final inspection. File No. DR-01-006,, -01-002, LL-01-003 ~: TUP-01-003; 1-,.,80 Saratoga Avenue i. No Retaining wall shall exceed five feet m height and three feet u'itkm thc front yard setback. ii. All apphcable recommendations of the Cit-),, ,4a:bonst. No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed without first obtammg a Trcc 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. No structure shall be permitted m any easement. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water ~ be retained on. site,' and incorporating the New Deyelopment andgenstruction - 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 recommendanons m the City Arbonst's Report dated March 15, 2001 shall bc followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: The Arbonst Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the graclmg plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. Five (5)' ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown ~on the site plan as recommended by the Arbonst with a note "to remain m place throughout construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan staung that no construcuon equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dnplme of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance showing transplant locauons of trees ~1-5. e. No storage of construction materials shall be permitted within the canopies of trees ~6-8, and the protective fencing shall be installed per the Arbonst recommendations. fo All trenching for any utilities shall be located outside the driplines of aB retained trees. If this cannot be achieved a project Arbonst shall be retained to determine acceptable locations. File No. DR-01-006., -01-002. LL-01-003 & TUP-0I-003; l-,_,d0 Saratoga Avenue Section 2. Construcnon must be commenced x~'ith/n 24 months or approvJ ~ilJ ex-pn:e. .~ Section 3. All apphcable reqmrements of the State, Counn', C~n' and othcr Governmental ennnes must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of ,-M'tict¢ 15-9.0 of thc Saratoga Ciq' Code, ti'as Resolunon shall become effecm,e fifteen (15) days fi:om thc date of adopnon. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the CitT of Saratoga Planning Comlmssion. Statc o:- California, tkis 13th day of June 2001 by the £ollox~ng roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Comnnssion ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Comrmssion File No. DR-01'006, , -01-002, LL-01-003 6z TUP-01-003;.1-,.,~0 Saratoga Avenue CI'I~' A'l-'rotm'E¥ 17 Apphcant agrees ro hold City harmless ~rom all costs and ex2aenses, including attorney's fees, recurred by the Cxt3' or hdd to be the habili~- of City m cormccuon with City's defense of its acUons in any proceeding brought in am' Statc o:- Federal Court, challenging the Cit3"s acuon with respect to the applicant s project. 18 Noncompliance with any of the condinons of this permit shall consnmtc a xuolarion of the permit. Because it is impossible to esumate damages the Cin' could recur duc to the violanon, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Cit3' pcr cach da5' of the violanon. File No. DR-01-006,., -01-002, LL-01-003 & TUP-01-003; 1~ ~a0 Saratoga Avenue COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as modified and presented at thc Plarmmg Commission meeting as Exhibit 'Ar, incorporated by reference. All conditions of Resoluuon DR-01-006 shall be adhered to. CITY ATTORNEY Applicant agrees to hold City harmless ~rom all costs and expenses, including 'attorney's fees, recurred by the City or held to be the liability of Cit'5' m connection with City'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. 4 Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall consnrute a xuolation 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 Cin,- per each day of the violation. File No. DR-01-006,. -01-002, LL-01-003 & TUP-01-003; 1-..,80 Saratoga Avenue APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. UP-01-002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT; 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE · WHEV, EAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an apphcation for Use Permit approval for a New Fire Station, with a height of 35 feet. neath' 100% lot coverage, 0 setbacks, and on a lot less than 12,000 square feet: and WHF_.V~S, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which rime all interested parties were given a full oppormmty to be heard and to present evidence: and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following tSndmgs have been determined: That the proposed Fire Station is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that will not increase existing traffic rio,a,. That the proposed Fire Station and the conditions under which it ~vould be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to propemes or improvements in the vicinity, in that the hours of operation are similar to other businesses in the area and the business will not generate any objectionable noise, odors, air pollutants or solid or liquid waste which would endanger human health or cause damage to animals, vegetation or property. That the proposed Fire Station complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. Now, THEUY_I:OP, Y., 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 in connection with this matter, the application of SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK File No. DR-01-006, · -01-002, LL-01*003 ~r TUP-01-003; In ~80 Saratoga Avenuc Section 2. Operation must be commenced xvithm 24 months or approval expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, Counu', Cin' and othcr Governmental enuues must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Amcle 15-90 of thc Saratoga CitT Code, this Resoluuon shall become effecm'e fifteen (15) days from thc date adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning ComSmssion. Statc of Califorma, this 13th day of June 2001 by the follo~xqng roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commissi6n File No. DR-01-006,, 01-002, LL-01-003 & TUP-01-003; 1.~_,s0 Saratoga Avenue Applicant a~ees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, mclu&ng attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be-the liabiliw of Cim' m connection with City's defense of its acmons in any proceeding brought m any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant s project. Noncompliance with an5' of the con&nons of this permit shall consntute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the Ciw could mcu? duc to the violanon, liquidated damages of S250 shall be payable to t!~is Cit-5,' pcr cach day of the.violanon. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, Count3', CitT and othcr Governmental entities must be met. SectiOn 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of thc Saratoga Cit3' Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Cit3, of Saratoga Planning Commission, Statc of California, this 13th day of June 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NoEs: ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission File No. DR~01~006,. -01~002, LL~01~003 ~r TUP~01~003; 1-, ~0 Saratoga Avenue APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. TUP-01-003 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT; 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE WHEREAS, the Cit3,, of Saratoga proposes to temporarily rdocate the Saratoga F~rc Dismct to a site located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road on a parcel less than 12.000 square feet, dunng the construction and exTansion of the exisung Fire Station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue: and WHEREAS, the. Planning Commission hdd a dui), noticed Pubhc Hearing at which time all interested parties were gl;yen a full opportumt3, to be heard and to present evidence: and V~rHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Temporary Use Permit approval, and the following findings have been determined: · The proposed Fkre Station facility is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; and The proposal promotes and protects the public health, safet3', peace, comfort convemence, prosperity and general welfare because it will: 1) facilitate the continuation of Fire Protection services during the Construction and expansion of the existing Fire Station: 2) provide adequate temporary off-street parking and loading facilities; and 3) mimmize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities.. The existing building shall remain unchanged with the exception of the addition of one entry door. The building currently is supplied with City water, sewer and power services. 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, plans and other exhibits submitted m connection with this matter, the application of the SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT for Temporary Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed temporar3, Fire Station facility shall be located and constructed as shown on the plans, incorporated by reference. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Temporary Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the penmt to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 12. · The project will include improvements to the Memorial Plaza and the protection, of Olive trees (including the transplanting of some and with their replacement should the trees not successfully transplant). · Said that the Fire Station is located within Historic Downtown, the Gateway to the Downtown. · Added.that the Heritage Preservation Commission has reviewed and approved the proposed design with a 6-0-1 vote with one abstention. · Staff is recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration and advised that mitigation measures proposed include the improvements to Memorial plaza and the relocation of two bus stops. · Advised that two emergency generators will be installed. · Informed that the applicants purchased the adjacent Contempo building in order to provide additional parking. This added 22 parking spaces for a total of 32 with the 10 on site. · Added that the Use Permit process allows the Commission to grant a Use Permit with variations to the standards if necessary findings can be made. · The Lot Line Adjustment is for 513 square feet in exchange for 529 square feet needed at the back of the building. · Reminded that Council has the final authorization. · Said that a review of the General Plan allows the transfer of City-owned property for compensation. In this case the improvements to Memorial Plaza represents the compensation. · Said that the Temporary Use Permit is to allow the temporary location of the Fire Station. Usually such applications are for small uses such as pumpkin or Christmas tree lots. This TUP will allow the use of the alternate facility to provide continued fire services during the construction of the new Fire Station. · Suggested that a Covenant-should be recorded that requires the maintenance of permanent parking for the Fire Station, even should the Contempo building property be sold in the future. · Pointed out correspondence, including a letter from Santa Clara County Fire District Chief Spoorleader, which states that this facility would also meet their requirements should they end up the provider of Fire Protection Services for Saratoga. · Staff is recommending approval. Chair Barry asked how. the vote on this application should be handled. Director Tom Sullivan advised that unless there is a major issue that comes up for one aspect of the proposal, one motion and vote can be taken for the entire proposal. Commissioner Kurasch said that she recalled that it had been recommended that public comment be taken at a first meeting but that the matter be continued for final action to another date. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the reason for that had been to allow Council to meet and discuss the future of fire services for the City. That Council meeting has occurred and the result was that no action was taken. The Fire Commissioners were to have meet last night (6/12/01). At this point, the Planning Commission should review this application based on Land Use issues. Commissioner Kurasch said that there are too many unknowns. Suggested that there might'be a change in the disposition of this facility based upon the outcome regarding who will provide fire protection services. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Attachment 3 Chair Barry said that this is a chanmng neighborhood and this design .__:__- .......... Schuppert that he will be happy with a brick courtyard as she has one that she really enjoys. Chair Barry closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:52 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded'by Commissioner Jaekman, the Planning Commission approved UP-01-009 and DR-01-005 to allo~v a 418. square foot garage within the rear and side yard setbacks on propert3' located at 20350 Orchard Road with the use of pervious pavers in the court3'ard. (5-0-1; Commissioner Roupe was absent) Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final. Chair Barry called-for a break at 8:55 p.m. Chair Barry, reconvened the meeting at 9:04 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 DR-01-006, UP-01-002, TUP-01-003, LL-01-003 (397-22-019) - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT, 14380 Saratoga Road: 'Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire StatiOn. A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. The Temporary Use Permit is necessarv to allow the temporary Fire Station to be located behind the subject property at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The maximum height of the new Fire Station will be 34 feet. 6 inches tall. The project is located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zoning district. Director TomSullivan, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the application' before the Commission is for Design Review and a Use Permit to allow the demolition of the existing Fire Station and the construction of a new 13,325 square foot Fire Station with a maximum height of 35 feet. Additionally, a Lot Line adjustment is required to retain the new structure within the property line..Currently, the existing building encroaches into the Plaza next door. · Said that the property is zoned for Professional/Administration and the General Plan Land Use designation is PF (Public Facilities). The parcel is 9,274 square feet and the site is flat. The zoning requires 12,000 square feet but this is an existing non-conforming structure. · Proposed materials include off-white stucco. The attempt has been made to match the architecture of the Federated Church, a Julia Morgan influenced design. · Advised that the Municipal Code allows the City to adjust setbacks, heights and lot coverage with the issuance of a Use Permit. Said that Findings can be made to support this application since it is replacing an existing facility with nearly the same size footprint. The proposal only slightly expands the footprint and the project will be consistent with the adjacent properties. Advised that this Fire Station is centrally located within the Saratoga Fire District. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page Ms. Mary McGrath, RRM Design Group: · Said that she started working with the Fire District in 1998. · Introduced Mr. Chris Ford who will discuss design issues. Mr. Chris .Ford, C3 Design Alliance: · Provided a background, which includes site and building design issues. · Said that an Initial Study was prepared seven and a half years ago. At that time the building report was completed, the Citizens' Group formed and an architect hired to study feasibility, and budgeting for a new Fire Station. Later the acquisition of the Contempo building occurred and Measure F was passed. The proposed design was refined and went before Council for a preliminary review, using an informational presentation. A traffic study was completed by Fehr & Peers regarding the intersection. A refined design is now before the Commission. · Described specific design features. The new building is 53 percent larger with the addition of a lot of firefighter living space, medical support functions and workstations. The building has been designed to meet the present and future needs and is flexible as the mission of the District evolves. The building can be reconfigured. There are double deep apparatus bays; full service fire and medical emergency services and bunkrooms have been replaced with individual bedrooms. The internal configuration can be adapted. The entrance is on the west side, facing the Village. With the addition of the Contempo building, there will be classroom space available to the Community, the Sheriff and to other West Valley Fire Districts. · Issues regarding the overall siteinclude: To the left of the site is the new building. To the right of the site is the Contempo building, which will serve as the. Fire House during construction of the new Fire building. The temporary site will be a'self-contained, relatively secured site (with fencing rather than as an enclosed building. In the future, the Contempo building will provide visitor parking and classroom space. · Site Design Issues: The Plaza Design, relocation of Olive Trees, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment, revisions to the site lines (as the new building will eliminate an existing enci'oachment into visual site line at the comer) and intersection layouts. · Building Design: The floor plan includes three apparatus bays, two of which are double deep. The general orientation of the building is to the west side. The upstairs will be used for living quarters with eight individual bedrooms, ten workstations, a larger kitchen and dayroom. _ The second floor will be pushed to the back and not be on the street. They will use Villa Montalvo design features including a tile roof, arches and divided light windows and tower features. · Form/Massing: The main entrance will be on the west side. The materials include clay tile roofs, copper gutters, ceramic tile, wood screening and 14-foot doors. The building height will ibe 35 feet from the Plaza level. However, the Plaza is below the grade of the sidewalk and street and s° the appearance of height from the sidewalk/street is actually 28 feet. The apparatus doors will be reduced to 17 feet from 22.5 feet. · . Pointed out the study model available. · Stated the goals for a project design that meets public safety needs of the community; compliments the Memorial Plaza and Village of Saratoga; and is inspired by the building's history and the history of the surrounding area. · Made himself available for questions and asked the Fire DistriCt's Attorney to make some remarks. Mr. Harold Toppel, Attorney for Saratoga Fire District. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 13 Director Tom Sullivan reiterated that the County Fire Chief has said that this facilitv's design meets with their approval. Commissioner Kurasch insisted upon the importance to achieve the maximum in public comment and asked what outreach efforts were made to the community. Director Tom Sullivan replied that this application was advertised and posted consistent with the Municipal Code and State Laws. The noticing was sent to owners within 500 feet. the postings occUrred in three public places. An ad was placed in the local community newspaper. There was no lack of public notification. Commissioner Jackman agreed that this was one of the best-advertised projects in Saratoga. Commissioner Kurasch asked if public comments were received. Director Tom Sullivan advised that all correspondence received was provided in the packet or as table items this evening. Commissioner Garakani said that he did not understand how any approvals could occur prior to the necessary land being officially made available to the project. Director Tom Sullivan ~eplied by conditioning the project. Chair Barry said that she understands that the land trade is necessary and justified. Commissioner Garakani asked under what circumstances a zero setback can be allowed. Director Tom Sullivan replied that Municipal Code Section 15.55.030 is where the provision to allow for variations from standards is found. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the actual provision of parking on site. Director Tom Sullivan advised that one space per employee is required. There are 10 on-site spaces. The Fire District bought the Contempo property with 22 spaces. They will record a Covenant to retain the right to use these spaces for the Fire Station. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 9:25 p.m. ' Mr. Ernest Kraule, Fire Chief, Saratoga Fire District: · Informed that their existing building was constructed 80 years ago and was originally used as an auto repair garage. Space was rented for the storage of fire equipment and then the building was purchased for use as a Fire Station in 1956. In the early 60's the building was redesigned and upgraded, including changes to the fi'ont elevation. · Said that seven and a half years ago, a Citizens' Committee was formed and a consulting firm hired. It was determined that the building is not seismically safe. · RRM was hired. They specialize in designing Fire Stations. · Said that they are excited with the design of this new building. · Introduced the team working on this project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 16 · The Fire District is not telling the public what the total cost of the project will be. · Said he wanted to know the total construction cost, the demolition costs, the temporars.' site. furniture and fixtures costs and the site costs for a maintenance garage. Chair Barry reminded the audience of the purview of the CommiSsion. Mr. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, Saratoga: · Said that the building was constructed in the 1920's and that its replacement will need to serve the community for the next 75 'or so years. A long-range perspective is necessary, including planning for future need. · Said that despite that vote to work with County Fire, the future for Saratoga Fire setwices is unsettled. Expressed concern for the reduction in apparatus bay doors fi.om four to three. Said that the City will pay about six million dollars for a less capable Fire House. Added that the need for leaving the ambulance parked outside the new building shows that it has been outgrown before it is even built. Said that this is a bad plan for the new century.. Commissioner Kurasch asked what Mr. Farrell's involvement is in this matter. Mr. Ed Farrell replied that he is both a citizen of the community and a member of the FA( Committee. Mr. Aaron Katz, P.O. Box 116, Saratoga: · Said that he provided a letter and is a local resident. · Said that this proposal violates all requirements and is improper. · Questioned the noticing as even the adjacent Post Office was unaware of this meeting. · Said the he did not receive notice fi.om the City but did receive something from the Chief. · Said that three weeks ago. he requested that pole netting be installed to demonstrate the proPosed building height. · Suggested a two-week continuance to allow the placement of the pole netting. · Said that the Fire Department should get the necessary 529 square feet of land from the City before proceeding with their application. Added that the 513 square feet being provided to the City in trade is worthless. · Disagreed that there are 10 parking spots on site. · Suggested that there is potential for many more people on site when you factor in the volunteer firefighters and support staff. Said that there should be a limit to the number of employees based upon the number of provided parking spaces. ~ · Suggested a Covenant prohibiting the sublet of the Contempo building. · Said that a 13,000 square foot Fire Station is not needed. · Said that the Argonaut Shopping Center is neither in character nor compatible with the area. Mr. Charles Hackett, 15400 Suview Drive, Saratoga: · Informed that he spoke with Project Designer Chris Ford about a year ago and got some questions answered. However, when he tried to make contact a second time, he was advised by Mr. Ford that he would be unable to answer any further questions. Said that he has had problems getting any information about this project since. Saratoga Plann/ng Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 15 · Stated that the District has no intention of disposing of the Contempo building. It was acquired to keep. They have no objection to the requirement for a Covenant to ensure the availability of parking. This is appropriate and acceptable. · Said that Condition of Approval No. 16 is illegal and unconstitutional and has no relationship to the development of the new Fire Station. The City has no authority to impose ihis Condition. No traffic impacts were identified with the Traffic Report. The only mitigation measures required of the project were for concerns other than traffic. · Said that the Land 'Use and Design issues should be evaluated 'for now rather than later. Operational issues should not be in question. · Pointed out the letter from the County Fire District-that states they have no problem with the design of this Fire Station. Added that a cooperative an'angement with County Fire seems to be the direction the City will pursue, · Said that they support all Conditions of Approval but No. 16, which requires improvements to the intersection. Commissioner Kurasch said that there is a potential for vehicle conflicts. Added that Condition No. 16 is not asking for major road re-alignment but rather the addition of a right turn only lane, restriping and the modification to the curb to help pedestrians. The connection is there between these requirements and the construction of a new Fire Station. Mr. Harold Toppel, Attorney for Saratoga Fire District, said that this is an existing condition (poor line of site/visibility). They are moving the building back from the street. This will improve circulation and line of site. MitigationYheasures can be imposed when there is an adverse impact. However, per the CEQA analysis, no traffic impacts have been identified. The effect of this project is a net improvement in the situation. Commissioner Kurasch said that the Fire District initiated the review for street improvements. Mr. Harold Toppel, Attorney for Saratoga Fire District, replied that it was never their intention to have the improvements imposed as a condition of their proposed project. Director Tom Sullivan stated that Condition No. 16 is a Public Works requirement. Chair Barry added that she was not comfortable removing this Condition without the City Attorney available to provide counsel. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission can either remove the Condition or leave it in..,The applicant then has the option to appeal that Condition to Council. Mr. Harold Toppel, Attorney for Saratoga Fire District, said that these improvements add a six figure cost to the project. This has a negative impact and was not budgeted. Chair Barry asked if the Public Works requirement includes installation of a new signal. Director Tom Sullivan replied just adjustments to the signal and restriping. Mr. Bill Sousa, 13830 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga: · Reminded that it is taxpayer money paying for this project. Saratoga Planning commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 18 Mr. Chris Ford pointed out the problems due to the differences in grade between the alley and street frontage, about seven feet, which prevent this option. Commissioner Jackman asked staff about adequate noticing. Director Tom Sullivan replied that notices were sent to 102 property owners per the affidavit. Commissioner Jackman asked why the story poles were never installed. Chief Kraule, Saratoga Fire Department: -. · Replied that he had never been informed of such a request before this evening's meeting. Said that he was unsure how to go about having them installed but that he was willing to do so. · Elaborated on the equipment proposed including first line engine, engine 30, engine 31, a back up engine, an ambulance and rescue truck. This building will accommodate equipment for two engine companies with eight bedrooms. There will be a maximum of 10 employees on duty during any 24-hour period. Twenty-two parking spa. ces will be provided. Commissioner Kurasch asked about expanded training in the future. Chief Kraule replied that additional training is a necessary .feature of a Fire station. Added that they will be able to control the traffic signal from the Fire Station and that they have gone 30 years without a firefighter being involved in an accident while directing the trucks onto the site. Commissioner Zutshi asked what the greatest number of people on site would be at any timel Chief Kraule said eight firefighters and two paramedics (working 24 hours) and five support ('working 8 hour shifts) and the potential for eight to 15 volunteers. Chair Barry asked Chief Kraule what he thought of the restriction to prohibit the subleasing of the Contempo building. Chief Kraule replied that they pulled the training room and storage space from the new building which will have to go in to the Contempo building. There will be no space available to sublet. Commissioner Jackman questioned the need for 10 workstationsl Chief Ka:aule said that the firefighters work on special projects, performs record keeping duties, does ' training and research. This is an essential part of a Fire Station. Commissioner Jackman agreed that the current Murphy bed sleeping accommodations are inadequate. Chief Kraule agreed. Chair Barry asked Chief Kraule if he thought that there may be too much response capability and whether this station is being overbuilt. Chief Kraule replied that the building is being designed to house twO engines and eight firefighters. This compares to one engine and three firefighters at both Cox and Quito Stations. The newer standard Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 17 · Said that the public has not had input and should have that chance. · Requested the placement of story poles with netting. · Added that this is an immense structure that is out of scale and with too much mass. Mr. David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, Saratoga: · Said' that he had worked with City Planner, Mark Connolly,-in the past getting information about this project. · Advised that he has a degree in Architecture and that he is flabbergasted at the size of this. enormous building. Called it outrageous. Said if it is allowed to be built, it needs to be sized back. · Stated that four apparatus bay doors are mandatory, especially with a zero setback project. · Said that the Fire Department is creating a building three times its original size while reducing available equipment space by 20 percent. This makes no sense. · Said that the public has not had the oppommity to provide necessary input. · Said that the building will need to fit the needs of the furore when it is incorporated with County Fire. · Said that this project is the taxpayers' money at work. They will mn short and mav end up needing another bond issue, which he will not support. Reminded that there are only about 4.000 taxpayers to pay for these bonds. Mr. Kevin Schot: · Expressed concern for firefighter safety when they need to back up engines on busy streets, standing in traffic to do so. · Said that two other fire stations in the area had similar problems. One (located on Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino) ended up solving it by incorporating a drive through building. The other placed their building at the far back of their site and could therefore use their own parking lot to back trucks into the apparatus bays. · Opined that this situation will not get better and needs to be dealt with now. CommiSsioner Garakani asked whether the applicants have been copied with all letters on this matter. Mr. Chris Ford replied yes. Said that he has no rebuttals to the comments made but would make himself available to address any questions. Commissioner Kurasch asked why fewer bays are proposed while more equipment will be used. Mr. Chris Ford said the determination is based upon the function of the first response apparatus. The goal is to have a number of apparatus bay doors that meet standards. The three proposed bayi are pulled back from the street as much as possible, about eight feet. They are confident that three apparatus bay doors will meet both current and future needs. Chair Barry asked about the potential jeopardy of firefighters having to stand in the street to back equipment into the apparatus bays. Asked if a drive-through design had been considered. Mr. Chris Ford said that a drive through was not considered on this site. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether alley circulation was considered. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 20 Director Tom Sullivan informed that the next agenda is substantially lighter than this evening's and this item can be placed at the start of the meeting. Chair Barry said that a Public Heating is preferable to a Study Session and suggested a continuance to the next iegular Planmng Commission meeting. Commissioner Garakani said that 'the hard issues need to be solved and that this project needs to be considered like any other project is considered. Chair Barry: · Listed the areas of concern as: setbacks (although in a Public Service District the normal setbacks don't carry much weight); bulk/mass/roof line issues; and limits to how much the Commission ' can tell Fire regarding what they need in their building in order to function effectively. Added that she is not prepared to tell the Fire Department how many workstations and/or bedrooms they need. Another key concern is the provision of parking and how it will be accommodated. · Suggested that the City Attorney work with Fire's Attorney to straighten out any differences about the applicability of Condition No. 16. · Asked the applicants if they are willing to return to the next meeting of if they would prefer some sort of vote tonight. Chief Kraule said that they are willing to come to the next meeting to continue. Said that a lot been accomplished this evening and. they have learned a lot. Asked for direction on the installation of the story poles as he has never done such a thing. Director Tom Sullivan said that the poles need to be in place minimally on the Tuesday before the next Planning Commission meeting and preferably even before that to allow members of the public to view it in place prior to the Hearing. Commissioner Kurasch asked what specific concerns members of the Commission have. Commissioner Jackman stated that she does not want to redesign the building but rather wants to see that the land exchange is actUally approved, that parking is provided and that the building height is acceptable. Commissioner Kurasch agreed that there has not been enough information regarding the size and bulk of the building. ChiefKraule advised that the size and heights of the fire trucks dictate the size of the bays and doors. Commissioner Kurasch stated that this is a very large structure for the site and that she does not know how to qualify that fact. The needs should be justified. The question to be answered is what is essential to in order to provide public safety. Chair Barry added that any functions that could be moved to the Contempo building or addressed in some other function should be done. Said one question is whether there is any way to make the Fire House smaller. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 19 is to have four firefighters per engine rather than three. The building has been designed to meet today's needs through 10 years out. Current needs include coed facilities. Chair Barry clarified with Chief Kraule that the Lot Line Adjustment or land trade is contingent on Council approval. Asked Mr. Chris Ford whether the copper being used is for decorative or functional purposes. Mr. Chris Ford advised that the proposal includes copper gutters and wall flashing. Pointed' out a current remodel of the City Hall in Santa Cruz where 75 plus year old copper gutters will be reinstalled as part of the renovation because they remain in excellent condition. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the need for two beds per room. Mr. Chris Ford pointed out that there are two beds and three lockers per room. There are three people 'assigned for each room. In other words, the two beds are shared amongst three firefighters on a rotating basis. This is actually a space saving measure. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 11:05 p.m. Commissioner Garakani said that this should be a win-win situation. There is a need to rebuild the Fire Station. Citizens have concerns. Agreed that story poles should be installed. Chair Barry asked Commissioner Garakani if he is suggesting a continuance. Commissioner Garakani said that there are concerns that need to be addressed. Said that the Contempo building perhaps should be used for administrative uses thereby allowing greater setbacks for the new building. Commissioner Zutshi supported a continuance. Commissioner Jackman said that she too supports a continuance based upon the need for the land switch. Said that she wanted to be sure this goes forward before going any further. Stated that this is one of the biggest projects for the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Kurasch said that she too supports a continuance and that she still wants more information regarding the needs and how the new building will meet those needs since it will be used for the next 50 or more years. Reminded that she had expected two hearings anyway and that perhaps a Study Session is warranted. Said that there are still unanswered questions. More time and the placement of story poles will be helpful. Said that height and massing are concerns as well as the utilization of space. Commissioner Jackman said that there are constraints based upon the size of the property. Chair Barry stated that four Commissioners have expressed support for a continuance. Suggested that the Commission specify what new information it would like provided when the matter comes back before it. Commissioner Garakani said that there are many sensitive issues. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13. 2001 Page 22 Housing Element Update: Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the lack of updates on the Housing Element: Said that she does not feel up t° speed on this Subject. Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that he has a meeting scheduled with the Consultant on June 22nd where he will receive the rough draft. The process is still at the staff/consultant stage. Something written is required before starting with meetings and heatings. Chair Barry disagreed and stated that some general education on the subject could be helpful at this stage. Director Tom Sullivan suggested placing a general discussion of the Housing Element on the first agenda in July. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would appreciate seeing other examples from other cities, those that work and those that do not work. Learning Process for New Commissioners: Commissioner Garakani expressed the need for learning applicable terms that come up regularly in Public Heatings. Director Tom Sullivan asked the Commissioners to provide him with a list of any resource materials they have received to date. He proposed to distribute to each Commissioner a copy of the_ current General Plan, a Planning Commissioner's Handbook, a Municipal Code as well as other material he as accumulated over the last 25 years in Planning. New Commissioner: Commissioner Jackman asked if a new Planning Commissioner has been selected. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the new Commissioner will begin work with the next .meeting. Brown Act Question: Chair Barry asked if there is any infraction of the Brown Act should two Commissioners meet in order to review an agenda packet together. Particularly helpful would be having the two new Commissioners meet with longer tenured Commissioners. Director Tom Sullivan said as long as there is no quorum and as long as specific voting plans are not discussed, this type of interaction will not be in violation of Brown Act rules. Mailing for Public Hearings: Commissioner Garakani asked whether certified mail might not be necessary when mailing out public heating notices. Expressed concern that many members of the public have stated they have not received notice of public hearings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 21 Chair Barry continued the hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of jUne 27, 2001. the audience for their participation and directed staff to renotice the next meeting. She thanked DIRECTOR ITEMS Blackweli Properties. Lot 54~ Alta Vista Subdivision. Modification of Approval Director Tom Sullivan provided an update and recommended approval of the proposed modifications. The Commission expressed support and the modifications were approved. Joint Council/Planning Commission Retreat: Director Yom Sullivan advised the Commission that the Mayor has proposed a joint retreat between Council and the Commission for July 14, 2001, for a barbecue. Families are invited. Start Time for Future Planning Commission Meetings: Director Tom Sullivan suggested changing the start time for Planning Commission meetings to 7 p.m. instead o£ 7:30 p.m. The Commissioners were e-fithusiastic in support of that proposal and the new start time will commence with the next meeting on June 27, 2001. COMMISSION ITEMS Appointment of Liaison to Library Committee: CommisSioner Zutshi yolunteered to serve in this capacity, expressing her love and support of libraries. List of Priorities: Chair Ban-y reminded staff of the list of priorities that the Commission would like to work on over the year including issues such as basements and landscaping plans. Director Tom Sullivan suggested agendizing review of this list for the next meeting at which time a subcommittee of the Commission can be created to work with staff. When items are ready for discussion by the entire Commission, they will be agendized. Commissioner Garakani stressed the importance of neighbor involvement early in the review process. Early Distribution of Packets: Chair Barry thanked staff for providing the agenda packets on Thursday instead of Friday and for providing a draft agenda for the subsequent meeting with this packet. DATE: PLACE' TYPE: MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, June 27, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Saratoga. CA Regular Meeting Chair Barrv called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi Commissioner Roupe Director Tom Sullivan, Senior Planner Bob Schubert and Planner Allison Knapp APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of June 13, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded bx' Commissioner Garakani, the Regular Planning Commission minutes of June 13, 2001, approved with the following amendments: · Page 8_- Chair Barry said that she would prefer to have specific Conditions of Approval...Added that had the Planning Commission received a consensus about the wishes of the neighborhood that would have been considered very seriously. · The correction throughout the minutes for Agenda Item No. 5 of the spelling of Fire Chief Kraule's name, which had been spelled Kraw in error. (6-0-1; Commissioner Roupe was absent.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 21, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET There were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent calendar items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2001 Page 23 Director Tom Sullivan said that this form of mailing exceeds the requirement and is both cost and time-prohibitive. However, he will look into this suggestion. COMMUNICATIONS Written: 'Saratoga City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings of May 8, 2001. and Max' 22.2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry. adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. to Wednesday, June 27, 2001. at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk Saratoga Planning Commissi,__. Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page issues. Whether there are three or four bays is not within the purview of the Commission. Thc application is for a building with three bays. That is what the Commission must consider. Pointed out that a memo has been issued by the Public Works Department advising that the issue of the intersection for this project have been resolved. Told the Commission that it can direct staff on specific resolutions, adopt the resolutions drafted by s/afl either with or without modification. Commissioner Kurasch stated that form follows function. Questioned the suggestion that the Commission cannot consider uses. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the current fire station is a two-engine station. The nexv station will be a two-engine station. Both buildings will have the same staffing levels. Per the Traffic Study, there are no traffic impacts from this project. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Sullivan to explain if citizen input was required because of public funding. Director Tom Sullivan advised that there is an oversight citizens' committee. Commissioner Kurasch asked who is on this oversight committee. Director Tom Sullivan replied that' the members are appointed. Commissioner Jackman said that the proposal to use the Contempo building for classes in the future would impact parking. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the classes could be held at times other than when shift changes occur. It is during shift changes that parking is scarcer. Chair Barry inquired whether the Contempo building will be used, during the Temporary .Use Permit period, for the same uses that it .will be .used for in the future. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Said that. during the Temporary Use Permit period, this Contempo building will be the temporary Fire Station. After the new Fire Station building is completed, the Fire Department will have to come back to the City for a Use Permit for the permanent use of the Contempo Building. .~-" Commissioner Zutshi asked Director Sullivan to clarify the Lot Line Adjustment. Director Tom Sullivan advised that there are several possible options, including a straight trade, square foot for square foot. This lot line needs to be moved so that that Fire Station will no longer encroach onto the City-owned Plaza property. Mr. Chris Ford, C3 Design Group, Applicant's Representative: · IntrodUced his associate, Mary McGrath, from RRM Design Group, who is present with him this evening. Saratoga Planning Commiss~,._. Minutes of June 27. 2001 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 DR-01-006, UP-01-002, TUP-01-003, LL-01-003 (397-22-019) - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT. 14380 Saratoga Road: Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 12,689 square foot Fire Station.. A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. The Temporar).' Use Permit is necessary to allow the temporary Fire Station to be located behind the subject property m 2B473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The maximum height of the new Fire Station will be 34 feet, 6 inches tall. The project is located within a Professional Administrative (P-At zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 6/13/01) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report: · Reminded that at the last meeting several items were identified by the Planning Commission. which staff has presented in a memo format. · Stated that per the request of the Commission, this Public Heating was re-noticed. · Advised that one issue identified by the Commission was the provision of parking. There are no on site parking spaces. The applicants are proposing to provide 22 spaces on their adjacent property to meet the parking requirement for this project. Additionally there are City-owned parking spaces on the alley that have traditionally been used by this site, which will continue to be available for public use. · Said that the requirement for parking is one space per employee. A two-engine company has eight firefighters per shift. Additionally, there are five administrative/management personnel. There is the potential for 21 people on site during shift changes. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether volunteers are counted as employees. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the volunteers are not defined as employees per the Municipal Code. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the change in parking identified in the current staff report from the' last staff report. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the alley parking spaces are no longer counted. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the number reflected in the Negative Declaration is in error. Director Tom Sullivan: · Informed the Commission that he has discussed this Lot Line Adjustment with the City Manager. · Added that the applicant installed the story poles requested by the Commissioners to demonstrate the building height. · Clarified with the Commission that variation from the Zoning Code standards requires issuance of a Use Permit. · Cautioned that it is not within the Commission's purview to discuss the use of the Contempo building for permanent Fire Department office use until an application is submitted for a Use Permit for that building. · Added that discussion of the'total cost to construct the Fire Station is also not within the purview of the Commission. The Commission's role is to discuss both land use and/or design review Saratoga Planning Commissk,.. Minutes of June 27. 2001 Page 5 Mr. Chris Ford replied yes. Added that it is 40 percent bigger and the most prominent architectural feature. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the main roof of the second story peaks at 31 feet. 8 inches. Mr. Chris Ford replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the applicants had considered using a retaining wall to even OUt the alley ~ade change. Mr. Chris Ford replied that they had considered doing so early in the process. Said that it was determined that by the time the four foot difference is made up, the grade would mimic the alley. Commissioner Kurasch asked how a Core Station is selected. Asked if every Core Station has one c°mpany. Mr. Chris Ford said that he would defer that question to the~Chief. Said that the definitions are different in each jurisdiction. Commissioner Kurasch asked where the EMR vehicles would be parked. Mr. Chris Ford replied that they would fit within the bays. Chair Barry asked Mr. Ford whether he has ever recommended that a Fire Station not include the administration functions. Mr. Chris Ford replied that it would not make sense operationally to separate the two. Chair Barry' sought clarification that the intent of the computer work stations was for administrative and training work. Mr. Chris Ford replied yes, the computer, workstations would be used for prevention, testing, correction notices, etc. Chair Barry opened the Public Heating No. 1 at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Phil Boyce, 21000 Boyce Lane, Saratoga: · Said that he was a long-time resident. · Reminded that the original fire station building was cut off previously when the roadway was expanded. · Said that this is a nice plan and urged support. Mr. Ed Fan'ell, 20877 Kittridge Road, Saratoga: · Emphasized the need for safety. · Said that he is a member of a Firefighters & Citizens' Task Force. · Wanted to clear up what he felt were misconceptions. · Stated that a Core Station is a,Headquarters. This station does not need to be a Headquarters. · Cautioned that the 21 parking spaces will be exhausted l~retty regularly. Saratoga Planning Commissi,.... Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page · Stated that his presentation would cover four areas: A comparison be~,een a Satellite and Core Fire Station; added service and facility, design; photos of the story, poles; and responding to any questions of the Commission. · Clarified the differences between Satellite and Core Fire Stations. including Lvpes of responses both make, staffing and the facilities required for each type. · Said that a Satellite Fire Station typically includes one engine with three firefighters on duty. The Satellite Fire Station usually ranges from 5,000 to 7,000 square feet.' · Saratoga's Fire Station is a Core Fire Station, which includes firefighters, medical' response with walk in medical aid, public information, training, the Fire Marshall and Emergency Operations Center. There are two engines with eight firefighters on duty. There is an ambulance company with two paramedics. There are also two officers, three administrative staff, all to be located within their proposed 12,681 square feet. -* Discussed service and facilities improvements. These include separate restroom facilities for female firefighters; going from a shared bunkroom to individual bedrooms; double deep apparatus bays; a turnout storage room (where coats, boots and such are stored); self-contained breathing apparatus refill and repair area; medichl support and walk-in aid; individual firefighter workstations; and overall expansion of firefighters' common living space. · Provided photographs of the story poles and netting. Cautioned that some places are higher than the existing building while others are lower. It is difficult to depict the lowered areas with story poles on the existing building. Chair Barry. extended the apologies 'of the Commission for not meeting the applicants on site. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that some citizens' letters suggest wood siding over stucco. Asked why stucco is proposed. Mr. Chris Ford replied that the architectural style is Mission Revival. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Ford if the proposed use of a stucco building was evident in the · drawings displayed prior to the bond issue vote. Mr. Chris Ford replied that the original sketch did depict the same Mission Revival architectural style. Commissioner Garakani asked for specifics about the height of the main tower. Mr. Chris Ford replied that the main tower is 28 feet above the sidewalk and 32 feet above Plaza level. · The width is 18 to 20 feet. · The tower is square. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the height differences between the tower and the deck. Mr. Chris Ford replied that the difference is about 10 feet. · Commissioner Zutshi asked for the length of the deck. Mr. Chris Ford replied that it is 14 by 14 feet. Commissioner Zutshi asked whether the tower would stand out. Saratoga Planning Commissi~.. Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page - Mr. Aaron Katz said that the property design is like the Argonaut Shopping Center. which is not compatible with the Heritage Lane. Said that the applicants can do a much better job. Added that not much effort seems to have been placed into this design and that something nicer looking could be designed. Mr. David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, Saratoga: · Disa~eed with Director-Sullivan regarding the purview of the Commission. saying that the- Contempo building needs to be taken into consideration as part of this application. · Said that there is a need to look further down the road and that there is a need to be cross-correlated at this time in design and function. Said that consideration between three bays and four is an important one as is the consideration of where the administration would be located. Mentioned that he visited the Fire Station yesterday and could not park either at the Contempo building or near the Fire Station. Said that the story poles were installed at the very last minute and that this hearing should be postponed until the citizens have an opporturiity to see these story poles. Mr. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: · Said that a Core Station is a Headquarters. · Pointed out that Central Fire has a separate administration and training center so it is not precedent to separate the functions. Chair Ba~ asked how many stations Central Fire operates. Mr. John Keenan: · Replied that Central Fire has 16 stations. · Added that Central does not have administration and training within its Core Stations. These functions are not necessarily part and parcel of the building. Rather these functions take up space that is comprOmising the design of the new building. · Pointed out that the parking.requirements clearly state that parking is based upon the number of employees. This Fire Station has 24 professional firefighters, four ambulance crewmembers, five administrative staff, three Fire Commissioners and approximately 25 volunteers. That represents more employees than the 22 available spaces can accommodate. · Cautioned that the provision of adequate parking cannot be neglected. Mr. David Moyles, P.O. Box 3525, Saratoga (lives on Hill Avenue): · Said that he can see the Fire Station from his home and seeing it change is good. · Said that the proposed design is compatible and that a design to please everyone will never be found. · Stated that he voted in support of the bond issue to fund this new station and that he feels a sense of urgency to get the new station built. · Declared that Fire has "delivered the goods" and urged that this project be moved forward. Mr. Arvin Engelson, 20381 Sea Gull Way, Saratoga: · Identified himself as Pastor of the Federated Church. · Said that the Church has had a, favorable relationship with the Fire Station and its staff. · Added that they welcome the proposed improvements. Saratoga Planning Commissi~.. Minutes of June 27, 2001 Pa~e o Described the number of vehicles, stating that one of the three existing engines is 25 years old and will need to be retired soon, leaving two front line fire engines. In approximately one year. a truck will be added. This station will then ha:ye two engines and one truck. Said that the two ambulances would fill one bay. The truck would fill the second bay. The m'o engines will fill the third bay. Additionally, there is a brush patrol vehicle. Said that this new station should have four bavs and remove the administration and communication functions fi'om the building. Mr. David Ritter, 15600 Belnap Way, Saratoga: · ExPressed support for the new fire station as shown. · Reminded that the voters supported a new fire station by 89 percent. · Said that this is a great time to start construction and that he would like to see this project move on immediately. · Stated that the purchase of the Contempo building was good planning on the part of the Fire Department. Mr. Aaron Katz,' P.O. Box 116, Saratoga (lives on Mellman Road): · Explained his highlighted floor plan with areas he feels are not necessa~, in this fire station building. · Suggested a single-story fire station be constructed. · Said that he is in favor of a seismically safe fire station. · Pointed out that typically when a non-conforming lot is rebuilt, that lot is supposed to be built in conformance with curre_nt standards. ~ · Suggested that the reduction in standards should not be approved. · Said that some of the administrative uses should be diverted to the Contempo building. · Clarified that the Oversight Bond Committee does not really "sit on the pursestrings." · Warned that over two million dollars of the bond money has been spent already. · Asked the Commission to deny this application and have the applicants redesign it in a way that conforms to the neighborhood of one-story buildings. commissioner Hunter advised that she was formerly on the Heritage Preservation Commission. The Fire Station project came before the HPC twice. While their, site is not a part of the Heritage' Lane, the Fire Department felt emotionally a part of it and sought out HPC input. Mr. Aaron Katz stated that this design is not compatible with the Heritage Lane. Added that he owns property on the Heritage Lane. Said that he is just asking that this.project be done right. Chair Barry sought clarification from staff regarding whether a legal non-conforming structure has to become conforming in this case. Director Sullivan advised that when a total tear down occurs, that is usually the opportune time to consider adherence to current requirements. However, Fire needs relaxed standards to get the building they need on this site. Commissioner Kurasch told Mr. Katz that the Contempo building is not part of the design being. considered this evening. Asked him what he feels is not compatible. Saratoga Planning Commissic.. Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Beau Rahn said that the functions could be separated. It would not be difficult to go from one building to the other for things such as training. Commissioner Zutshi questioned whether there was a potential for problems responding to calls for service should firefighters be in training in the Contempo building. Mr. Beau Rahn replied no. Said that when they go anywhere away fi-om the Fire Station, thev are ready to respond to calls. This would be no different. Commissioner Zutshi once again asked if Mr. Rahn believes that administration and the firefighters need to be located within the same building. Mr. Beau Rahn replied no. Commissioner Hunter pointed out to Mr. Rahn that no station, on the list provided to the Commission, had four bays. Asked where the fourth bay should be located. Mr. Beau Rahn said that he could not design the building but suggested the reduction in the administrative space in order to increase the bays to four. Commissioner Jackman pointed out that there is just one Fire Station in Saratoga Fire District. This makes it unique to other local cities. Mr. Beau Rahn said that this is an opportunity to consider that fact. Chair Barry thanked Mr. Rahn, saying that the Commission comments. appreciates having a firefighter's Commissioner Kurasch read a letter .from Muriel Man' in which she recommends that it is appropriate to replace and update the Fire Station but not to make it' into a huge complex. Mr. Chris Ford, C3 Design Group, Applicant's Representative: · Said that he does not have any specific additions to the comments made this evening. · Reiterated that there is just one station within the Saratoga Fire Protection and this new Fire Station must serve all the uses. Chair Barry said that it appears there will be a juggling act with all the proposed equipment. Asked where everything will fit. ~ Mr. Chris Ford clarified that this is a two-engine company with some additional reserve equipment. If a truck company joins, the truck moves to the fi'ont and the engine moves to the back. A two-engine company has eight firefighters. A one-engine/one truck company has eight fire fighters. Mr. Harold Toppel, Attorney for the Saratoga Fire District: · Stated that the applicant for this new Fire Station is the Saratoga Fire District and not Central Fire District. · Added that there is an existing building and no change in use is proposed for the new building. · Said that an environmental studyhas identified no traffic impacts and no change in intensity. Saratoga Planning Commissk,.. Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page $ · Said that they often share their parking with other nearby uses but must be protective of their parking to keep their vehicles off the street in order to minimize the impact of their Church on the surrounding properties. This new Fire Station plan is a positive one that will help free up some of the overflow parking onto their lot. · Expressed support for this project. Mr. Charles Hackett, 15400 Suview Drive, Saratoga: · Said that he visited the Fire Station to look at the story poles and found them to be incomplete. · Added that one cannot assess what will be built. · Said that the new Fire Station must be tied into the Contempo building. · Declared that the Fire Department has not acted in good faith. · Suggested that the mass and scale of the proposed new Fire Station could be scaled down. · Said that shrinking the building down would make it nicer. Mr. Beau Rahn, 2716 Con'alas, San Jose: · Identified himself as a Saratoga Firefighter and a representative of the Local 3875. · Provided a letter from the Local 3875. Chair Barry asked Mr. Rahn to present the main points of this letter so that those in the audience could benefit from the information. Mr. Beau Rahn said that,the letter outlines the concerns of the firefighters over the proposed design and the inclusion of the administrative functions within the new Fire Station. The members feel that the administrative functions should be housed in the Contempo building so that a smaller station can be built that includes design features that the members feel are important. Commissioner Garakani opined that it appears there is an issue against administration. Mr.'Beau Rahn said reiterated the belief that the size of the new building could be reduced while the foUrth bay door is still added. The administrative functions could be adequately handled in the Contempo building. Commissioner Kurasch asked what safety issues the Local 3875 members h~ve.' Mr.- Beau Rahn replied that the stacking of fire engines might require that vehicles parked in front might need to be moved in order to access the required vehicles behind them. Commissioner Kurasch asked if such stacking occurs in other stations. Mr. Beau Rahn said that he has not worked in other stations. Commissioner Jackman asked how many of the Saratoga Station firefighters belong to Local 3875. Mr. Beau Ralm replied that 21 of the 24 eligible firefighters belong to Local 3875. Chair Barry questioned whether the firefighter versus administrative functions can be accomplished in separate buildings. Saratoga Planning Commissk,_ Minutes of June 27, 2001 . Page 11 Commissioner Zutshi: · Said that she understands the need for private space for the firefighters. · Added that parking is important and is of concern with this project. · Agreed with Commissioner Garakani that the tower should be more visible and prominent. Commissioner Kurasch: · · Advised that the tower feature provides lighting to the lobby. Agreed that parking is a main issue and pointed out that it doesn't appear than handicapped parking has been provided. Pointed out that public safety is an important consideration and that 21 firefighters from this Fire Station do not feel that this is the best design. Chair Barry: · Reminded that the surrounding property owners were re-noticed about this evening's public hearing. Stated that the design is compatible with the Village and surrounding area and that she prefers it to a more modem design. Added that she prefers an authentic rather than eclectic stvle. Agreed that she too would like to see the appropriate setbacks but there not enough room with this site. Said that parking is'a real issue and suggested additional parking be added as a Condition Approval. Said that she would be willing to consider a redesign of the tower. Pointed out that the footprint of this new building is only 810 square feet greater than the existing building. However, the new second story adds to the bulk. This second story is necessary. Said that the Fire District is all in one here and that' it doesn't make sense to separate out administration. Commissioner Kurasch: · Said that there may be other options such as increasing the front setback particularly if the two rooms at the back of the building are moved or scaled back. · Reiterated that she feels strongly that the greater front setbacks are important for safety reasons. · Said that she would be in favor of eliminating the front tower altogether. Commissioner Jackman: · Disagreed and stated that they are not here to design the function of the building. · Said that the setbacks cannot be provided and still have the building meet the Fire Department's needs. · Said that the building could become unbalanced if redesigned by Committee. · Suggested leaving the building design as it is. Commissioner Kurasch replied that she is not suggesting redesigning but rather asking the applicants to redesign based on a need for larger setbacks. Commissioner Hunter reminded the Commission of two pOints. One is that the Fire Department does not actually have to come to the Planning Commission for approval. The second is that the residents have begun to pay taxes on the bond issue for a new Fire Station. Saratoga planning Commissk,.. ,vlinutes of June 27, 2001 Page 10 · Reminded that the Contempo building provides parking and they are willing to process an agreement/covenant to ensure the future availability, of parking at the Contempo site for the Fire Station's needs. · Said that this is long-standing existing use. · Askedthe Commission to make its decision tonight to,approve. Chair Ban'5." asked Mr. Toppel if his clients are satisfied with the mitigation measures regarding the intersection. Mr. Toppel replied that they are happy with the agreement, finding it fair. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Jackman: · Said that parking is her biggest concern. · Reminded that the building design is the issue for the Commission and not its uses. · Added that the design is appropriate for the area. · Admitted that she would like to see four bays but does not see how the fourth accommodated. bay can be Commissioner Hunter: · Expressed her agreement_with Mr. Ritter and Mr. Moyles and the 89 percent of the voters who support the new Fire Station. · Said that she could understand the concerns some have expressed. · Disagreed with the comments that this proposed building looks like the Argonaut Shopping Center, saying that if it did, she would not support it. · Added that she will be supporting this proposal. Commissioner Kurasch: · Said that the limited focus of the Commission is the physical design and its impact. · Said that she has spent time trying to understand the evolution of this project, how .uses are reflected with this proposed building and what is necessary. · Stated that there appears to be an absence of a coordinated approach to reaching this design proposal and integration of all uses for the area and that she was disappointed with the process. Said that this could have served as a gateway to the City. , Stated that the simple and key focus is the exceptions to the zoning and requirements, whether the project is compatible with the site and community. Added that she has problems with both. Said that the mass and scale is huge. Added that it appears there are traffic, safety and parking concerns. Commissioner Garakani: · Said that Saratoga needs a modem and beautiful Fire Station. · Added that good planning today prevents problems tomorrow. · Expressed his preference for a building that is setback froTM Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. · Opined that the tower should l~e a more visible element. · Reminded that this building will serve the community for more than 50 years. Saratoga Planning Commissk Minutes of June 27. 2001 Pace 13 Chair Barrv said that the Commission is not asking for a redesign of the building but rather that the tower is made to look more like a tower. Mr. Chris Ford said that they would study the size and proportion of the Church's tower. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter. the Commission approved a Negative Declaration, DR-01-006, UP-01-002. TUP-01-003 and LL-01-003 to allow a new Fire Station to be constructed on propert)' located at 14380 Saratoga Road, with the following requirements: 1. Adopt the revised Condition per the Public Works Department memorandum: 2. Add a Condition of Approval requiring the re-evaluation of the provision of parking when the Temporary Use Permit expires; and 3. Requiring the project architect to consider the tower of the Federated Church to see if a similar design can be incorporated into this new' Fire Station building's front tower. Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi Garakani and Kurasch Roupe None AYES:Barry, NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair Barry. called for a break at 9:30 p.m. Chair Barry reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 DR-00-064 (397-28-002) - SHAHMIRZA, 20431 Walnut Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,660 square foot, two-story residence and demolish the existing 1,372 square foot, single-story residence. The maximum height of the residence will be 23 feet. The site is 7,633 square feet andis located Within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that staff is recommending approval' of this application as it meets all required setbacks, coverage and design guidelines. · Informed that the applicant was cooperative in reaching a Craftsman style architectural design,'that · is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. · Added that a materials board is available for the Commissioners' review.' Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Knapp what the ratio is between one and two-story homes in this area. Ms. Allison Knapp replied that of the 12 homes on this street, nine are single-story homes and two-story homes. Mr. Shahmirza, Applicant, 20431 Walnut Avenue, Saratoga: · Said. that he is the owner. , · Added that the design is beautiful and.compatible with the surrounding area. Saratoga Planning Commissic__ Minutes of June 27. 2001 Page 12 Commissioner Jac 'kman a~eed, saying that she hates to delay the Fire Station. Chair Barry, said that it does not appear that there is a consensus for redesign. Commisgioner Garakani said that this is the time to plan. This project is onlv on paper now. Chair Barry pointed out that per the City's Circulation Plan, Saratoga does not want to make its streets bigger. Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue are the way they are always going to be. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that while the streets may stav the same size, the traffic using those streets will increase. Commission Jackman reminded that the visibility will be increased on Highway' 9 with the moving back of the new building. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jaekman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter. the Commission recommended approval of DR-01-006, UP-01-002, TUP-01-003 and LL-01-003 with the revised Condition per the Public Works Department memorandum and with the requirement to re-evaluate the provision of parking when the Temporar3' Use Permit expires. AYES:Barry, Hunter and Jackman NOES: Garakani, Kurasch and Zutshi ABSENT: Roupe ABSTAIN: None The motion died for lack of a majorit3'. Commissioner Zutshi suggested that the tower and deck should be the same size. Chair Barry advised that it appears that the Commission' would like for the applicant to reduce the dimensions of the tower. Chair Barry reopened Public Heating No. 1 at 9:24 p.m. Chair Barry asked Mr. Chris Ford if the applicants would consider a reduction in the tower if doingso can meet good design sense. Mr. Chris Ford asked if this condition would require a return before the Planning Commission. Chair Barry said that this change could be submitted to the satisfaction of staff. It would be returned to the Commission only if staff feels it is necessary to do so. Mr. Chris Ford replied that they would be willing to consider such a change. Commissioner Garakani suggested that Mr. Ford look at the Federated Church for an idea of what the Commission is looking to see. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Applicauon filed: · Applicauon complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: 3/6/01 5/2/01 5/9/01 5/10/01 5/8/01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an exisnng Fire Station and construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire Station with a Maximum height of 35 feet, at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (The original application and previous notice stated the square footage of the new Fire Station was 12,689 square feet). A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. A Temporary' Use Permit is necessary for the Fire Station to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction.' The site for the proposed fire station is 9,274 square feet, and the site for the temporar3,, building is 7,500 square feet. Both are located within a Professional Admmistranve (P-A) zone district, and are existing non-conforming lots in that 12,000 square feet is the standard for'the P-A Zone Dismct. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Take public tesnmony, and approve with Condinons by adopting DR-01-006, UP-01-002, and LL-01-003 & TUP-01-003 AT1-ACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions 3. Arbonsr Report dated March 15, 2001 4. Minutes from the April 10, 2001 Heritage preservation Commission meeting 5. Iniml Study and Negative Declaration. 6. Plans, Exhibit 'A' : * ~'s 1-8 in previous report 7. Plans for the Temporary Fire Station, Exhibit -Bm 8. Bay door color photo Exhibit 'C" 9. Letters from citizen Aaron Ka~ in opposition of the project dared May 22,June 4, 2001. 10. Traffic Study prepared by Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. dated February 6, 2001 11. A letter from Central Fire in support of the project, Attachment 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: DR-01-006, UP-01-002, LL-01-003 6: TUP-01-003:14380 Saratoga Avenue SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT MarkJ. Cormolly, Assistant Planner June 13, 2001 397-22-019 Department Hea~---~ 14380 Saratoga AVenue File No. DR-01-006, · -01-002, LL-01-003 ~ TU{)-01-003:1-,~80 Saratoga Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION DesJgzl Review The applicant has requested Design Review and Use 'Perrmt approval to demolish an eXastmg Fire Station and construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire Stauon with a Ma_xarnum height of 35 feet, at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (The original application and notice stated the square footage of the new Fire Station was 12,689 square feet). A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. A Temporar3' Use Permit is necessary for the Fire Station to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The site for the proposed fire station is 9,274 square feet, and the site for the temporan7 building is 7,500 square feet. Both are located xvithm a Professional Admimstrative (P-A) zone district, and are existing non-conforming lots in that 12,000 square feet is the standard for the P-A Zone District. Staff feels that the project can be supported. The design of the Fire Stauon is modeled after a Julia Morgan design m an effort to fit m with the neighborb_ood" The adjacent Federated Church located to the rear of the Fire Station is also modeled after a Julia Morgan design. The materials proposed help the project fit in with the character of the neighborhood. The desi=~n has been pulled back from the existing location on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos road to improve sight distance for drivers along that intersection. The report by Fehr & Peers Associates Inc. dated February 6, 2001, includes further recommendauons, and states that the proposed project will improve circulation in the x~icmit3,,. Figure 5 is the recommended improvement alternauve for Saratoga Avenue. The report is attached, and recommendations are contained as mitigation measures in the Initial Study. Staff feels that all the necessary findings can be made to support the project, and the folloxxq_ng have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed Fire Station, xvhen considered ~vith reference to: (i) the nature and locanon of residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots and ~vithin the neighborhood: and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the height will be increased by about four feet, and the footprint of the proposed Fire Station is expanding stighfly, .and is compatible with the structures on adjacent propemes. The existing footprint is approximately 7,696 square feet, and the proposed footprint is 8,506 square feet, which is a net increase · of 810 square feet proposed on site. 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, in that the applicant is proposing improvements to Memorial Plaza, and mitigating impacts to the olive trees by transplanting and replanting equal value trees. These File No. DR-01-006,, o01-002, LL-01-O03 8z TUll-01-003; 1-,~80 Saratoga Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Professional Administrative (P-A) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public faciliues-(P-F) MEAsuRE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 9,274 sq. fr, AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2.8% GRADING REQUIRED: 221 cubic yards of cut to a depth 2.16 to 5.75 feet and 10 cubic yards of fill to a depth of 5.35 feet. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Ex'tenor finish will be off wbate stucco xvith wood tile in an attempt to match the adjacent .Federated Church, which is a Julia Morgan design. Roofing material ,a~ill be a Mission rile roof. Color and material samples xx-ill bc available at the public hearing. Proposal Code Requirement/ Maximum Allowance Lot Coverage: Floor Area: 100% First Floor 8,506 sq. ft. Second Floor 4,819 sq. ft. TOTAL 13~325 sq. fc 30% Maximum allowed 16,000 sq. ft. ~ Minimum allowed Setbacks: Front 0 ft. 25 ft. Front - 2nd floor 0 ft. 25 ft. Rear 0 ft. 25 ft. Rear - 2"d floor 0 ft. 25 ft. Left Side (interior side) 0 ft. 16 ft.: Left - 2"d floor 9 ft. 16 ft.: Right Side(exterior side) 0 ft. 15 ft.3 Right - 2"~ floor 0 ft. 15 ft.3 Maximum allowed Height: Fire Station 35 ft. 30 ft. 1 The P-A Zone distr/ct does not have an allowable floor area standard, only a coverage mammum The allowable floor area is 8,000 X 2 ~ 16,000 sq. ft. Based on the building type, and fire rating, which is doubled because the building is spnnklered. Per section 15-18.080(2), the interior side yard setback may be 16 feet Per section 15-18.080(1), the exterior side yard setback may be 15 feet P' Plannme?.tark',PC StaffReoores~Saratowa Fire Stat/on File No. DR-01-006, · -01-002, LL-01-003 ~ TUP-01-003; 1~ jS0 Saratoga Avenue drivexvay. The applicant is currently xvorkmg with Valley Transportation Authority to obtain the necessary, approvals. There will be two emergency generators. One each for the proposed Fire Star_ion and the Temporary Fire Station. These generators will only operate in the event of an emergency, but will need to be tested penoclically. The application proposes to mitigate for noise impacts over the ambient'standard by !ocanng the generators away from adjacent buildings and enclosing the generators with five (53 foot masonry walls. The application proposes no new on-site parking spaces for employees or visitors. The City of Saratoga parking standard for this zone dismct and use is 1 spacc for each employee. The applicant has purchased the adjacent lot where the Temporary Fire Station will be located and will provide 22 additional spaces, which xx4l total 32 with the 10 existing on site. The Cit3,, Arbonst, Public Works Deparrrnmat, City Traffic Engineer, Heritage Preservation Commission, Pacific Gas 6z Hectric, and Parks and Trails Committee, and the Saratoga Fire District have revie~ved the application. Their recommendations are included in the proposal or as condiUons of approval. Use Permit The applicant is requesting Use Permit approval to allow the height of the proposal to be 35 feet where 30 feet is permitted, allow development on a lot that is less than 12,000 square feet, to alloxv the structure to be within the required setbacks of the zone district, and allow 100% lot coverage where 30% is allowed in the zone district. Per section 15-55-.030 the Planning Commission may grant a Use Permit to have different site area, coverage, structure height and yard minimums than standard for the Zone District. Staff feels that the necessary findings can be made to support r.he Use permit in that the proposal is basically to replace the existing building, with exception to about 4 feet of height and mmirnal footprint expansion. Also, the following findings have been proposed: That the proposed Fire Station is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in xvKich it is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that xvill not increase existing traffic flow. That the proposed Fire Station and the conditions under which it xvould be operated will not be demmental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposal is a continuation of the existS_ng use. Also, the Fire Station will not generate any objectionable noise, odors, and air pollutants or solid or liquid waste which xvould endanger human health or cause damage to ammals, vegetation or property. File No. DR~01~006, · -01-002, LL-01-003 ~r TU1°-01-003; 1-, ~80 Saratoga Avenue improvements include the apphcant providing a new dnnkmg fountain and refurbisking the existing park benches. The proposed Fire Station m relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will mmmuze the percepuon of excessive bulk and x~511 be integrated into the natural emmronment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials wkich minimize the perception oi bulk and m~e~ate the Fire Station into the surrounding environment in that the rooftrees are wel] articulated and uses materials and colors to rmmmize excessive bulk and mass. Also, the design is modeled after the adjacent Federated Church to the rear to increase compatibility with the neighborhood, and is basically replacing what is existing. The Fire Stauon will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) emstmg residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots, in that the design is modeled after the Federated Church on the adjacent lot to promote a similar desi~ to the immediate neighborhood; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properUes; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent propemes to utilize solar energy. The proposed site. development or grading plan incorporates current grading, topography and erosion control standards used by the City, such as mimmizmg the amount of cut and fill. The proposal.includes 221 Cubic yards of fill and 10 cubic vards of fill. )klso, the plan incorporates proper drainage measures to retain as much storm water n site as possible. The Fire Station is located at the gateway to Saratoga's kistonc downtown. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the design on April 10, 2001 (Minutes attached). The Commission reviewed the project and the preliminary color board, and the design of the proposed bay doors, and approved the item on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Grens - abstained), with the condition that .the Commission review the final color and materials board. An Initial Study xvas prepared in wkich a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued m the Notice of Determination. The impacts and their mitigation measures are as follows: Due to the encroachment onto Memorial Plaza, the apphcant shall maintain the existing pathway, and refurbish the existing park benches and provide a new drinking fountain. There are two bus stops affected by the implementation of the design and use. One is near the entrance to the temporary Fire Station on Saratoga-Los Gatos road, ~vhich is proposed to be moved North toward Saratoga Avenue. The other is near the alley that will be used for egress on Saratoga Avenue for the Temporary Fire Station. The proposal is to move the bus stop eastward away from the existing File No. DR-01-006, · -01-002, LL-01-003 & TUll-01-003; 1-,~d0 Saratoga Avenue ParMng The Municipal Code requires the fire stauon to have one space for each employee for a total of 14 spaces. The fire stauon will have 10 parking spaces on site, and ~x4_[l sausfv an addiuonal 22 spaces located off site. Therefore providing a total of 32 spaces, wkich is in excess of what is required by code. Given that part of the parking .requirement is provided off site, a covenant that goes xvith the land should be made to ensure the Fire Stauon alxvays meet it's parking requirements, and still allow flexibiliu, for the Temporau' Fire Stauon location to meet it's parking requirements. Grading 221 cubic yards of cut to a depth 2.16 to 5.75 feet, and 10 cubic yards of ifil to a depth of 5.35 feet. Trees The City Arbonst report dated March 15, 2001 (attached) contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. There are eight (8) trees on the propert3,' potentially at risk of damage by construction, which are all ohve trees, only two of which are ordinance protected The apphcant proposes to transplant the species that are able to be transplanted, and replant native specimens to replace the value of any trees lost. The report contains recommendations for the restoration and protection of the health of all trees on site. Al1 of tlqe Arbonst's recommendations have been made conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. Correspondence There have been t~vo letters received to date in opposition of the proposal from a concerned cit~en .Aaron Katz, and one letter supporting the project from Santa Clara Count3,, Fire . Disrnct Chief Douglas Sporleder. Conclusion The proposed Fire Station, and Temporary Fire Station does not interfere with views or pm.acy, 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 saUsfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage through the Conditional Use Permit process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Take public testimony and approve with Conditions by adopting DR-01-006, UP-01-002, and LL-01-003 az TUP-01-003. File No. DR-01-006,. -01-002, LL-01-003 & TU~-01-003; 1-,_,80 Saratoga Avenue That the proposed Fire Stanon complies with each of the applicable pronsions of the Zoning Ordinance m that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted m this zoning dismct per section 15-18.030. and the proposed height is only slightly increasing what exists. Lot Line Adjustment The footprint of the existing Fire Station is outside of the southerly property line. There is an area that the fire district has suggested be dedicating back to the city. The Saratoga Fire Dismct owns the land that the current fire station exists on, and the City of Saratoga owns the propertT that the existing Fire Station encroaches on to. The' proposal further encroaches over this property line. The City and Fire Dismct will resolve the issue of how this encroachment will be handled at a later date. The amount of site area that is proposed to be dedicated to the city is 513 sq. ft., and the amount of site area to be transferred to the fire dismct from the city will be 529 sq. fr. Tkis adjustment is ultimately up to the Cin' Council. Per the Open Space Etement m the Cities General Plan, the encroachment is · consistent with the General Plan in that, improvements will be made to the Plaza m that, the applicant is proposing ro locate a new drinking fountain, and refurbish the park benches in exchange for the 529 sq. ft. encroachment onto the Plaza. Temporary Use Permit Pursuant to City Code Section 15-60.010, Planning Commission approval of a Temporary Use Permit is required for the Temporary Fire Station. Section 15-60.030 of the City Code states that the Planning Commission ~rnay grant a temporar5, use permit upon finding that the temporary, use is compatible xvith the purposes and objecrives of the Zoning Ordinance, and in doing so may impose such reasonable conditions as circumstances require, including but not lirmted to: lirmtauons on the length of nme, the &ys of the week and the hours of the day during which the activity may be conducted. Staff feels that the proposed Temporary Fire Station is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal' promotes and protects the public health, safety,-peace, comfort convenience, prosperity and general welfare because it will: 1) facilitate the conrmuaUon of fire sera'ices during the renovation and expansion of the emstmg fire station: 2) provide adequate temporary off-street parking and loading facfliues; and '3) mimm~-"e traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities. The Saratoga Fire Dismct o,~ms the property that the temporary use will be located on. The emstmg building is about 20 feet tall and the exterior of the building will remain unchanged, with the exception of one entrance door. The building has emstmg power sewer and water service. Saratoga Planning Commissic._ MinUtes of June 27, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Beau Rahn said that the functions could be separated. It would not be difficult to gO from one building to the other for things 'such as training. Commissioner Zutshi questioned whether there was a potential for problems responding to calls for service should firefighters be in training in the Comempo building. Mr. Beau Rahn replied no. Said that when they go anywhere away from the Fire Station. they are · ready to respond to calls. This would be no different. Commissioner Zutshi once again asked if Mr. Rahn believes that administration and the firefighters need to be located within the same building. Mr. Beau Rahn replied no. Commissioner Hunter pointed out to Mr. Rahn that no station, on the list provided to the Commission, had four bays. Asked where the fourth bay should be located. Mr. Beau Rahn said that he could not design the building but suggested the reduction in the administrative space in order to increase the bays to four. Commissioner Jackman pointed out that there is just one Fire Station in Saratoga Fire District. This makes it unique to other local cities. Mr. Beau Rahn said that this is an oppommity to consider that fact. Chair Barry thanked Mr. Rahn, saying that the Commission appreciates having a firefighter's comments. Commissioner Kurasch read a letter from-Muriel Marr in' which she recommends that it is appropriate to replace and update the Fire Station bUt not to make it into a huge complex. Mr. Chris Ford, C3 Design Group, Applicant's Representative: · Said that he does not have any specific additions to the comments made this evening. · Reiterated that there is just one station within the Saratoga Fire Protection and this new Fire Station must serve all the uses. Chair Barry said that it appears there will be a juggling act with all the proposed equipment. Asked where everything will fit. Mr. Chris Ford clarified that this is a two-engine company with some additional reserve equipment. If a truck company joins, the truck moves to the front and the engine moves to the back. A two-engine company has eight firefighters. A one-engine/one truck company has eight fire fighters. Mr. Harold Toppel, Attorney for the Saratoga Fire District: · Stated that the applicant for this new Fire Station is the Saratoga Fire District and not Central Fire District. · Added that there is an existing building and no change in use is proposed for the new building. · Said that an environmental studyhas identified no traffic impacts and no change in intensity. Saratoga Planning Commissk,.. Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 8 · Said that they often share their l~;:."king with other nearby uses but must be protective of their parking to keep their vehicles off the street in order to minimize the impact of their Church on the surrounding properties. This new Fire Station pian is a positive one that will help free up some of the overflow parking onto their lot. · Expressed support for this project. Mr. Charles Hackett, 15400 Suview Drive, Saratoga: · Said that he visited the Fire'Station to look at the story poles and found them to be incomplete. · Added that one cannot assess what will be built. · Said that the new Fire Station must be tied into the Contempo building. · Declared that the Fire Department has not acted in good faith. · Suggested that the mass and scale of the proposed new Fire Station could be scaled down. · Said that shrinking the building down would make it nicer. Mr. Beau Rahn, 2716 Con'alas, San Jose: · Identified himself as a Saratoga Firefighter and a representative of the Local 3875. · Provided a letter from the Local 3875. Chair Barry asked Mr. Rahn to present the main points of this letter so that those in the audience could benefit from the informatiOn. Mr. Beau Rahn said that the._l_etter outlines the concerns of the firefighters over the proposed design and the inclusion of the administrative functions within the new Fire Station. The members feel that the administrative functions should be housed in the Contempo building so that a smaller station can be built that includes design features that the members feel are important. Commissioner Garakani opined that it appears there is an issue against administration. Mr.' BeaU Rahn said reiterated the belief that the size of the new building could be reduced while the fourth bay door is still added. The administrative functions could be adequately handled in the Contempo building. Commissioner Kurasch asked what safety issues the Local 3875 members have. Mr. Beau Rahn replied that the stacking of fire engines might require that vehicles parked in front might need to be moved in order to access the required vehicles behind them. Commissioner Kurasch asked if such stacking occurs in other stations. Mr. Beau Rahn said that he has not worked in other stations. Commissioner Jackman asked how many of the Saratoga Station firefighters belong to Local 3875. Mr. Beau Rahn replied that 21 of the 24 eligible firefighters belong to Local 3875. Chair Barry questioned whether the firefighter versus administrative functions can be accomplished in separate buildings. · Saratoga Planning Commissi~,.. Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page .Commissioner Zutshi: · Said that she understands the need for private space for the firefighters. · Added that parking is important and is of concern with this project. · Agreed with Commissioner Garakani that the tower should be more visible and prominent. Commissioner Kurasch: · Advised that the tower featUre provides lighting to the lobby. · Agreed that parking is a main issue and pointed out that it doesn't appear than handicapped parking has been provided. · Pointed out that public safety is an important consideration and that 21 firefighters from this Fire Station do not feel that this is the best design. Chair Barry: · Reminded that the surrounding property 'owners were re-noticed about this evening's public hearing. · Stated that the design is compatible with the Village and surrounding area and that she prefers it to a more modem design. Added that she prefers an authentic rather than eclectic style. · Agreed that she too would like to see the appropriate setbacks but there not enough room with this site. · Said that parking is a real issue and suggested additional parking be added as a Condition Approval. · Said that she would be willing to consider a redesign of the tower. · Pointed out that the footprint of this new building is only 810 square feet ~m'eater than the existing building. However, the new second story adds to the bulk. This second story is necessary. · Said that the Fire District is all in one here and that it doesn't make sense to separate out administration. commissioner Kurasch: · Said that there may be other options such as increasing the front setback panicular!y if the two rooms at the back of the building are moved or scaled back. · Reiterated that she feels strongly that the greater front setbacks are important for safety reasons. · Said that she would be in favor of eliminating the front tower altogether. Commissioner Jackman: · · Disagreed and stated that they are not here to design the functiOn of the building. · Said that the setbacks cannot be provided and still have the building meet the Fire Department's needs. · Said that the building could become unbalanced if redesigned by Committee. · Suggested leaving the building design as it is. Commissioner Kurasch replied that she is not suggesting redesigning but rather asking the appl to redesign based on a need for larger setbacks. Commissioner Hunter reminded the Commission of two points. One is that the Fire Department does not actually have to come to the Planning Commission for approval. The second is that the residents have begun to pay taxes on the bond issue for a new Fire Station. Saratoga Planning Commissic.. Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page · Reminded that the Contempo building provides parking and they are willing to process an a~eement/covenant to ensure the future availability of parking at the Contempo site for the Fire Station's needs. · Said that this is long-standing existing use. · Asked the Commission to make its decision tonight to approve. Chair Ban'3.' asked Mr. Toppel if his clients are satisfied with the mitigation measures regarding the intersection. Mr. Toppel replied that they are happy with the agreement, finding it fair. Chair Barry closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Jackman: · Said that parking is her biggest concern. · Reminded that the building design is the issue for the Commission and not its uses. · Added that the design is appropriate for the area. · Admitted that she would like to see four bays but does not see how the fourth accommodated. bay can be Commissioner Hunter: · Expressed her agreement with Mr. Ritter and Mr. Moyles and the 89 percent of the voters who support the new Fire Station. · Said that she could understand the concerns some have expressed. · Disagreed with the comments that this proposed building looks like the Argonaut Shopping Center, saying that if it did, she would not support it. · Added that she will be supporting this proposal. Commissioner Kurasch: · Said that the limited focus of the Commission is the physical design and its impact. · Said that she has spent time trying to understand the evolution of this project, how uses are reflected with this proposed building and what is necessary. · Stated that there appears to be an absence of a coordinated approach to reaching this design proposal and integration of all uses for the area and that she was disappointed with the process. Said that this could have served as a gateway to the City. · Stated that the simple and key focus is the exceptions to the zoning and requirements, whether the project is compatible with the site and community. Added that she has problems with both. Said that the mass and scale is huge. Added that it appears there are traffic, safety and parking concerns. Commissioner Garakani: · Said that Saratoga needs a modem and beautiful Fire Station. · Added that good planning today prevents problems tomorrowJ · Expressed his preference for a building that is setback fi.om Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. · Opined that the tower should i~e a more visible element. · Reminded that this building will serve the community for more than 50 years. Saratoga Planning Commissi,. Minutes of June 27, 2001 Page 13 Chair Barry said that the Commission is not asldng for a redesign of the building but rather that the tower is made to look more like a tower. Mr. Chris Ford said that the3' would study the size and proportion of the Church's tower. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter~ the Commission approved a Negative Declaration, DR-01-006, UP-01-002, TUP-01-003 and LL-01-003 to allow a new Fire Station to be constructed on propert3' located at 14380 Saratoga Road, with the following requirements: 1. Adopt the revised Condition per the Public Works Department memorandum; 2. Add a Condition of Approval requiring the re-evaluation of the provision of parking when the Temporary Use Permit expires; and 3. Requiring the project architect to consider the tower of the Federated Church to see if a similar design can be incorporated into this ne~v Fire Station building's front tower. AYES:Barry, Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi NOES: Garakani and Kurasch ABSENT: Roupe ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry called for a break at 9:30 p.m. Chair Barry. reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 DR-00-064 (397-28-002) - SHAHMIRZA, 20431 Walnut Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,660 square foot, two-story residence and demolish the existing 1,372 square foot, single-story residence. The. maximum height of the residence will be 23 feet. The site is 7,633 square feet and is located-within an R-l-10,000 zoning district. Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that staff is recommending approval of this application as it meets all required setbacks, coverage and design guidelines. · Informed that the applicant was cooperative in reaching a Craftsman style architectural design that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. · Added that a materials board is available for the Commissioners' review. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Knapp what the ratio is between one and two-story homes in this area. Ms. Allison Knapp replied that of the 12 homes on this street, nine are single-story homes and two-story homes. Mr. Shahmirza, Applicant, 20431 Walnut Avenue, Saratoga: · Said that he is the owner. · Added that the design is beautiful and compatible with the surrounding area. Saratoga Planning Commissic__ Minutes of June 27. 2001 Page 12 Commissioner Jackman a~eed, saying that she hates to delay the Fire Station. Chair Barry. said that it does not appear that there is a consensus for redesig'n. Commissioner Garakani said that this is the time to plan. This project is only on paper now. Chair Ban3.; pointed out that per the City's Circulation Plan, Saratoga does not want to make iti sti-eets bigger. Highway 9 and Saratoga Avenue are the way they are always going to be. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that while the streets may stay the same size, the traffic using those streets will increase. Commission Jackman reminded that the visibility will be increased on Highway 9 with the moving back of the new building. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, secb~ited by Commissioner Hunter. the Commission recommended approval of DR-01-006, UP-01-002, TUP-01-003 and LL-01-003 with the revised Condition per the Public Works Department memorandum and with the requirement to re-evaluate the provision of parking when the Temporary. Use Permit expires. AYES:Barry, Hunter and Jackman NOES:' Garakani, Kurasch and Zutshi ABSENT: Roupe ABSTAIN: None The motion died for lack of a majority. CommissiOner Zutshi suggested that the tower and deck should be the same size. Chair Barry advised that it appears that the Commission would like for the applicant to reduce the dimensions of the tower. Chair Barry reopened Public Heating No. 1 at 9:24 p.m. Chair Barry asked Mr. Chris Ford if the applicants would consider: a reduction in the tower if doing so can meet good design sense. Mr. Chris Ford asked if this condition would require a return before the Planning Commission. Chair Barry said that this change could be submitted to the satisfaction of staff. It would be returned to the Commission only if staff feels it is necessary to do so. Mr. Chris Ford replied that they would be willing to consider such a change. Commissioner Garakani suggested that Mr. Ford look at the Federated Church for an idea of what the Commission is looking to see. EXECLrrlVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application fried: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: 3/6/01 5/2/01 5/9/01 5/10/01 5/8/01, PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire Station with a Maximum height of 35 feet, at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (The original application and previous notice stated the square footage of the new Fire Station was 12,689 square feet). A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines.- A Temporary Use Perrmt is necessary for the Fire Station to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road dunng construction. The site for the proposed fire station is 9,274 square feet, and the site for the temporau, building is 7,500 square feet. Both are located witkin a Professional Administrative (P~A) zone district, and are existing non-conforming 10ts in that 12,000 square feet is the standard for the P-A Zone District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Take public testimony, and approve with Conditions by adopting DR-01-006, UP-01-002, and LL-01-003 & TUP-01-003 ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis. 2. Resolutions 3. Arbonst Report dated March 15, 2001 4. Minutes from the April 10, 2001 Heritage preservation Commission meeting 5. Initial Study and Negative Declaration. 6. Plans, F_xtzibit 'A' ~. ~'s 1-8 in previous report 7. Plans for the Temporary Fire Station, Exhibit 8. Bay door color photo Exhibit 9. Letters from citizen Aaron Katz in opposition of the project dated May 22,June 4, 2001. 10. Traffic Study prepared by Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. dated February 6, 2001 11. A letter from Central Fire in support of the project. Attachment 4- REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Apphcation No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: DR-01-006, UP-01-002, LL-01-003 6z TUP-01-003:14380 Saratoga Avenue SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT MarkJ. Cormolly, Assistant Planner June 13, 2001 397-22-019 Department Hea~ 14380 Saratoga Avenue File No. DR-01-006, · -01-002, LL-01-003 ~z TUt~-01-003; 1-,_,80 Saratoga Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant has requested Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 13,325 square foot Fire Station with a N l:Lxmaum height of 35 feet, at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (The original application and notice stated the square footage of the neW Fire Station was 12,689 square'feet). A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. A TemporaD' Use Permit is necessary for the Fire Station to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The site for the proposed fire station is 9,274 square feet, and the site for the temporary building is 7,500 square feet. Both are located xvithm a Professional Admimstrative (P-A) zone dismct, and are existing non-conforming lots in that 12,000 square feet isthe standard for the P-A Zone District. Staff feels that the project can be supported. The design of the Fire Station is modeled after a Julia lVlorgan design in an effort to fit in with the neighborhood. The adjacent Federated Church located to the rear of the Fire Station is also modeled after a Julia Morgan design. The materials proposed help the project fit in with the character of the neighborhood. The design has been pulled back from the existing location on the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Los Gatos road to improve sight distance for drivers along that intersection. The report by Fehr & Peers Associates Inc. dated Februa_r¥ 6, 2001, includes further recommendations, and-states'that the proposed project will improve circulation m the xqcmit-y. Figure 5 is the recommended improvement alternaUve for Saratoga Avcnue. The report is attached, and recommendations are contained as mitigation measures in the Initial Study. scarf feels that all the necessary findings can be made to support the project, and the following have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed Fire Stauon, xvhen considered xXqth reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential 'and commercial structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) communit3, vie;v sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views 'and privacy, in that the height will be increased by about four feet, and the footprint of the proposed Fire Station is expanding slightly, and is compatible with the structures on adjacent propemes. The existing footprint is approximately 7;696 square feet, and the proposed footprint is 8,506 square feet, which is a net increase of 810 square feet proposed on site. The natural landscape ~vill be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and .rmmmizing tree and soft removal: grade changes ~vill be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that the applicant is proposing improvements to Memorial Plaza, and rmtigating impacts to the olive trees by transplanting and replanting equal value trees. These File No. DR-O1-006,, o01-002, LL-01-003 ~ TU~-OI-O03; 1-,~80 Saratoga Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: Professional Admimsrranve (P-A) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public'facilities (P-F) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 9274 sq. fi: AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2.8% GRADING REQUIRED: 221 cubic yards of cut to a depth 2.16 to 5.75 feet and 10 cubic yards of fill to a depth of 5.35 feet. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior fimsh will be off white stucco xxqth wood fie m an attempt to match the adjacent Federated Church, wb_ich is a Julia Morgan design. Roofing material g~i11 be a Mission tile roof. Color and material samples will be available at the pubhc hearing. Proposal Code Requirement/ Maximum Allowance Lot Coverage: 100% Floor Area: Setbacks: First Floor Second Floor TOTAL Front Front ~ 2"a floor Rear. Rear - 2nd floor Lek Side (interior side) Left - 2nd floor Right Side(exterior side) Right - 2nd floor Height: Fire Station 8,506 sq. ft. 4,819 sq. ft. 13,325 sq. fc ~0% Maximum allowed 16,000 sq. ft. 1 Minimum allowed Oft, 25fc Oft. 25ft. Oft. 25ft. Oft. 25ft. Oft. 16 ft.: 9 ft. '16 ft.2 0 ft. 15 ft.3 0 ft. 15 ft.3 Maximum allowed 35 k 30 k I The P-A Zone dismct does not have an allowable floor area standard, only a coverage mammum. The allmvable floor area is 8,000 X 2 - 16,O00 sq. ft. Based on the building type, and fire rating, which is doubled because the building is spnnldered. Per section 15-18.080(2), the interior side yard setback may be 16 feet Per section 15-18.080(1), the exterior side yard setback may be 15 feet File No. DR-01-006, · -01-002, LL-01-003 &r TUP-01-003; 1~ JS0 Saratoga Avenue driveway. The applicant is currently working Authority to obtain the necessary approvals. with Valley Transportation There xvill be two emergency generators. One each for the proposed Fire StaUon and the Temporary Fire Station. These generators will only operate in the event of an emergency, but will need to be tested periodically. The application proposes to mitigate for noise impacts over the ambient standard by locating the generators away fi:om adjacent buildings and enclosing the generators with five (5) foot masora3, wails. The application proposes no new on-site parking spaces for employees or xSsitors. The City of Saratoga parking standard for this zone district and use is 1 space for each employee. The applicant has purchased the adjacent lot where the TemporaD' Fire Station will be located and will provide 22 additional spaces, which xxqll total 32 xx~ith the 10 existing on site. The CiW Arbonst, Public Works Department, City Traffic Engineer, Heritage Preservation Commission, Pacific Gas & Electric, and parks and Trails Comrmttee, and the Saratoga Fire District have reviexved the applicanon. Their recommendations are included in the proposal or as condinons of approval. Use ?error The applicant is requesting Use Permit approval to allow the height of the proposal to be 35 feet where 30 feet is permit-ted, allow development on a lot that is less than 12,000 square feet, to allow the structure to be within the required setbacks of the zone district, and allow 100% lot coverage where 30% is allowed in the zone district. Per section 15-55-.030 the Planning Commission may grant a Use Permit to have different site area, coverage, structure height and yard mums than standard for the Zone Disrticc Staff feels that the necessary findings can be made to support the use perrmt in that the proposal is basically to replace the existing building, with exception to about 4 feet of height and minimal footprint, expansion. Also, the following findings have been proposed: That the proposed Fire Station is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that will not increase existing traffic flow. That the proposed Fire Station and the conditions under which it would be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposal is a continuation of the existing use. Also, the Fire Station will not generate any objectionable noise, odors, and air pollutants or solid or liquid waste which xvould endanger human health or cause damage to animals, vegetation or property. File No. DR-01-006,, -01-002, LL-01-003 & Tt~-01-003; 1-,.,d0 Saratoga Avenue improvements include the apphcant providing a new dnnkmg fountain and refurbishing the existing park benches. The proposed Fire stanon in relauon to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will mintage the percepnon of excessive bulk and xx~ be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and inte~ate the Fire Station into the surrounding emmronment in that the rooftrees are well arUculated and uses materials and colors to minimize excessive bulk and mass.' Also, the design is modeled after the adjacent Federated Church to the rear to increase compatibility with the neighborhood, and is basically replacing what is existing. The Fire Stauon will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i3 existing residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots, in that the design is modeled after the Federated Church on the adjacent lot to promote a similar desi~ to the immediate neighborhood: 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 properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading, topography and erosion control standards used by the CitT, such as mmirmamg the amount of mt and flU. The proposal includes 221 Cubic yards of fill and 10 cubic yards of fill. Also, the plan incorporates proper drainage measures to retain as much storm xvarer n site as possible. The Fire Station is located at the gateway to Saratoga's historic downtown. Thc Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the design on April 10, 2001 (Minutes attached). The Commission reviewed the project and the preliminary color board, and the desi~ of the proposed bay doors, and approved the item on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Grens abstained), with the condition that the Commission review the final color and m'atenals board. An initial Study xvas prepared in which a Mitigated Negam,e Declaration xvas issued in the Notice of Determination. The impacts and their mitigation measures are as follows: Due to the encroachment onto Memorial Plaza, the applicant shall maintain the existing pathway, and refurbish the existing park benches and provide a new dnnkmg fountain. There are two bus stops affected by the implementation of the design and use. One is near the entrance to the temporary Fire Station on Saratoga-Los Gatos road, which is proposed to be moved North toward Saratoga Avenue. The other is near the alley that will be used for egress on Saratoga Avenue for the Temporary Fire Station. The proposal is to move the bus stop eastward away Dom the existing ~ ?lanmne' M ark~PC 5 ta ff R er, orr s ,.qa rat o~a Fire Stanon doc File No. DR~01-006,, -01-002, LL-01-003 & TUll-01*003; 1-,_,80 Saratoga Avenue Pm'king The Municipal Code requires the fire station to have one space for each e:mployee for a total of 14 spaces. The fire station wi1/have 10 parking spaces on site. and xx511 satisfy an additional 22 spaces located off site. Therefore proxqding-a total of 32 spaces, which is in excess of what is required by code. Given that parr of the parking requirement is provided off site. a covenant that goes with the land should be made to ensure the Fire StaUon always meet it's parking requirements, and still allow flexibilitT for the Temporary Fire Station location to meet it's parking requirements. Grading 221 cubic yards of cUt to a depth 2.16 to 5.75 feet, and 10 cubic yards of fff[ to a depth of 5.35 .feet. The Cit3' Arbonst report dated March 15, 2001 (attached) contains recommendations for the protecUon of exisUng trees on the site. There are eight (8) trees on the propertT potentially at risk of damage by construction, which are all olive trees, only two of which are ordinance protected The applicant proposes to transplant the species that are able to be transplanted, and replant native specimens to replace the value of any trees lost. The report contains recommendations for the restoraUon and protect-ion of the health of all trees on site. All of the Arbonst's recommendations have been made condiuons of approval in the attached Resoiution. Correspondence There have been two letters received to date in opposition of the proposal from a concerned citizen Aaron Karo', and one letter Supporting the project from Santa Clara Count3, Fire District Chief Douglas Sporleder. Conclusion The proposed Fire Station, and Temporary Fire Station does not interfere with xqews or pm,acy, 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 imperxqous coverage through the Conditional Use Permit process. STAFF PxECOMMENDATION Take public testimony and approve with Conditions by adopting DR-01-006, UP-01-002, and LL-01-003 & TUP-01-003. File No. DR-01-006,. -01-002, LL-O1-003 & T[~-Ol-O03; 1-,_,80 Saratoga Avenue That the proposed Fire Station complies with each of the applicable prm'isions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district per secUon 15-18.030, and the proposed height is only slightly increasing what exists. Lot Line Adjustment: The footprint of the existing Fire Station is outside of the southerly property line. There is an area that the fire district has suggested be dedicating back to the city. The Saratoga Fire District owns the land that the current fire station exists on, and the City of Saratoga owns the property that the exisUng Fire Station encroaches on to. The proposal further encroaches over this property [me. The City and Fire District will resoh,e the issue of hmv this encroachment will be handled at a later date. The amount of site area that is proposed to be dedicated to the city is 513 sq. ft., and the amount of site area to be transferred to the fire district from the city will be 529 sq. ft. This adjustment is ultimately up to the City Council. Per the Open Space Element m the Cities General Plan, the encroachment is consistent with the General Plan in that, improvements will be made to the Pla=a in that, the applicant is proposing to locate a new drinking fountain, and refurbish the park benches in exchange for the 529 sq. ft. encroachment onto the Plaza. Temporary Use Permit Pursuant to City Code .... Section 15-60.010, Planning Commission approval of a Temporau' Use Permit is required for the Temporary Fire Station. Section 15-60.030 of the Cit-v Code states that the Planning Commission ~rnay grant a temporary use permit upon finding that the temporary use is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and in doing so may impose such reasonable conditions as circumstances require, including but not limited to: limitations on the length of time, the days of the week and the hours of the day during which the activity may be conducted. Staff feels that the proposed Temporary Fire Station is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal promotes and protects the public health, safer3,, peace, comfort convenience, prosperity and general welfare because it will: 1) facilitate the continuation of fire serxqces during the renovation and expansion of the existing fire station; 2) provide adequate temporary off-street parking and loading facilities; and 3) mimmize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities. Ihe Saratoga Fire District owns the property,' that the temporary use will be located on. The existing building is about 20 feet tall and the exterior of the building will remain unchanged, with the exception of one entrance door. The building has existing power sewer and water service. P ~ Plannmc',M ~ rk\PC Sta fi'Re~orts~.qarato~a Firt Stanon. doc File No. DR-01-006, · -01-002, LL-01-003 8z TUP-01-003; 1-,~80 Sa_mtoga Avenue · The Fire Station will be compatible in terms of bulk a~d height with (i) existing residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots, in that the design is modeled after the Federated Church on the adjacent lot to promote a similar design to the immediate neighbothoock and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent propemes: nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properUes to utilize solar energ7. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current ~admg, topography and erosion control standards used by the CitT, such as minimizing the amount of cut and fill. The proposal includes 221 Cubic yards of fill and 10 cubic yards of fill. Also, the plan incorporates proper drainage measures to retain as much storm water n site as possible. Now, THEm!FO~, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural draxvmgs, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of DR-01-006; SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT 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 "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 conscmcuon plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. i. All apphCable recommendations of the City Arbonst shall'be adhered to and included as a separate plan page. ii. 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 LIS of record shall provide a written cem~cation that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." b. Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution and Arborist report as a separate plan page. File No. DRy01-006,. -01~002, LL-01-003 & TU~-01~003; 1,,.,80 Saratoga Avenue APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-O1-006 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT; 14380. Saratoga Avenue WHEP, EAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an applicauon for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 13,325 square foot fire station on a 9,274 square foot parcel; and WH~.AS, the Planning Commission hdd a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full oppommity to be heard and to present evidence: and WHEaEAS, the apphcant has met the burden of proof required to support said apphcation for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: The height, devations and placement on the site of the proposed Fire Station, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residenual and commercial structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) cornmumty view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the. location of the proposed Fire Station is compatible xvith the structures on adjacentproperties. 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 m keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that the applicant is proposing improvements to the impacts on Memorial Plaza, and 'mitigating impacts to .the olive trees by transplanting and replanting equal value trees. These improvements include the applicant providing a new cirmking fountain and refurbishing the existing park benches at Memorial Plaza. The proposed Fire Stauon m relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will mmimme the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural enviroment, m that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the ,,' Fire Station into the surrounding environment m that the rooflines are well aruculated and uses materials and colors to minimize excessive bulk and mass. Also, the design is modeled after the adjacent Federated Church to the rear to increase compatibility with the neighborhood. P ' Planmnt~ M a rk\PC Staff Retaorts~.qarato~a Fire Stataort doc File No. DR-01-006, ~ -01-002, LL-01-003 & TUP-01-003; N ~80 Saratoga Avenue 10. 11. o No excavated soft shall be stored below the canopies of anv trees. h. An International Society of Arbonculture certified Arbonst must do any tree pruning. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall, subm2t to the Cit',', m a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, secunn/in the amount of $4,166 pursuant to the report and recommendation by' the Cit-y AzbonSt to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 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 Arbonst and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arbonst's recommendations. ?my future sale of the Temporary Fire Station site at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, shall have a covenant running with the land stating that the New Fize Station shall retain enough spaces to meet its parking requirement of 1 space for each employee. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 12. 13. 14. 15'. 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 xxqth the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. Early.Warning Alarm System shall have documentation relat-iw.- to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire district for approval. Automatic spnnlders are required for the new 12,00© sq. fc building. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. NFPA 13 is required. PUBLIC WORKS 16. Figure. 5 as contained in the traffic report prepared by Fehr 8z Peers Associates Inc, dated February 6, 2001 shall be completed prior to final inspection. " File No. DR-01-006,. -01-002, LL-01-003 ~r TUP-01-003; ln_,80 Saratoga Avenue i. No Retaining wall shall exceed five feet m height and three feet x~ithin the front yard setback. ii. All applicable recommendations of the CitT Arborisc No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed withOut first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or Wall shall exceed slx feet in height' and' no fence or Wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. 5. No structure shall be permitted m any easement. 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 m the City Arborist's Report dated March 15, 2001 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: The Arborist Report shall be incorporateck 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. Five (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 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. d. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance shoxvmg transplant locations of trees ~1-5. _. No storage of construction materials shall be permitted within the canopies of trees g6-8, and the protective fencing shall be installed per the Arbonst recommendaUons. ,~dl trenching for any utilities shall be located outside the driplmes of all retained trees. If this cannot be achieved a project Arborist shall be retained to determine acceptable locations. P ~Planmn~_Marl~PC Staff Rct~orts~arato~a Fir~ Stanon.doc File No. DR-01-006, · -01-002, LL-01-003 ~r TUlb-01~003; NJS0 Sm:atoga Avenue Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, Counu', City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the reqmrements of Article 15-90 of the. Saratoga CiU, Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifi:een (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the CiD, of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of June 2001 by the following roll call vote: .. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planmng Commission ATI-EST: Secretary, Planning Commission File No. DR~OI-O06, · -01~002, LL~01~003 & TLrP~01~003; 1-,.,80 Saratoga Avenue CITY A'r-rORNEY 17 18 Apphcant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, recurred by the City or hdd to be the hability of Cit'5,' m connecnon with City's defense of its actions in an3, proceeding brought m any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the apphcant~s project. Noncomphance 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, hquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this Cit3' per each day of the violation. P 'P!annmz. Mark'PC.qtaffRe~rts~_qar.atv, val:i~,ran~na~ File No. DR-01-006, · -01-002, LL-01-003 ~z TL~-01-003; 1~,,30 Saratoga Avenue COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as modified and presented at the Planning Commission meeting as Exhibit "A~, incorporated by reference. 2. All conditions of Resolution DR-01-006 shall be adhered to. CITY ATTORNEY Apphcant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or hdd to be the liabihty of City in connection xvith City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's acuon with respect to the apphcant's project. 4 Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this penmt shall consnrute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violanon, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable ro this Cin,- per each day of the notation. File No. DR-01-006,. -01-002, LL~01-003 & Tt~-O1-003; 1-~.,80 Saratoga Avenue APPROVAL OF I~ESOLUTION NO. UP-0'I-002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ST^T~ Or SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT; 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE WI-IEI~F_mS, the City of Saratoga Planning Comrmssion has received an application for Use Permit approval for a New Fire Station, with a height of 35 feet, nearly 100% lot coverage, 0 setbacks, and on a lot less than 12,000 square feet; and WI-IF_RY~S, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at wkich nme all interested parties were given a full opportumty to be heard and to present ex~idence: and WHEtLEAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following f:mdmgs have been determined: That the proposed Fire Station is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district m which it is located in that it is a condiuonally permitted use that will not increase existing traffic flow. That the proposed Fire Station and-the condiuons under which it xvould be operated will not be demmental to the pubhc health, safety, or xvelfare, nor materially injurious to propemes or improvements in the vicinity, in that the hours of operation are similar to other businesses in the area and the business xx,421 not generate any objectionable noise, odors, air pollutants or solid or hquid waste wkich would endanger human health or cause damage to ammals, vegetauon or property. That the Proposed Fire StatiOn comphes with each of the applicable prox~isions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height, size and use proposed' is conditionally permitted in this zoning district. Now, THEREFOI~E, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resoh,e as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: P ' Pla nnln~'.M a rkO.PC .qtaff Ret~rts,Saratova Fin~ ~tatit~n tine THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK File No. DR~01~006, · -01~002, LL~01~003 $z TUP~01-003; 1~ ~80 Saratoga Avenue Section 2. Operation must be commenced within 24' months or approval expire. Section 3. All apphcable requirements of the State, Count3', Citw and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Amcle 15-90 of thc 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 CornnUssion, State of Califorma, this 13th day of June 2001 by the following roll call vote: --NoEs: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission P' Planmn~Mark'xPC Staff Renortskqaratoea Fir~ Stauortdoc File No. DR-OI-O06,, · 01-002, LL-01-003 6z TUP-01~003; 1.,_a0 Sm:atoga Avenue Applicant agrees to hold CiU' harmless fi:om all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the CiU, or held to be the liabili~, of CiD' m cormection with City's defense of its .actions in any proceeding brought in ~ray State or Federal Court, challenging the CiU,'s action with respect to the applicant's project. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall consnrute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to esUrnate damages the CitT could recur due' to the x,iolation, liquidated damages of S250 shall be payable to this CiU' per each- day of the x~iolanon. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, Counu', Ciu' and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of thc Saratoga CiW Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the CitT of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of June 2001 by the follo~mag roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission File No. DR-01-006,, -01-002, LL-01-003 & TUP~01-003; l-.~c~0 Saratoga Avenue APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. T-t3P-01-003 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT; 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE WI-IEREAS, the' City of Saratoga proposes to temporarily relocate the Saratoga F~re Dismct to a site located at 20473 Saratoga-LOs Gatos Road on a parcel less than 12.000 square feet, during the construction and expansion of the existing Fire Stauon at 14380 Saratoga Avenue: and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Pubhc Hearing at which time all interested parries were ~ven a full opportunity to be heard and to present exqdence: and 'vVHEREAS, the apphcant has met the burden of proof required to support said apphcation for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Temporary Use Permit approval, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed Fire Station facility is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Qrdmance; and The proposal promotes and protects the public health, safer3', peace, comfort convenience, prosperity and general welfare because it will: 1) facilitate the continuauon of Fire Protecuon services during the Construcuon and expansion of the existing Fire Station; 2) provide adequate temporary off-street parking and loading faciliues: and 3) minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities. The existing building shall remain unchanged with the exception of the addition of one entry door. The building currently is supplied with City water, seV"er and power sen, ices. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resoh'e as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of the SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT for Temporary Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby ~anted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed temporary Fire Stauon facility shall be located and constructed as shown on the plans, incorporated by reference. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Temporary Use Permit and may, at any rune modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. ? Pla nnm~\larl4'PC Staff Re~orrs'~ar~to~ Fire Stariondoc Staff's Report [at pagt with l0 existing to remain and another 22 proposed totaling 32 spaces..." As has been demonstration. the assertion is wrong! Additional Personnel Taxes an Already Overcrowded Parking/Adverse Traffic Situation: The SFD has announced it intends to add more staffto man [or woman] a communications and training center within the proposed development3. Adding more personnel together with conducting training for off duty personnel [while on duty personnel are on site] IS going to increase the pressures upon on site parking. It is also going to add to the already negative traffic flow to/from the fire station. 3039] asserts the project ~ "... prov~ .... more than adequate parking Staff's Report [at page 000039] asserts "...no new access or trips will be generated by the pro- posed facility." I don't know where Mr. Sullivan has secured this information but clearly, the assertion is wrong! The Future of the Former Contempo Realty Office Building: The SFD has stated it does not know what it will do with Mr. Hackett's former Contempo Realty Office Building once reconstruction of the fire station has been completed. ChiefKraule has quipped4 the SFD may very well sell it; either back to Mr. Hackett or to someone else. When resale takes place, what is going to happen to this building's 22 on site parking spaces? Or stated another way, the new occupants of this building will probably require 22 on site parking spots of their own wkich means there will be none lei~ for SFD personnel/guests to park. As long as it is possible for the former Contempo Realty Office to be sold or let out to third per- sons with their own tenants/occupants/invitees, the reconstructed fire station should incorporate ade- quate on site parking on a ",stan_d alone" basis withoUt utilizing the parking spaces on the former Con- tempo Realty Office. Development standards dictate at least one parking space for each employee. This standard should be enforced. Massiveness: I invite the Commission to visit Argonaut Shopping Center and visualize that the columns between arches are columns between bay doors at the proposed reconstructed fire station. Stand next to these columns [assuming 100% lot coverage/zero set back] and observe how "massive'' is the face of the structure. Now take a look at the highest part of the roof line which is less than 30 feet tall. Pretty massive, wouldn't you agree? Now add 5 additional feet because the SFD has asked for a variance to raise the height of its building. Walk up to the reconstructed Saratoga Elementary School on Oak Street or Redwood Middle School on Fruitvale. Imagine the massiveness of these structures being pushed forward to the street curb [i.e., 100% lot coverage/zero set back]. Now tell the community these massive, two story, stucco structures have mitigated their bulk. Now take a look at the highest part of either roof line which is less than 30 feet high and tell the public an additional 5 feet won't add to the massiveness! The applicant is likely to argue that the highest point of the current fire station is already some 30 feet high so it is asking for but 5 additional feet. Although the tower may be that high, the rest of the 3 Additionally the Saratoga News reports it is the sFD's intention to increase the number of on duty per- s°nnel at all times to a minimum of seven, and an Assistant Chief either has been/shortly will be hired. 4 The SFD Commission has admitted it has no idea what it will do with this structure once reconstruc- tion of the fire station is complete. June 4, 200i City of Saratoga , .. Planning Commission Dr. Cynthia Berry, Chairperson 13 777 Fruit-vale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 (408) 868-1269 Re: June 13, 2001 Saratoga Fire District Request for Design Review and Use Permit - Application Nos. DR-01-006, UP-01-002, LL-01-003 & TUP-01-003 - 14380 Saratoga ' Ave., Saratoga, CA. ["the project"] Dear Dr. Berry and the Honorable City Planning Commission: On May 22, 2001 I directed written objections concerning the project to the Commission. Since that time I have learned additional facts concerning the project which I feel need to be brought to the Commission's attention; hence with the Commission's approval, I submit this supplememal objection to the project. Reduction of Bay Doors: The present fire station exhibits four large bay doors for emergency vehicles to ingress/e~ess the station. The proposed development provides for but three bay doors not- withstanding the fact the Saratoga Fire District ["SFD"] has announced it intends to ad,park additional emergency vehicles, l. fthere are to be more than three emergency vehicles housed in the project, then it means emergency vehicles will need .to park in tandem. Every time the rear tandem parked emergency vehicle needs to exit whil~ the from parked emergency Vehicle is present, both vehicles will have to exit onto Saratoga Ave. which IS going to adversely affect traffic flow at this busy/sensitive intersection. By restoring the missing bay door we can mitigate against additional disruption to Saratoga Ave. The "So Called" 12 On-Site Parking Spots: The SFD claims it already has 12 on-site parking spots which service the existing fire station. I dispute this contention and request the Commission care- fully examine the application to identify where these "so called" parking spots exist. And notwithstand- ing this disputed fact, the SFD proposes eliminating two of these spots. At the rear portion of the current fire station I believe the Commission will discover 6 marked parking spots for use by the SFD. Adjacent to a rear door-which leads into the current- fire station the Commission will discover a "cubby hole" area which really isn't an on site parking spot, hr>weverl the SFD uses for parking. In the very front of the fire station there is an 8ta marked parking spot~. Across the rear alley way and adjacent to the Post Office, the Commission will discover another 5 marked park- ing spots which we all know are Used by patrons of the Post Office2. I don't know which parcel actually owns the latter 5 marked parking spots, however, I am betting it is NOT the SFD's! If that be the case then we're really looking at but 8 SFD parking spots, of which the application before the Commission proposes reducing to fivel! ~ This writer presumes this spot will be eliminated by the proposed application inasmuch as it would appear to be in the public fight-of-way to be deeded to the City. : Take away these five spots and there's essentially no parking available for visitors to the Post Office and Sheriff's Office [the only parking being 4 diagonal spots at the front of the building]. THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK building [i.e., its massiveness] ~- ,, good 8-10 feet shorter. Approving an across the board increase in height to 35 feet for the project would be irresponsible. Pole Netting: Some three weeks prior to this hearing I made ree]uest upon the Planning Depart- ment that the SFD be required to erect pole netting so we citizens can see how higah and massive the project will be. Mark Connolly assured me he would make request upon the SFD, and that these poles would be erected. As of today, they still have not been erected. Until the SFD has erected the requested poles and we citizens have had an opportunity to view how massive the project will be if constructed, · any project approval should be withheld. Conclusion: From a development stand point the project is far, far too massive and would have a very negative impact upon the flow of traffic at this intersection if approved. The reconstructed station should imbue the "charm" of the Village emphasizing "softer" wood elements/earthtone colors'~. It does not. The project as presented should be referred back to the Planning Department for modifications in accordance with the opinions stated in this and my previOus ob ections. P.O. Box 116 Saratoga, CA. 95071-0116 (408) 741-1008 i-~ JUNO ~ 2001 CITY OF SARA'i'IXi,'~ ~.UNITY DEVEI.{ ~,~'~ I -~ Especially given the fact it is located in Saratoga's Historic Heritage Lane. None of the structures in the Heritage Lane exhibit the massive exterior stucco and Spanish roof tile design elements suggested by the project. Thus it will NOT "...be compatible with the external appearance of the existing... [Heritage] lane..." 0i/04/1996 01:51 408-741-8927 SKIING FOR Global Observation: IfI came to the planning Commission seeking approval for a residential development [the project IS located within the City's most core r~siden, tial HERITAGE neieahborhood] which incorporated the aforesaid features, I would be laughed out o£the building. The SFD ~hould receive the same, non-discriminatory treatment! The Structure is Too Massive: Never bet'ore have I heard that a structure's "massiveness" be mitigated by design elements. Ii'this were the case then every residential building apphcation would seek 10,000 or more square feet ofliving space pointing to this project's design elements which "mini- rmze the perception of bulk" as justification. Approval of the current proposal would set a very danger- ous design precedent. When an apphcant seeks to build a "monster'" structure on a small lot which triples exasting square footage, he/she is generally told part of the character of the neighborhood in which the property is located is small structures on small lots. The response should be no different to the proposed develop- ment; especially considering the fact it is pan of Heritage Lane. The Voters DIDN'T Vote for the Fire Chief's Taj Mahal Fire Station: V~rbcn the SFD ~vent tO the voters seeking funding for a new fire station, it was not under the guise of constructing what has been now proposedI. Simply stated the SFD proposed "replac[ing] the unsafe, 70-year-old building with a seismically safe fire station." However, ChiefKraule has used the "tib-0k" of Measure F's passage as an opportunity to construct his Taj Mahal! Replacement of the current 4,250 square foot fire station ' doesn't require ignoring the City's development requirements in the historic Heritage Lane. There is No Need for a Taj Mah~! Fire Station: Measure F represented that, "your firefighters respond to over 1000 calls per year." The Cupertino Monte Vista fire station responds to slightly more calls per year yet is roughly the size of the current fire station [i.e., 30% of the size proposed by the cur- rent application]. Further, SFD Commissioner Cedes has gone on record representing that no more than seven firefighters a required to respond to a fire call. 7 firefighters do not require 13,000 square feet of space. The SFI) wants to change what has been a small, community satellite fire station into a massive central fire communications headquarters "hub.:' It wants to add administrative and communications personnel' together with on site training and a fancy new office for the Chief. Neither the City nor the SFD require such a structure; especially one which fails to conform to the City's development standards. Although "the City of Saratoga.[may] need a safe, modem fire Station [at the current location] no matter who staffs it," it certainly does not require what has been proposed! Instead of attempting to pack new administrative, communications and training facilities into a reconstructed "monster" fire station, there is no reason not to incorporate these functions into the less visible and existing former Contempo Realty office building. This allows the massiveness of the pro- posed development to be pared down as .it should be. There is No Money to Construct a Taj Mahal Fire Station: The SFD has NOT been forthright with the community when it comes to the purposes for Measure F, and the money generated therefrom. The bond measure provided for a gross $5.9 million in funding. Of course there were administrative and legal costs associated with holding the election, issuing the bonds and prosecuting an eminent domain lawsuit against former neighbor Charles Hackett. At best, $5~7 mill/on "net" was left over. i And by the way, I find it interesting the proposed development has INCREASED in square footage by some 636 square feet since first submitted. SKIING FOR SM~-~EN City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 (408) $68-1269 . MAY 2 2 2001 CITY May 22,. 2001 Re: May 23, 2001 Saratoga Fire District Request for Design Review and Use Permit - Application Nos. DR-01-006, UP-01-002, LL-01-003 & TUP-01-003 - 14380 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga, CA.- A~enda Item No. 5 Dear Honorable City Planning Commission: My name is Aaron Katz. I am a resident oft, he Saratoga Fire District ["SI:I)"] and the owner of residential real property located less than a block from the fire station.[i.e., at 14272 Saratoga Ave.]. I oppose the current apphcation for the following reasons: Introduction: Staff concludes, "...the proposal.., satisfies all.., zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage." But the facts evidence the exact contrary.! The application as it presently stands should thus be denied. Facts: The relevant development facts are as follows: 1. The lot size of the proposed development is non-conforming [9,274 square feet versus a mini- mum of 12,000 square feet]; --' 2. The proposed developmem is contingent upon the City of Saratoga transfemng 529 square feet of land to the SFD which ultimately may or may not be approved by the City Council; 3. The proposed development seeks 100% lot coverage [versus the em'rem 30% maximum]; 4-. The ProPosed developmem provides for essentially zero setbacks [versus the current 15 - 25 feet minimum]; 5. The proposed development seeks an height limitation variance of 35 feet [versus the current 30 foot maximum limitation]; 6. The proposed development offers inadequate on-site parking, relying instead on an adjoin- mg parcel's alleged parking capacity [which itself will be overtaxed]; 7. The proposed development seeks to more than triple existing square footage [from the cur- rent 4,250 square feet to a proposed 13,325 square feet] asserting there is no commercial Floor Area Ratio ia place which would otherwise limit square footage; 8. The proposed development seeks to enlarge a current single story structure into a massive two story, structure; and, 9. The proposed development's design is neither compatible with the design nor massiveness of the surrounding neighborhood [which is one of the City's most visible]. 81/84/1996 81:51 488-741-8927 SKIING FOR SM"~TEN ~z ~i Additionally, more training means more non-emergency trips during the day down Saratoga Ave. Being an homeowner less than a block away from the fire station already, creates environmental incon- veniences I object to those inconveniences being increased because the SFD is not satisfied with what should ,be no more than a small, architecturally compatible satellite "community" fire station housed in an historic district. The Proposed Development Seeks to Influence a Political Battle Versus Addressing the Community's Fire Protection Needs - The Commission Should Not Allow Itself to be Used to Add "Fuel to the Fire:" It is no secret there is a political fight going on over the future of the SFD. Simply stated, many in the community feel we would be better served incorporating the SFD and a recon- structed Village fire station into the Santa Clara County Fire District's ["SCCFD"] exisUng infrastruc- ture. But because of the hidden ageadas of the three SED ~Fire Commissioners, logic and the will of the people have been.thrown by the wayside. If the SFD were incorporated into the SCCFD; or, even if the SFD survived, but contracted for fire protection services with the SCCFD:; THERE. WOULD BE NO NEED FOR A 13,$25 SQUARE FOOT VILL-AGE Fna, E STATION. Instead all that would be nec- . essary would be a small, functional, up-to-date, seismically safe satellite "commumty" station [adminis- trative, communications, training and "back up" support would all be provided at differem physical locations]. Such a station would be far more compatible with the City's development standards and would go a long way towards addressing the proposed development's non-conforming [see above-Facts] features. By approving the proposed development the Commission will be giving the SFD the "~een light" to disrupt the status quo while the political process plays itself out [who knows, the City Council may wish to use its "trump card" to DENY the SFD the 529 square feet of City. land deemed necessary for the proposed development unless it agrees to a vastly pared down reconstructed fire station]. Addi- tionally, there is an electiot~ c0~ning up in roughly 5 months for two SFD Commissioners which may very well change the SFD's composition and fire station priorities. Premature approval of an unneces- sm-?. "monster~' fire station may unduly tie new SYD Commissioners' hands. Prejudice to the Applicant: There is little prejudice to the SYD if its present application is denied3. 'Measure F passed in April of 2000. Over a year has gone by since initial application to the Commission. Several additional months of responsible development delay is certainly not unreasonable given the importance and massiveness of the proposed development. Conclusion: Let the political landscape play itself out while requiring further study and redesign [which includes downsizing and design elements which are more compatible with the historic neighbor- hood in which the fire station is venue, d] during the aforesaid 5 month period. The proposed develop- ment is premature; it should not be before the Commission LrNTII, abe SFD has secured the necessary 529 square feet of City owned land included within its application. Therefore I ask that the CommissiOn deny the current application because it fails to satisfy the letter and intent of the City's "...zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, rnaxLrnm height.., impervious coverage," design compatibility, on site parking and adverse traffic impact. Send : There is currently pending at least two formal responses to the SFD's RFP for an outside source like the SCCFD to physically provide fire protection services on the SleD's behaLfi 3 Nor has a real estate development applicant's financial prejudice ever been a basis for granting an ap- plication. Furthermore, under anyone's math $3.5 million in remaining bond funding is insufficient to demolish the current fire station and reconstruct a modern, state-of-the-m; seismically safe, 13,325 square foot substitute. 01~04/1996 Bi:Si 408-741-8927 SKIING FOR S~-~EN ......... PaGE From the $5.7 million,' $2.2 million was paid to Mr. Hackett for the former Contempo Realty office building. That left about $3.5 million of bond funding to demolisla the current fire station and reconsu-uct a new fire station. I have had conversations with SFD Commissioner Egan concerning the costs of constructing a modem fire stauon. He has represented the costs are far higher'than ordinary construction; using HIS figures, in the neighborhood of $500.00/square foot. ~this be the case and the proposed developmem is approve~d, we're looking at a construction funding shortfall of nearly $3.5 million! This then sets the stage for the SFD to return to the voters seeking more funding for a partially reconstmaed fire station. As a property owner who has been assessed for the reconstructed fire station's cost, I feel misled! The Planning Commission nips the foregoing scenerio in the bud by NOT approving a 13,325 square foot reconstruction. At $500.00/square foot the SlED is already 8oing to have difficulty pa~ving for: a) the remodel of the former Contempo Realty office building; plus, b) reconstruction of a 4,250 square foot "seismically safe" fire station. Let's not make the funding problem impossible! The Structure's Design is NOT Compatible With its Neighbors: Lest not the Commission forget the subject site is one of tiao most visible in all of Saratoga as the entrance to the Village. Rather than focusing on the pending Federated Church remodel going on AROUND ~ CORNER [i. e., mostly facing Park Ave.] from the subject development, the Commission should be concentrating else- where when it comes to neighborhood "compatibility." How compatible is the proposed development with the small, fiat roofed, single stor3' post and sheriff's offices next store? What about the Church's administrative offices just to the north of the Sheriff's Office? What about the three office buildings across the street and to the north of Saratoga- Los Gatos Road [i.e., fi-onting Saratoga Ave.]? What about the condominium complex adjacent to these office buildings? What about the design elements of the buildings across Saratoga-Los Gatos Road at the entrance to the Village? Simply stated the answer is little compatibiliw! The proposed development seeks to replace a relatively small, cute; architecturally compatible single story "community" structure with a massive Argonaut Shopping Center type oversized [in relation to lot size], stucco and tile two story wall. We don't want a modem, shopping eenter'"look" and "feel" at the entrance to the Village. The l'roposed Development Will Adversely Affect Traffic: The comer of Saratoga-Los CTatOS Road and Saratoga Ave. is already a traffic mess; especially during rush hour in the morning and late afternoon. Anything which adds to this already bad situation traffic wise becomes unacceptable, and make no mistake the proposed development WILL. The SFD proposes adding personnel to man [or woman] a new communications center. It seeks to increase administrative staff. It has akeady announced it will hire a new Deputy Chie£~ and there will be more square footage to hire more fireiighters. The SFD proposes offering training to offduty person- nel if the proposed development is approved who will be occupying the new fire station at the same time on duty personnel are occupying the building. The net effect of all of the £oregoin~ is increased demands upon an already overtaxed [and barely acceptable] traffic situation. On the other hand if the SFD is sent the message it cannot construct [and thus man] the type of fire protection headquarters/hub it proposes, there will be no room to increase the SFD's infrastructure and by analog3,-, the demands on our city streets [traffic wise] will be no worse than they are today. THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -'81./04/1996 81:51 408-741-8927 SKIING FOR SH'-~EN PAGE thc SlED thc message that the City is looking for a much smaller, single story, NON-Argonaut Shopping Center type "monster" reconstructed Village fire station. Let the SF'i) use the time suggested to explore occupancy of the former Contempo Kealty office building [which is fax tess visible than the fire station t~er se] for its proffered aamini~afive, commuaicaxions: training and hou~l~neecls while the political landscape sorts itself out. . . /\} . - TI. o j ., ' A~ RON L. KATZ ~d ' ' P.O. Box 116 Saratoga, GA. 95071-0116 (408) 498 278 "7~7:. ~-:-:= 3:08;,~,t; :a"= 2 AddiUonml improvements could be made at lkis intersection to further e]~hance capazity and s'afeLy, bu[ aru not r~,quir~d as part of the proposed project. These imprmvcracnts include a separate westbound mght-rllrn lane and modifying the curb at the southeast corner of the mt~rsec£ion to reduce pedestris/l cro~ng distarlces. ?l'he design of the proDoscd projec't accommodates these potential future improvcraents. Study Approach and Methodolog.v Conditions 'the fire station is located on the south side of Saratoga Avenue immediately east of Stiraroga-Los Gatos Road, which is also des.ignated as State Route (SR) 9 and fs maimained by thc California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). North of Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road is known as Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Similarly, Saratoga Av=nuu is designated Big Basin Way west of Saratoga-Los Oato~ Road. Big Basin Way is also dcsig-natcd as SR 9. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. (Although it is generally aligned in a northeast-southwest direction, Saratoga Avenue i~ assumed to extend in an east-west direction for purposes of this analysis.) The existing street layout in the immediate vicinity of thc fire station is shown on Figure 1. Thc westbound approach to this intersection includes a separate lefl-tm~, lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. Thc cast-west approaches-are controlled by separate sismal phases such that all eastbound traffic procc:ds and then stops, followed by traffic on thc westbound approach. Overall, the intersection operates at Level of Service (LOS) D during both thc morning (?2d) and evening (PM) peak hour based on traffic counts presented in thc City of . Saratoga General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highway Elcrncnt. Level of service is a qualitative measure of in~emection operation from LOS A with hale delay (tile best) to LOS F with excessive congestion (the worst). The City typically considers LOS D the minimum acceptable operating level and is now an official policy included m thc recently adopted Circulation and Scenic Highway Elumcm o£the City's Oeneral Plan. Parking for the fire .,rtation is shared with the Post office (located directly east of the station) and with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department Station located behind thc po~t office:' Five angled parking spaces ar~ provided directly in front of the post office and are posted with a 1 5-minute time limit. The westernmost space is designated for disabled persons only· Whcrl vehicles back out of these spaces, they encroach into the eastbound travel lane. Thc only other nearby on-street parking spaces are located on the north side of Saratoga Avenue immediately west and east of the uncon~olled, painted crosswalk shovm on Figure 1. 2 By: F2HR & PEERs; 408 278 171' FEH~ &-- PEEp,5 AS_~),C. ilATE_& iNC. Tran.~pc;na'-.on CunsuhcznLs 95112 49~ 27W-17U0 - Fa:, '+US 278-i71;' To: From: Dnte: Mary McCrrath, R.~M Design Grotto Sohrab Rashi~ February 6, 2001 Subject: Proposed Replacement of Saratoga Fire Station - Traffic Study l:cl'~ & Pears Associates. Inc. completed a traffic study for thc proposed building replacement of the fire. station located at thc southeast comer of the Saratoga Avenue/Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (State Route 9) intersection in th;: City of Saratoga. This m-~mora.ndum presents our key findings and conclusions tbllowed by the study approach and methodology. Key Findings and Conclusions The replacement of the Saratoga Fire Station building al the southeast comer of the Saratoga Avenue/Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (SR 9) intersection is not expected to result in a change in 'thc number of trips generated by the project cite. Thus, no capacity improvement~ to the Lntcrscc6on axe-.Fc, quirccl. T-Iowovcr, fire district personnel will still be required to temporarily control traffic on Saratoga Avenue as emergency vehicles back into the new building bays. The westernmost wall of the nmv building will be ~ulled back from the southeast corner of thc intersection to improve sight distance for drivers on northbotmd S~aratoga-Los Gatos Road. This design faatur~ will allow removal of thc ~xi-tint~ "INTo RiBht Turn on Red" signs for westbom~ct Saratoga Avenue traffic. Thc increased sight distance will also enhance thc visibility o£ pedestrians traveling between the southeast comer of the intersection and the · adjacent raised median island. To maintain adequate sight distance, all objects within thc si_~ht line area must be less than two feet above grade. Overall, the proposed project will improve circulation in the vicinity of the site and no major :~tr,;¢t modifications arc rx;~ommcndcd. A "K~p Cica"' designation should be painted on westbound Saratoga Avcrme immecliat¢ly in front of ~= building bay doors to dclln=~t= un area for vehicles to exit the building during emergency calls. ":.'. By: FEHR & PEERS; 408 278 1717; Fe=.-: 3:09~,,!; =a_...e -'':£-" Vv'hcn cmer~:nu-y vehicles exit th: fir: ~ation, thc adj-~cent %rz.f~5¢ si~al is overridden from within the sta~on. T~s ovc~de ~s the westbo~d signal "~e=n" to el:ar out ~f~c ~ this appro~h ~d to give ~ergcncy vehicles ~e fight-of-way-~ugh the int~scction. Because ~e fire station does not have "~ve though'' ~cess, emergency vehicles must be backed into bays while ~a~c nn ~aratoga Argue is m~ually controlled by fire smUon perso~el. Proposed Project The replacement of the City of Saratoga Fire Station will include up~admg of the building structure, modermzation of the facilities, and consolidation of ~e bays for emergency vehicles. The building re, placement will improve public a~cess to the station amd will comply with design standards set forth' by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed building desigaa mad existing topography w~s 'obtained in digital format from thc Janua2-y 24, 2001 site plan prepared by C3 Design Alliance and RRM Desig'n Cvroup. With thc proposed project, the replacement building will bc built within the property linc and ~il1 b~ pulled ba~k from the southeast corner of rite intersection, which will improve sight distance at this location. The approximate location of the proposed wall with the building replacement is shnwn on Figure 2. and indicates that adequate sight distance ~vould be provided based on a~.lesign speed oi' 45 miles per hour (this assumes an actual travel speed of 40 miles per hour). It should be not~ ttuat all obj,.ets (e.g., walls, ramps. landscaping) within the sight line should be less than two fee~ above grade to ensure that a vehicle at the intersection would be visible by a driver traveling north on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (gR. 9), The proposed improvement would permit removal of the "No Risht Sum on Red" sign~ for westbound Saratoga Avenue traf~c. The increased sight distam:c will 'also improve the visibility of pedestrians between the fire station and the raised median -islmd at the southeast comer o£the intersection. Ln addition, ~e total of hve emergency vehicle bays will be reduced to three, :md the new bays will all be located on the east side of the property (i.e., fa_,'flaest from Saratoga-Lo~ Gatos Road). This site modificaticm will reduce the potential for con21ict~ between northbound right-turning vehicles and emergency vehicles entering ,ar exiting the fire station. Since drive through access is not feasible as pan of mc building r~placement project, /:ire station personnel will have to continue to manually control traffic on Saratoga Avenue while vehicles back into the three remai~i-g bays. Under any scenario, a "Keep Clear" designation should be painted on westbound Saratoga Avenue imm:diat:ly in frnnt c~f the fire station's vehicle bays. Keeping this ~trea clear would help emergency vehicles exit the building in a mo~ timely manner and clearly delineate where westbound vehiules should stop when emergency vehicles arc in Code 3 response with sirens and lights. Ir this designation is not effective in maintaining an appropriate gap iv~ front Of the station, the street can be re-painted and small "chatter bars" 408 278 1717; Access to the fLre statiort's rear lot is provicied by ti 14-foot ,,vide inbound nnl.v drivewa, y bctwcCn the fi.re station and the post office. ¥¢hicles must exit the lot via ;m ou~bouncl only. driveway on Saratoga-Los C.,atos Road (SR 9). Bike lanes are painted on the north side of Saratoga .&venue Oaeva~een the uncnntrolled cru,~walk ~txd thc sio~mlizcd imcr~cction) and on thc south side east of thc uncontrolled' crossxvalk. Both bike lanes ar= six feet wide. Tra. ffic Operations Thc existing station is built at an angle relative to Saratoga Avenue and the western building edge is built immediately behind the sidewalk at the southeastmm comer of the intersection. This configuration limits the sight distance for northbound through vehicles on Saratoga-Los dates Koad as tlaey approach the intersection. Drivers or these vehicles cannot see westbound vehicles turning right from Saratoga Avenue to northbound Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The posted speed limit on northbound Saratoga-Los Gates Road is 35 miles per hour. The design speed o£ a roadway is typically five miles per hour higher than thc posted speed. resulting m an estimated design speed ofzt0 miles per hour. ~,ccorcting to data presented m ti,re C',tltrans I-Iiglaway Design Manual, thc mmimum sto!vpmg sight disLance for a design speed of 40 miles per hour is ·315 feet. The corresponciing sight distances for design speeds of 35 and 45 miles pm' hour are 255 feet and 360 feet, respectively. Al1 three of the, se sight lines arc presented on Figure 2 and show the linc of sight from a nortlabomad driver's view fo the point where an westbound vehicle tinning right would cater th~ traveled way. Thi.$ illtmtration ahow~ that none of Oacsc sight distances are providecl with the current frre station layout. To minimize the potential for vehicle cortflieta, the City has posted "No Right Turn on Red" signs at three locations on the westbound approach of Saratoga Avenue. La n~ally .cases, right-turning vehicles would be precluded from turrting right on red because of the shared lane configuration on this approach (i.e., through vehicles queued in this lane would block vehicles from turning right). The number o£ westbotmd vehicles marrtmtly turning right from Saratoga Avenue is 100 in the AM peak hour an~l 70 in Rte PM pear hour. The existing fire station building layout and street layout also cause two other operational problems. Drivers in northbound vehicles on Saratoga-Los Gates Road turning right to Saratoga Avenue cannot see: 1) pcdestri, ans ,nter the crosswalk between the curb and two raised median islands in thc intersection, and 2) emergency vehicles cxit thc two western bays of the existing fir= station, lm addition, some drivers mm right at a highe~ than reasonable spe~,l to get ahead of eastbound traffic originating from Big Basra Way or turning lee fi'om southbound Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The wide lane immediately in front of the fire statiem is used as an extended mergin~ area by some of these drivers. By: PEERS; 408 278 1717; FeD-£ 3:10,=U· Based on these considerations, a plan was prepm'ed to re-stripe Saratoga Avenue as shown . on Figure 3. This figure shows the new right-tur~ lane plus a two-way center le~ turn lane (TWLTL). Tl~s lane is desig:n~d to ma~ta~, access to the da'iveways on either side of the post of/ice and to help channeliz, e westbound traffic a.~ it approaches the signaliv, ed intersection. Thc TV~'LTL should not be extended east of thc crosswalk east of the post' o£fice so as to allow l'hll a~cess at the easternmost flrivcway shown on Figure 3. With removal of thc sight distance restriction caused by thc existing building and removal o£ the "No Right Turn on Red" sign, the capacity benefit of adding a separate right-turn lane would be realized. As noted previously, a "Kcc-p Clear" designation should he painted on westbound Saratoga Avenue immediately in front of the fire station's vchiclc bays. This will help emergency vehicles exit the building without having to drive around queued vehicles. ~ This proposed re-striping would have to a~:eommodate full-size buses operated by the Valley Trmasportation Authority (V/A). Application of bus ixxmin5 templatcg sba3,a.'s that northbound buses turning right would not be affected. To minimize the potential for souzhbound left-turning buses conflicting with westbound vehicles queued in thc left-turn lane, a painted strip~ should be installed approximately five feet behind thc crosswalk (see Figure 3). Since the turning templates arc considered conservative, this vehicle setback should be adequate. Another potential improvement is to relocate, the exis~ng curb at the southeast comer or thc intersection. This improvement, which is shown on Figure 4, would aecomp]i.~h the following:' · Eliminates the sight distance hazard experienced by pedestrians conflicting with northbound fight-turning vehicles from Saratol~a-Los Oatos Road; · Better channelizcs eastbound traffic by eliminating a large, uncontrolled merging area; · Reduces the t~rossirig distance for pedestrians and their exposure to vehicles; · Eliminates the hazard of having a raised median and fixed object hx the "middle" of thc intcrscction The proposed curb modification would require substantial roadway construction including installation oi'r~cw curb, gutter, mad sidewalk. The modified section on Saratntta Avenue in front of th; new bays would likely have to include rolled curb or no curb to a~cor-,,nodatc inbouna ami outbound emergency vehicle movements. - 6 -: By:--FEHR & PEERS; 408 278 1717; Fel3-¢ 3:09~:.~.!· cax~ be installed tho: would physically restrict this area; however, emergency vehicles could drive through ur over these bars. The propo;ed replacement project is not ex, ca:ted to change the number of vehicle trills generated by the station. Thus, an analysis of intersection operations is not conrider~d · nccc~siary for this stud)'. Overall, thc proposed project is expected to shghtly improve traffic opcraUons on Saratoga Avenue in front of the fire station and at the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road/Saratoga Avenue intersection. Toe improved sight distance and bay closures will help to reduce potential vehicle conflicts with other vehlcles and pedestrians. Aleo, the removal of the "No Right Turn on Red" sign on westbound Saratoga Avenue will reduce dela3/s for sterne vehicles. NotwithStanding the cxpected traffic benefits of the propose~l projeCt, ~e Saratoga Fire Protection District has requested that additional street design modifications be investigated to further improve n--at'ftc operations in the immediate vicimty of the ·project. The development of potential roadway improvement~ is presented in the next section. PoTential Roadway Improvement Alternatives The following roadway improvements were assessed in terms of their pot~-ntial benefits aad im~3acts to cixculation: 1. Thc addition of a separate wcstbotmd right-mm lane from Saxatoga Avenue to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; 2. Re-construction o~' the curb retura at the southeast coroer of the Saratoga-Los Gatos/Saratoga Avenue interact:don to slow northbound right-turning vehicles.. 'These improvement~ axe not requited as part of the proposed project to provide a~equate circulation, hut represent additional enhancements that could be made in thc vicimty of the project site. Both of Re potential improvements is discussed scpaxatcly below axsd a ttaird altenmt~ve combining both maprovem~ts is also presented. Separate Westbound Right-mm Lane A separate westbound right-turn lane on Saratoga Avenue could be added by re-s?riping th~ roadway. There axe several issues to be addressed with this modification: · Provide proper ch~-~,,clization of eastbound · Maintain access tn the driveway between thc ~ station and post office; . Ma.vi,~i~e the eastbotmd lane width near the angled ~arking s~aces next to the post oi~iee; · Maximize tl~ length and maintain the width of tlae existing bike lanes. PEERs; 408 278 1717; Fe2-5-~' 3:'10=~,:; ~;zt · - t4y: FEHR & PEERS; 4.08 278 1717; FeD-5-C' 3:10P,",,I' =a_ce Thc signal pole on the existing median island would have to bc relocated to the sidewalk and could require installation of pole with a mast arm..With this configuration, the crossing distan;'as for the eastern and southern crosswalks at thc intersection would be reduced by approximately 24 feet. Further, the soathcrla crosswalk could be re-aligned =traisht ar_ross Sarato.~a-Los Oatos R.oad (SR 9) and thc =xiaLmg pcdcstrim~ button in thc median could be climinate~l. Similar to the lane re-striping shown in Figure 3, bus taming templates were applied to Figure 4 to ensure that VTA buses could negotiate turns without encroaching imo adjacent or opposing travel la.ocs. Also, a "Keep Clear" designation should be painted on westbound Saratoga Avenue to acco,'~modate emergency veki¢lcs exiting the t:ir~ station. This improvement would increase t.b¢ sight distance tbr northbound traffic turmng right. reduce thc potential for vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, and provide better visibility, m front of the fire station's vehicle bays. Provide Separate Right-turn Lane and Modify ,~djacent Curb This third option shown on Figure 5 is a combination of the improvements illustrated on Fi~mares 3 and 4. The 's~parate right-tm lane would be 'added on thc westbound Saratoga Avcnuc ai~l~roach and the ,fi-ce" northbound right turn movement would be ehmmated by modifying the curb on the southeast corp, m'. The "Keep Clear" designation on westbound Saratoga Avenue would still be requirod, and th/s option ~,ould provide 'all of the benefits of both impmvcm~-nt altcmative~ described above. 7'ra.O~c S.tdy In~lall '/,eel) Cleal' deakjnalbn. LU Baa Vlldlh v~ries ~ Remove al exkstirtJ painl remain as a Bike Lane §, 12 Saratmja A~rme ]iX Scale: 1' --- 4~' -T1 I;I [II Note: Plan is cohceplual o~fly and is nol a design dra~ving. Figure 3 RE-STRIPE SARATOGA AVENUE AND ADD EASTBOUND RIGHT-TURN LANE hit.'. 'T) P~I Office It Fire Station Nole: Plan is conceplual only and is no! a design drawing. Saratoga Avemm Scale: 1" -- 40' Figure 2 SIGHT DISTANCE LINES Fehr & Peers A ss~cittte:, hw. Io pew cu~. Inet~ll 'Keep CleEr' desiena~ion renlak~ as a i~lke Line ~( LJJ Remo~e aJI exiting Paint erd I street a~ &how~ · ~ 12' Inslall new crab. gutter, and sidewalk (rollml c~ as nec~s~ery for a~cess/dralrm~e). ROW pul~:i~eee or excren~) Fire Station . Note: Plan is conceptual only and is not a design drawing. Rgure 5 RE-STRIPE SARATOGA AVENUE, ADD EASTBOUND RIGHT-TURN LANE AND MODIFY CURB 'U Tr g~ti'c .... dy ce~b, gullet. ~ s!~alk ~ ~b a~ n~ce~ea~y ~ Iml~ll"Keep Cleal" dee~natlo,. Post Office FJ-e Station S~'Moga ,~venue C(~e o~ Pv~,,~llllo -ti IiI T Note: Plml is conceptual only and is not a design drawing. Figure 4 MODIFY ADJACENT CURB (NO RE-STRIPING) f~ lr~hr ,4 Peers As.tar/wes, Itu'. '. THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FltxE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd.. Los Gatos. CA 95032-181~ (408) 378-4010 · 1408) 378-9342 (faxt · www.sccfd.org May 10, 2001 Bob Schubert, City planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: New Saratoga Fire District Station Thank you for asking for comments from the Santa Clara County Fire DepaiUnent regarding the new fire station proposed by the Saratoga Fire District, to be located at 14380 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga. My belief is that our input is being requested because of future potential merge activities or contractual arrangement between our two departments. My only comment is that the new fire station is indeed necessary, and would serve the needs of County Fire if we should become the service provider. Douglas G. Sporled~r Fire Chi_~f DGS:jmt c: File 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SFD Fire Station. Comm~n~/jmt/5.10.01 Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP SUBJECT: Saratoga Fize District June 27, 2001 Page2 ¸7. 11. 12. 13. 14. Can some of the Office/Administration actisqties be .placed m the Contempo Building? The utilization of the interior space falls outside of. thc purview qf Dcsi,,m~ Review. Section 15-46.040(copy attached) provides a listing of a -f what Design Criteria thc Commission should consider. Staff does understand thc concern or opinion that if thc Administrative activities were moved to the Contempo Building that' the proposed station could bc made smaller, th~s requiring less infringement into the setback areas. 'The issue of Heritage Lane Arckitecrural Design Standards was raised. Staff has attached a copy of an Ordinance adopted by the City Council that sets thc boundaries Of Flcritagc Lane. Those boundaries are from Fruirvale Avenue to 14301 Saratoga Avenue. The question of total cost was raised. This clearly is not a Land List issue. It was suggested to see if the BoUndary Drop issue is resolved and if so to reduce to one Engine ComPany. First, this is not a Land Llse issue and secondly, on a map that was part of the recent LAFCo Study and provided by Santa Clara County Fret (attached), thc Saratoga Fire District Station is shown as a Core Fire Station. Core Stations have two Engine Companies while other Fire Stations have a single Engine company. Public Works exaction on the comer. Staff still recommends that thc improvement ncc& to bc made and that the developer (Saratoga Fire District) is responsible to make them. The issue of fire Fighter Safety was raise as it related to haxq_ng to back into the Station. Clearly, the preferable situation is to have thc fire apparatus able to drive though. Duc to a scveregrade change at this location, that is physically impossible. The issue of user needs was raised. The principal application before thc Planning Commission is Design Review and a Llse Permit to allow thc elimination of certain zoning standards. Llscr needs is not really within the purview of a Design Review. In man3, cases form does follo,~, function, however, in our case, identifying the function is b~ond our scope. The matter of three bay doors vs. four bay doors was raised. The application before thc Commission is a three bay door Fire Station_ If the site were larger, four bay doors would bc better. Thc site is very constraining and cannot accommodate a fourth bay without moving back into thc linc of sight. Please note, Staff svill bring back the resolution(s) memorializing the Planning Commisson action at the next meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Re-notice of pubhc hearing (June 27, 2001). 2. Assessor's Parcel Map Book 397 Page 22. 3. Section 15-55.030 Variation from Standards of the Zoning Code. Attachment 5 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE · SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 · (408') $68-120o Incorporaled October 22, 1956 MEMORAMDUM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Ba~e, S~an Bogos~ar ,~onn Menatfey . Ntc< Stter.. Ann Wattonsm~tn TO: FROM: DATE: RE: PLANNING COMMISSION' Thomas Sullivan, AICP June 27, 2001 Saratoga Fire District 14380 Saratoga Avenue At the conclusion of the Pubhc Hearing held on June 6, 2001 for the Planning Commission to consider the apphcation of the Saratoga'Fire Disrnct, the Planning Commission identified issues and continued the Public Hearing to its June 27, 2001 regular meeting. The following items were identified as either issues or direction ro Staff: Re-notice the public hearing. Please see attached cop),. How many parking'.spaces exist on site and hog' many parking spaces will bc proxqded for the new station on Fire District property? Please sec Sheet 7 of thc Plan Sci (previous[v distributed to the Commission). You will Sec that existing is calculated at 0 and Proposed is calculated at 22. The existing parking is on the City's alle3,,. Zoning Ordinance Section i5-35.030 (g) states, "One space for each employee and such additional number of spaces as may bc prescribed by the Planning Commission." Staff has also attached a copy of the Asscsso/s Parcel Map page for this area. This shows the entire area. How many employees will there be? Thc Plan Set on page 7 indicates that there arc 14. During ~he Hearing, the Chief indicated that there would bc 15. Considering the information in item ~2 and this item, it would seem those 15 spaces plus an), additional is what is required. Thc information regarding the number of employees is presented as the number of employees on the largest sh!ft. While this is a deviation from the strict interpretation oft& code, it is one that does make some sense. There will be a period when one shift is going off duty and the relieving shift is coming on duty. Thc da), shift is the period when the administrative staff id at the station. 5 * 8 * 8 *= 21. Presumably, for that minor increment the 22 spaces provided will be adequate. It was questioned as to whether or not the City would actually approve the Lot lin~ adjustment. Staff has spoken to the City Manager about this issue, he has indicated that the City Council is fully aware of the issue and seems to be fully on board The Planning Commission and the Public requested Story Poles. Staffhas provided to the project architect a list of 5 individual firms who provide such services locally. Is it necessary to grant exception to all of the zoning standards? If this Fire Station is to be constructed, the answer is yes. Along with the Design Review, the issue of the Use Permit to allow zero setbacks and extra height is probably the most critical issue facing the Commission in this application (see Section 15-55.030 "Variation from Standards"from the Zoning Code, attached). -THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LE~T BLANK MEMO TO: Plarmmg Commission FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP SUBJECT: Saratoga Fire District June 27, 2001 Page3 4. Section 15-46.040 of the Zoning Code. .CiD, Council Ordinance HP-19 'Designamag the Pomon of Saratoga Avenue from Fruit~'ale Avenue to 14301 Saratoga Avenue as a Heritage Lane" and associated staff report to Council from the heritage Commission dated July 3,1991 6. Fire Service Boundary Map A Text Consisting of: NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COt~'HISSION announces the 'following public hearings on Wednesday, the 27th day of June 2001, at 7:00 p.m in the City Council Chambers located at 1]777 Fruitva[e Avenue, Saratoga, CA. 95070. Details and plans are available at the Saratoga Court, unity Development Department, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. This is a continued item from the Planning Con~ission Meeting of June 13, 2001. DR-01-O06, UP-01-O02, TUP-01-O03, LL-01-O0] (]97-22-0193 - SARATOGA FIRE OISTRICT, 14380 Saratoga Road; Request for Oesign Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing Fire Station and construct a new 12,689 square foot Fire Station. A Lot Line Adjustment is necessary for the footprint of the building to be within the property lines. The Temp~.rary Use permit is necessary to allow the temporary Fire Station to be located behind the subject property at 20473 Saratoga-Los Oatos Road, during construction. The maximum height of the new Fire Station will be 36feet 6 inches tart. The project is located within a Professional Administrative (P-A) zoning district. was mailed to the following property owners: SOt4OLLA KRIS A AND CAROL A COX FLORA M TRUSIEE & ET AL HACKETT U CHARLES TRUSTEE HACKETT U CHARLES TRUSTEE SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH INC SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH INC EHRMANTRAUT BRIAN ET AL HACKETT ~ CHARLES TRUSTEE SARATOGA FEDERATEO CHURCH OSTROUSKI JOHN L AND M. CLAIRE HEALE OAN ~ AND G~EN L TRUSIEE ELLIOTT COLLEEN R TRUSTEE GUNN SONJA A ET AL G & G MCCANDLESS PROPS LLC ENGINEERING INFORMATION SYSTEM LONG JOSEPH P JR ANO SUSAN O KENT MARGARET E TORTORICI THOMAS J GIANNET10 S T TRUSTEE & ET~AL MATSUMOTO KAZUYO ET AL :~ LINDSAY NOEL P JR El AL CUSTO010 JAMES KING ~EI'CHUAN AND SHIU'LIEN K BURGNER ROBERT T ANO KAMEN E PENNELL AYLENE TRUSTEE KATHARY PA G TRUSTEE Pir'' IT B TRUSTEE & ET A N TRUSTEE .~u~TON ~ au~ C~ALDINE E COX, FLORA M. DUGGAN AND ASSOCITATES 14496 OAK PL 20927 JACKS RD 15400 SUVIE~ DR 15400 SUVIE~ DR 14370 SARATOGA AV 14370 SARATOGA AV 20375 PARK PL 15400 SUVIE~ DR 14370 SARATOGA AY 1275O lONE CT 320 SUNSET DR 20440 ARBELECHE LN 14363 SARATOGA AV 545 MIDDLEFIELD RD UNIT #130 P.O. BOX 25 P 0 BOX 2095 261 HARTZ AV 14347 SARATOGA AV UNIT B 15195 BECKY LN 14349 SARATOGA AV UNIT B 1340 LC~IBARD UNIT 602 14351 SARATOGA AV UNIT A 14351 SARATOGA AV UNIT B 14351 SARATOGA AV UNIT C 1435] SARATOGA AV UNIT A 14353 SARATOGA D 23500 CRIS' UNIT 501G 14353 Sf C 19986 M~ cf SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-22-002 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-22o011 LOS GATOS CA 95032 A.P.N. : 397-22-012 LOS GATOS CA 95032 A.P.N. : 397-22-015 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. :397-22-021 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-22-023 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-22-029 LOS GATOS CA 95032 A.P.N. : 397-22-042 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-22-044 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-22-045 REEOPORT OR 97467 A.P.N. : 397-27-028 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-27-029 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-31-008 MENLO PARK CA 95025 A.P.N. : ]97-31-011 SARATOGA' CA 95071 A.P.N. : ]97-31-020 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-]3-001 DANVILLE CA 94526 A.P.N. : 397-33-002 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-33-003 MONTE SERENO CA 95030 A.P.N. : 397-33-004 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-33:005 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94109 A.P.N. : ]97-33-0o6 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-33-oo7 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-33-008 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N.': 397-]3-o09 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-33-010 SARAIOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : ]97-33-011 CUPERTINO CA 95014 A.P.N. : 397-]3-012 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-33-017 SAPATOGA ~A q5~7~ ~ ~ ~ ~7 TT AFFIDAVIT OF MAII~rNG NOTICES Attachment STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) SS. K /~. ff/~::'~'~,~ , being duly swom, deposes and savs: that he/she is a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission.°n the /~'~ day of 200Z he/she deposited' in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (see list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. there was regular BUSSE ROBERT K AND LiSA C SARATOGA LODGE NO FOUR 1UO EIG DEURELL H MAXINE 1RUSTEE & ET OUR LADY FATIMA VILLA SARATOGA FOOTHILL CLUB LOHG JOSEPH JR AND SUSAN D ET HAMMACK NARGIE A TRUSTEE LYHCH DAVID J AND KATHLEEN E SCHUPPERT RICHARD C AND MARY W YOUNG RICHARD A AND JEAN L SOLOMON DAVID M AND CHRISTENSE STANDRIDGE DAVID J AND DEBORAH HARKEY BYRON J AND MARY F ORCHARD ROAD PARTNERS TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICED: 102 BILLING FOR THIS MAILING: $107.76 14461 OAK ST P 0 BOX 54 13590 BEAUMONT AV 20400 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD PO BOX 2233 PO BOX 95 18790 BLYTHSWO00 DR 20360 ORCHARD RD 20350 ORCHARD RD 20360 ORCHARD RD P.O. BOX 3028 20385 PARK PL 18763 CABERNET DR SARATOGA SARAIOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA LOS GATOS SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA SARATOGA CA CA CA CA CA CA * CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 95O70 95071 95070 95070 95070 95071 95030 95070 95070 95070 95070 95070 95070 A.P.N. : A.P.N. : A.P.N. : A.P.N. : A.P.N. : A.P.N. : A.P.N. : A.P.N, : A.P .N : A.P.N : A.P .N : A.P .N : A.P.N : 517-09-066 5i7-10-011 517~10-014 517-10-036 397-22-031 397-22-032 397-22-033 397-22-036 397-22-035 397-22-036 397-22-060 397-22-061 397-22-062 BONNET GWENDOLYN IRUSIEE CANNIZZARO ANTHONY J AND MARGA JORGENSEN FRANCES E PERSICO JOSEPHINE J NARRINER HARWO00 TRUSTEE LEY GERALD M AND DOLLIES TAUS HENRY RUTH M TRUSTEE DICKERSON LAUREL BUENROSTRO MARJORIE H 1RUSTEE JERBIC CLAIRE J TRUSTEE OSTERMAN JAMES g TRUSTEE & ET CHASE GERALDINE ! HUBER KARL AND SHIRLEY SILVEIRA LUCILLE M 1RUSTEE SANGUINETTI WILLIAM E ET AL KRAMER ALYCE M TRUSTEE & ET AL CRAMER ADELE LAGERSTROM DONALD F TRUSTEE & VICK GARY J AND, PATRICIA A GARY VICK PALAIMA MARK P ET AL SMITH LANIR TRUSTEE CRITCHFIELO RUTHANN TRUSTEE SEiPEL ROBERT S AND JOAN V TAU VON HELLE#S C R LEVY RITA TRUSTEE NATER CHARLES AND LEONORA REES LEANNE ABINGTON ROBERT B AND MARY R T REED GLENN C TAFARELLA PETER A ET AL BRUCE KEVIN R AND PAULINE A NADIMI BAHRAM R YOUNG PHIL Z TRUSTEE & ET AL CANCELLIERI ROBERT AND SHIRLEY CANCELLIER! ROBERT AND SHIRLEY BORDEN RONALO U AND BARBARA S CUNNINGHAM SUSAN K CUNNINGHAM DENNIS M PAYNE GEORGE M TRUSTEE CASABONNE YVES G AND ANNETTE E CRAUFORO OTTO M AND BETTER TR DO, NEY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCI ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BLOXHAM ALDEN AND MARCELLE TAU M/M ALDEN BLOXHAM SULLIVAN L M AND LOUELLA M 1AU BLOXHAM ALDEN AND MARCELLE TAU M/M ALDEN BLOXHAM BLOXHAM ALDEN AND MARCELLE TAU M/M ALDEN BLOXHAM MATHENY N O TRUSTEE KLEAR ELIZABETH P TRUSTEE FITZSIMMONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE & DEERFIELO PARTNERS-SARATOGA DEERFIELD REALTY FITZSIMHONS MICHAEL SORENSEN DAVID L KlM JOUNG S AND YOUNG H TRUSTE FITZIMMONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE & FITZSIMMONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE & MATHENY N D TRUSTEE MATHENY N D TRUSTEE ROBERTSON ROSEMARIE TRUSTEE & FRANCIS CYNTHIA R MC KIBBEN TED JR AND PEGGY L 14355 SARATOGA AV UNIT D 19540 REDBERRY DR 14355 SARATOGA AV UNIT C 14357 SARATOGA AV UNIT A PO BOX 217 1944 CHARTERS AV P 0 BOX 798 14359 SARATOGA AV UNIT A 14359 SARATOGA AV UNIT 8 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 11 268 APTOS BEACH DR 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 13 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 14 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 15 16431 E LA CHIQUITA AV 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 17 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 18 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 21 14137 SQUIRREL HOLLO~ LN 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 23 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 24 14345 SARAIOGA AV UNIT 25 14127 SQUIRREL HOLLO~ 2141 E HIGHLAND AV UNIT 155 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 28 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 31 8701 BELL~OOD RD 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 33 14345 SARATOGA AV UNI1 34 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 35 153 LOMA ALTA AV 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 37 14345 SARATOGA AV UNIT 38 14860 CODY LN 14860 CODY LN P.O. BOX 3132 P 0 BOX 2230 14407 BIG BASIN gY 15940 ROCHIN TR P 0 BOX 247 12471GREENMEADOU LN PO BOX 6000 140 CAMPO BELLO LN 20570 CANYON VIEW DR 140 CAMPO BELLO LN 140 CAMPO BELLO LN 720 MARKET ST STE-250 20387 THELMA AV 14611A BIG BASIN ~Y 3528 ALAMEDA DE LAS PULGAS 14611 BIG BASIN WY UNIT B 14493 OAK ST 7221 SILVER LODE LN 14611 CIG eASIN gY UNIT E 14611. A elG eASlN ~Y UNIT E 720 MARKET ST STE-Z50 720 MARKET ST STE-250 14467 OAK ST 14465 OAK ST 1~&63 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070 LOS GATOS CA 95030 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95071 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 APTOS CA 95003 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 LOS GATO5 CA 95032 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARAIOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 PHOENIX AZ 85016 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARAIOGA CA 95070 BETHESDA MD 20817 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 LOS GATOS CA 95032 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95oro EL MACERO CA 95618 CUPERTINO CA 95015 SARATOGA CA 95070 LOS GATOS CA 95032 EL VERANO CA 95433 SARATOGA CA 95070 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 MENLO PARK CA 94025 SARATOGA CA 95070 MENLO PARK CA 94025 MENLO PARK CA 94025 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 MENLO PARK CA 94025 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SAN JOSE CA 95120 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 SARAIOGA CA ; 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 A.P.N. : 397-33-015 A.P.N. : 397-33-016 A.P.N. : 397-33-017 A.P.N. : 397-33-018 A.P.N. : 397-33-019 A.P.N. : 397-33-020 A.P.N. ~ 397-33-021 A.P.N. : 397-33-022 A.P.N. : 397-33-023 A.P.N. : 397-39-001 A.P.N. : 397-39-002 A.P.N. : 397-39-003 A.P.N. : 397-39-004 A.P.N. : 397-39-005 A.P.N. : 397-39-006 A.P.N..: 397-39-007 A.P.N. : 397-39-008 A.P.N. : 397-39-009 A.P.N. : 397-39-010 A.P.N. : 397-39-011 A.P.N. : 397-39-012 A.P.N. : 397-39-013 A.P.N. : 397-39-014 A.P.N. : 397-39-015 A.P.N. : 397-39-016 A.P.N. : 397-39-017 A.P.N. : 397-39-018 A.P.N. : 397-39-019 A.P.N. : 397-39-020 A.P.N. : 397-39-021 A.P.N. : 397-39-O22 A.P.N. : 397-39-023 A.P.N. : 397-39-024 A.P.N. : 503-24-008 A.P.N. : 503-24-009 A.P;N. : 5o3-~4-o34 A.P.N. : 503-24-078 A.P.N. : 503-24-079 A.P.N. : 50]-24-050 · A.P.N. : 503-24-051 A.P.N.' : 503-24-054 A.P.N. : 503-24-057 A.P.N. : 503-24-058 A.P.N. : 503-24-059 A.P.N. : 50]-24-060 A.P.N. : 50]-24-061 A.P.N. : 517-09-015 A.P.N. : 517-09-017 A.P.N. : 517-09-018 A.P.N. : 517-09-020 A.P.N. : 517-09-021 A.P.N. : 517-09-024 A.P.N. : 517-09-042 A.P.N. : 517-09-043 A.P.N. : 517-09-044 A.P.N. : 517-09-046 A.P.N: : 517-09-047 A.P.N. : 517-09-063 A.P.N. : 517-09-064 A.P.N. : THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK BASIN WA"/' OAK STREET .%- Attachment PLACE THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Attachment THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 15-a6.o3o dimension of each parking and loading space, and areas for turning and maneuvenng vehicles. (2) Architectural drawings or sketches showing elevations of the proposed structures as they will appear upon completion. All exterior surfamng ~s and their colors shall be specified, and the siz=,~ba~tion, material, colors and illumination of all sig...ns-ghall be indicated. (3) A landsc, a~: and irrignti/on"'plan for the sit=. showing the locauons of existing ~ proposed to be retained on the site. me location.~ design of landscaped areas and the vaneUes of pl~ materials to be planted therein and (4) Cr~ sections for all projects located.on a hillside lot. J .,,,,eS) Engineered grading and drainage plans, including cross sections if the sn'ucture is to be consn-ucted on a hillside lot. (6) Floor plans showing total gross floor area. deter- ' tinned in accordance with Section 15=06280 of this Chapter. (% Roof plans. (8) Such.additional exhibits or info~ as may be required by the Planning Director or.~tl~¢'"Plannmg Com- mission, j_ . All exhibits shall be dra?~to scale, dated and signed by the person preparing/th~ exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submitted shall.z-,6nsist of gwo sets drawn on sheets eighteen inches b.b.b.b.~enty-eight inches in size and ten sets on shee.._~ ele~i., inches by eighteen inches in size. (b) /Tt~appiication shah I~ am:ompamed by th~ payment of a~p~r, oc. essing fee, in such amount as established from time to Ume by resolution of the City Council. together with a deposit toward the expense of noticing the public heanng as determined by the Planning Director. 15-46.035 Creek prOtection setbncks.. (a) Purpose, application. Wh~re a protected creek passes through or along a building site or.~.iS' otherwise located on the site, and in order to pro~ for the future protection of creeks, including ~banks and riparian' habitat, building setbacks for ~ new consuuction shall be measured from the top of/the creek bank(s) on the site rather than from the p. mPeny lines of the site. (b) Existing stm~ures. Any existing s=ucnues which encroach into th~'eek protection .setbacks shall be consid- ered nonc0.nf6rming' and shall be regulated by Article 15- 65. Nonoonfonning Uses and Strucuues. Any new additions to ex~ing structures shall comply with the creek protection setbacks. Attachment with the creek protectim (d) Location of top m creeac~m~. I ne s~te psans rot · e ~s~ new co~c~l show ~c l~tion of · e mp of ~c ~~ b~k. h sh~l ~ mc appli- ~~ o~~=ibUiw to =c~clv 1~.185 of~ ~. (~d. 71-18. ~ 6. 1998) In reviewing applications for design review approbal under this A~cle, ~ Planning Commission shall be guided by the following criteria: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be conslz~c~, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height. elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. (b) Where more than one sign will be erected or dis- played on the sit=, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance. (c) I~ndscaping shall be clustered in natural appeanng groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with th= natural landscape and be nonreflecuve. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appro- priately screened. (f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. 15-46.0:~0 Expiration of design review approval; extension; tolling of time period. (a) Design review approvals granted pursuant4b this Article shall expire twenty-four months from ~ date on which the approval became effective, unless' prior to such expiration date a building penmt is issued for the improve- ments constituting the subject of the.~ign review approvai and consn'uction thereof is cotfimenced and prosecuted .diligently toward com. pletioa~, or a certificate of occupancy %ssued for such improye~ents. (b) Design revi.~ approvals may be extended for a period or periods~f time not exceeding twelve months. (c) Accessory. structures. Accessory structures for The applicant' for extension shall be filed prior to the residential projects may be permitted within the creek expirati%r~fate, and shall be accompanied by the payment protecUon setbacks subject to compliance with tbe special ofa f~.m. such amount as established from time to time rules as set forth in Section 15-80.030 of this Chapter. by/~e~olution of the City Council. If a public hearing was (S~ratoga 7.99) 35/ 4 BeptelDer 4, 1991 Councilmember Monia requested Item E be removed from the Con~ Calendar. Mayor Kohler stated a member of ~he audience requested removal of item D. A. Plinn/ng teem/salon Aotione, R/14F 8/28 - Noted and filed. Be De PUblic safety Commission Minutes, 8/12 - Noted and filed. Notic~ of Completion for resurfaoing of West Valley College Ordinance HP-X9 deei~nating a portion of saratoga Avenue from Fruitvale Avenue to 1430'1 B~a~oga avenue as. a Her~age L~o (second Feeding ~d adoption) R. Hakone Foundation Yund Raising - 6/2S-8/5/91 Resolution 91-62 on Harbor Builders appeal heard 8/7 G. aesoluti0n 91-63 on De La C~LII appeal heard 8/7 K. Resolution 91-S3.1 appointing Kohler as rePreSentative c~w Selection comities Treasurer,s Report 2) Inves~uent Report Financial Report CLEFENGER/ANDERHON MOVED APPROVAL.OF TH~ CONSENT CALENDAR WITH EZCEPTION OF ITEM~ D AND E. PARSED 5-0 Regarding item D, Mr. Fine thanked the Council for the designation the Heritage Lane. He stated he has been working with the Planning Commission with regards to signs on the Heritage Lane. He would like to see a hiking trail along Saratoga Ave. He noted a stop sign requested at Herriman and Saratoga rather than a stop light. Regarding it~u E, Councilmember Monia requested a complete breakout of financial ma=~ere at the nex~c meeting. MONZA/AMDERBO~ MOVED APPRO~AL OF ZTHM~ D AND B OFT HR CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED $-0 . CONSENT CALENDAR II - Claims A. Claim of Roby concerning fall in HeXone'Oerden MONXA/]~NDEItHON MOVED DENI]~L OF CLAIM. PARSED S-O. MO~~GBR MO~D ~ ACCZ~ C~XM. P~SBD S-O. S. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COM](XBBZOMB AND THZ PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNZCATIOHH Ms. Katie Dowdy, Brook Lane, expressed her concern regarding the Councilmembers' comments aC the last regular meeting. Ms. Dowdy provided a Copy of verbatim transcripts of her comments from ~he la meeting. She felt three councilmembere owed her a public apology. Mayor Kohler stated he had no recollection of requesting that Ms. be supervised when reviewing tapes. The Mayor asked which s~affmembe. had so advised. Mrs. Dowdy declined to state. Ms. Dowdy requested her concerns be agendized for the appropriate action. Attachment ORDTITANCE NO, HP-19 ~ ORD~CE OF'THE C~TY OF 8~TO~ DESiGNaTiNG THE PORT~ON OF 8~RJtTOG& &VENUE FROH FRU~TV'ALE ~VEHUE TO 14301 S~RATOGA AVENUE A~A HERITAGE LANE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: WHEREAS, the owners of over sixty percent of all the recorded lots abutting the subject portion of Saratoga Avenue, submitted an application requesting designation of the subject .portion of Saratoga Avenue as a heritage lane; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the subject portion of Saratoga Avenue qualifies for designation as a heritage lane in accordance with criteria (a), (e), (f) and (g) of. Section 13-15.010 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the portion of Saratoga Avenue from Fruitvale Avenue to the Village as an irreplaceable heritage resource which links the City to its economical and historical pa~t and enhances the City's visual and rural character; and WHEREAS, the City Preservation Ordinance, resources. determines, as stated in its Heritage to safeguard and protect' its' heritage NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: Section 1: After careful review and consideration of the report of the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission reports, the application and supportive materials, the City Council has determined that the subject portion of Saratoga Avenue meets the required criteria for designation; and hereby the City Council designates the subject portion of Saratoga Avenue as a heritage lane. Section Z: The City will ensure the protection of the historic and rural character of the lane through future land use decisions and development controls. Section 3: This designation shall become operative and take effect thirty (30) days from its date of passage. City Council Minutes 6 July 3, O 2) ~ ~tF~mg,. Presided. t, SaratOga. Co~tm~ty Access Cable T. ~ounaaclon, ~eg?es~ng e~.taozzs~ent o~ trust account · nvestment o~ J. zquza Mr. Peacock'reported that Councilmember Monia and he have particivated discussions regarding this issue.' The foundation has requested rather than keep thezr funds in commercial ba_nks and CDs, the City acre' the funds in trust and invest the= to increase the rate of return for foundation. He states it is possible through a simple trust 'agreement vhich can be dravn up by the City Attorney. Councilmember Monza there rill be very lzttle administrative cost to the City and KSAR Oili' be able to enjoy an additional 1.5~ return on their investments. MONIA/ST~ MOFED APFBO~AL TO INSTRUCT STAlrF TO PP~EPAKE A TRUST A~mM~NT B~r~r~N TH~ CITT OF SAItATOGA AND KSAR. Passed 5-0. 3) Mmso from Befit_age Preservation Commission ~equesting desiLmation of.S~rato~a Aveaue as Beritage Lane Mr. Peacock reiterates the Planning Commission's concerns vith makin~ such a desig!~_ation in the absence of a completed circulation element~of the General Plan vhich vould identify potential Heritage Lane locations throughout ~he city. Couqcil previously agreed not to go ~or~e~ until that element vas complete~. ~_~en~ Zambetti~ f~Fmer ~hairper~or~..o~ the Heritag~ Preservation o~=zsszon, reporcs Chat the approve= process to gather residents' signatures along Saratoga Avenue from Fruitvale to the Village, in order to petition for Saratoga Avenue as a designated Heritage Lan~= vas ~egun on 3une 8, 1989. He reports it has been stalled at the Plann=ng Commission and points out the risk that the street character ma change by the time it zs approved. He encourages Council to have a Pu~li~ ~earing on the matter since all requirements have been met and he zndicates there is no relationship to circulation of traffic. Mr. Villis Peck, member, of the Eeri~age Prese?ation Committee, referred to his memorandum to Council ane states that every effort be made at the City level to keep the character of Saratoga Avenue it is today. In response to Councilmember Monia's question as to vhy there is such urgency for this Avenue and not other roads, Mr. Peck reports that Saratoga Avenue is the only road vhere there has been an effort made to ~ather necessary signatures. His personal concern is to keep Saratoga ~venue from becoming a 4-lane entrance to the City. He also points out his concern regarding soundvalls in that area. Councitmember Monia believes the procedure should be conducted in an all-encompassing basis rather than a street by street basis. Mr. Emslie reports the Planning Commission took pro-active steps to deal vith the immediate concerns of changes to the Character of that street vhile the circulation element is being completed. Larry Fine. 1~075 Saratoga Avenue, reports the' petition vas submitted to the.~i~y 13 ~on~s ago, vas approved by the Berf~=e ~nm,~==~ .... ~'~ becomes necessary, Because all the requirements have been met, and the studies have been done, he cannot understand vhy the process is stalled,, ~ark Ebner, 13733 Saratoga Avenue, reiterated that the ii~e since the inception o~ the project viii be tvo years in August, Every criteria has been met and over 70~ off the si~matures have been gathered He does no understand vhat the d ' · - t · . _ elay zs anabel~eves the desi nation for Saratog Avenue snould be handled by itself, g a Councilmember Cleven~er suggested that a Public Hearing be set as is no basis to turn ~ovn t~zs request and it is not fair to stall th, process. Councilmember Anderson expresses her concern re~ardin~ vhat could be problem vith the soundvalls on Sarato=a Aven,,~ ;-a ~-: ............. a process contznue. CLETgNG~/ANDERSON ~0~..DT0 DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A DRAft ORDINANCE SET A PUBLIC ~n~-~R.ING FOR AUGUST 7, TO DETERMI~ IP SARATOGA AVENUE SSOULD SE D~$IGNAT~OA ~r~LITAGg LANE. Passed 5-0.' Lorianne Neiman ad~iseU the C~_.~cil =ha= =he house will be too close =o the tree and will damage it. Also, the rear elevat£on faces directly a= two houses on =he neighboring ridge. The firs= ho~e built the whole back face of that house is glass. Those people deserve privacy. They were built with the view and the neighboring houses were not built yet. The City should consider =ha= =hey have already approved in =ha= neighborhood The people already =here should be guaranteed privacy~ Ms. Newman opposes approval of appeal. 3) Peantech opposes approval of appeal. 4) Joy opposes approval of appeal. 5) (Gentleman who also opposes it) We' are no= a~ains= having houses up there, we knew all along sooner ~r la=er there would' be-houses. The problem =ha= we have is mass and height. He has a picture taken of his home from where Mr. De La Cruz wants to build one. Suggests =ha= Council members stand on the rear deck and look up a= where these homes are going to be and =hen decide. This gentleman concurs with =he Planning Commission. Mayor Kohler closes the public hearing at 1]:22 9.m. CLEVENGER/MONIA MOVED TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION. PASSED 5-0. D. Designation of a portion of Saratoga Avenue as a Heritage Lane. ]. Recommendation from Public Safety Commission concerning request for traffic signal instal- lation at Saratoga and Herriman Avenues. Mayor Kohler opened public hearing a= ]]:25 p.m. --The City Engineer reports no change in the foreseeable future of =he speed of vehicles near Frui=vale. I= is the opinion of the Commission =ha= the ins=alia=ion of a traffic signal would reduce speed and control =he higher volume of traffic. The Commission also felt a signal would provide safer street crossings for all pedestrians, especially students at Redwood and Saratoga High Schools and people using =he bus stop. Since ~= usually takes two years between =he time an initial study and the actual installation, i= was suggested that this process be started at this time. The Commission is mindful of the community notification and public reaction'for =he signal. It should also be noted that there have been a number of accidents on that road. Councilmember Stu=zman inquires as to put=lng stop signs on the three streets or reducing the spee~ limit. But reducing the speed limit probably would not work because the spee~ limit is already being violated. MONIA/ANDERSON MOVE TO COMMENCE PROCESS TO EVALUATE NECESSITY OF A SIGNAL AND NOTIFY SURROUNDING RESIDENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. PASSED 5-0. 2. Ordinance designating a portion of Saratoga Avenue from Frui=vale Avenue to 1430] Saratoga Avenue as a Heritage Lane (first reading and introduction) M~. Larry Perlin stateU that this change will be more symbolic than anything. This is nothing more than recognition. MONIA/ANDERSON MOVED TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE DESIGNATING A PORTION OF SARATOGA AVENUE AS A HERITAGE LANE. PASSED 5-0 Mayor Kohler closed =he public hearing at 11:36. historic significance which do not involve traffic problems, will not raise major issues. In regard to streets where traffic is an issue, or where traffic increase is anticipated, the City should weigh the importance of those streets to the City's history and character against the necessity to satisfy traffic demands. For example, increase in traffic along Saratoga Avenue is projected after the completion of Highway 85 and traffic safety issues along Pierce Road already exist. Therefore, especially in these cases, a decision must be made whether preservation of the character of these streets meets the City's goals and priorities. In the case of Saratoga Avenue, the Heritage Preservation commission urges the City CounCil to approve the designation as a Heritage Lane, maintain the street width, preserve the old trees and regulate fences and structures abutting this historic portion of Saratoga Avenue. As recommended in the staff report dated 4/3/91, the City can and should maintain the 90 feet right-of-way to be used for paths and landscaping and to ensure the City's option to widen the street-when and if determined necessary at any time in the future. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The City Council DATE: 733/91 The Heritage Preservation Commission Heritage Lane Inventory and Designation of Saratoga Avenue as a Heritage Lane The Heritage Preservation Commission has completed the review and approval of the Heritage Lane Inventory. The list includes all the streets which qualify as Heritage Lanes 'in according with the criteria set forth in the City's Heritage Preservation Ordinance Section 13-15.010. The designation procedure for streets as Heritage Lanes, as provided in the existing ordinance, is based on the review and approval of the application for each street individually. The designation may be initiated by the property owners or the City. In any event, sixty percent of the property owners along the street proposed for designation, must sign a petition in favor of the designation. The Heritage Preservation Commission recently reviewed the designation appliCation for a portion of Saratoga Avenue. The Commission determined that Saratoga Avenue (from Fruitvale Avenue to the Village) is qualified for designation as a Heritage' Lane. In the report to the Planning Commission, the Heritage Preservation Commission emphasized the historic significance of Saratoga Avenue. This street links the City to its industrial past and presently leads to the heart of the City, lined by old trees and homes. Seventeen homes along Saratoga Avenue are included on the Heritage Resources Inventory and three more are currently considered to. be added to the inventory. As the oldest traveled route abutting the largest number of historic homes, Saratoga Avenue is significant to the City's history. The Heritage Preservation Commission appreciates the Planning Commission's concerns and directions to prepare a comprehensive Citywide study of streets qualified for designation to be included in the Circulation Element. However, the Heritage Preservation Commission feels that the completion of the Circulation Element will not provide information related to the application which is not available now. Heritage Lane designation of streets of CUPERTIN( Attachment d ':CAMPBE [] FIRE (~E} CORE STATION FIRE STATION SARATOGA !FIRE DIST. SERENO GATOS.': HW¥ 85 FIRE SERVICE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT AND SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT N S TABLE OF CONTENTS Description I. Grounds for Appeal: Table of Contents: II. Introduction: HI. Preface: IV. The Council's Jurisdiction: V. Reclusal Request: VI. The Bases Proper for the Appeal:' The Applicant Has Misled the Publii: Into Passing an Unnecessary Bond Measure Which Sanctioned Unnecessary Acquisition of the Former Contempo Realty Building/Razing and Reconstruction of the Fire Station: a. The SFp, does not need to raze and reconstruct the present fire station; b. The SFD did not require the proceeds of'Measure F to fund razing and reconstruction of the present fire station; c. The SFD did not need to condemn the former Contempo Realty Building; d. Conclusion: The Planning Commission Refused to Consider the SFD's Future Use of the Former Contempo Realty Building: a. The Former. Contempo Realty Building: b. The SFD's Administrative Functions: The Planning Commission Refused to Inquire as to the SFD's ~Need for All of the Improvements Made the Subject of the Application: a. AMR's Private Apartment: b. Examples of Unnecessary Square Footage: c. The Square Footage Savings of Eliminating a Second Story: d. The Improvement Requirements of Surrounding/Comparable Fire Stations: Page 1 lA 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 .5 5 5 5 6 City of Saratoga City Council The Honorable John Mahaffey, Mayor 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga; CA. 95070 (408) 868-1269 FAX (408) 86%8555 JUL X 9 20 i Attachment 6 HAND DELIVERED Re: Joinder in Notice of Appeal of Planning Commission's June 27, 2001 Conditional Approval of the Saratoga Fire District's ["the SFD's"] Request for ["the application".] Design Review and Use Permit - Application Nos. DR-01-006, UP-01-002, LL-01-003 & TUP-01-003 - 14380 Saratoga Ave., Saratoga; CA. [collectively "the Appeal"] Dear Mayor Mahaffey, Vice-Mayor Nick Streit and the Honorable Councilpersons Stan Bogosian, Evan Baker and Ann Waitonsmith: Please accept this letter/enclosures as my joinder in that Notice of the Appeal filed July 6, 2001~ by the Firefighters' and Citizens' Task Force ["FACT"]. In accordance with Saratoga Municipal Code ["SMC"], {}15-90.020 1 state I am a resident of and landowner within the SFD and as Such, am an "inter- ested person" with respect to the subject matter giving rise to the Appeal. I. Grounds for the Appeal: In accordance with SMC, {}15-90.030 my grounds for the Appeal are as follows: .-. . .... 1. The Applicant ]las Misled the Public Into Passing an Unnecessary Bond Measure Which Sanctioned Unnecessary Acquisition of the Former Contempo Realty Building/Razing and Recon- struction of a Much Costlier Fire Station; 2. The Planning Commission Refused to Consider the Applicant's Future Use of the Former Contempo Realty Building; 3. The Planning Commission Refused to Inquire as to the Applicant's Need for Ailof the Improvements Made the Subject of its Application: 4. The Proposed Development is Not Compatible With .the Surrounding Area; 5. The Proposed Development Will be Detrimental to the Surrounding Area; 6. The Proposed Development Violates the City's Parking Ordinance; and, 7. Although the Applicant Has Self-Proclaimed it Needs a Fire Station "Headquarters," in- Truth-and-in-Fact Nothing More is Required Than a Much Smaller Satellite Facility Which Functions as Part of a Larger All Inclusive County Wide Fire Protection Strategy. FACT has informed the City Clerk that I may join in the Appeal; hence this filing. TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Description VI. The Bases Proper for the Appeal (cont.): ii) Supervision: iii) Training: iv) Equipment Maintenance:~ v) Administration: vi) EWAS: h. The "Core" Station Distinction: i. Fire Protection Services Provided by the SFD are No More."Adequate" Than Those Provided by the West Valley Station Which' Utilizes a Struct- ure Less Than 20% the Size of the Proposed Fire Station: j. Conclusion: VII. Please Do Not be "Brow-Beated" Into an Hasty Decision Not Truly in the Best Interests of the Community: a. Waiver: b. The SFD Needs Something From the City: c. Politically the SFD Cannot Ignore the City's Development Standards: d. Conclusion: VIXI. Use Permit Conditions: a. Continuing Jurisdiction: b. Number of SFD "Employees:" c. The SFD's Use of Off Street Parking:' d. The SFD's Use of Off Street Right Away: e. Future Conveyance of the Former Contempo Realty Building: f. Future Use of the Former Contempo Realty Building. IX. There Are Others Out Ther~ Who Support an Intelligently Designed Reconstructed Page 12 12' 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 1~~ TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Description VI. The Bases Proper for the Appeal (cont.): £ The Firefighters Themselves Never Wanted to be Housed on a Second ~ioor: g. Conclusion: 4. The Proposed Development is Not Compatible With the Surrounding Area: 5. The Proposed Development Will be Detrimental to the Surrounding Area: a. Parking: b. Traffic: c. Training: d. Public Use: e. Excess,Bulk and Mass: £ Conclusion: 6. The Proposed Development Violates the City's Parking Ordinance: 7. Although the SFD Has Self-Proclaimed it Needs a Fire Station "Headquarters," in-Truth-and-in-Fact Nothing More is Required Than a Much Smaller Satellite Facility Which Functions as Part of a Larger- All Inclusive County Wide Fire Protection Strategy: a. Life Under "Boundary Drops:" b. Life Under Subcontracting with County Fire: c. Life Under Merger With County Fire: d. Life Under SFI) Dissolution: e. Fire Chief Sporleder's Observations: f. The Firefighters Themselves are Against the Application: g. As the SFD's Future Role in the Fire Protection Community Evolves, More and More "Headquarters" Functions Will be'Diverted to County Fire: i) CommunicatiOns: Page '7- 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 Y[. Introduction: Let ti,. ,'ecord clearly reflect I am in support ol. ,houghtful reconstructed fire station which is safe; complies with current seismic, health and safety standards; and, is compatible in design with the surrounding area. I oppose the application because the development proposed is not! Although 26% of the voters: within the SFD voted in favor of the Measure F bond measure, in no way, shape or form did they vote in favor of the proposed fire station made the subject of the application: Nor did the voters realize the SFD was handily able to finance reconstruction of the then existing fire station without coming to the voters for the $5.975 million sought3! Nor did the voters realize the information available to the SFD did not state the only.· wa3' to make the fire station seismically safe was to raze it and rebuild4! "According to the Registrar of Voters [see http:/m, ww. sccvote, org/result77, htm], at the time of the Measure F Special Election there were 8,067 re~stered voters in the SFD of which 2,101 voted in favor of the measure. This represented 88.8% of the 2,367 votes that were cast in toto. 3 In a June 22, 2001 letter to Mr. William P. Sousa, the SFD's attorney has admitted that, "... in addition to the bond proceeds, there was approximately $2.5 million of District funds .... [when] the District started this project..." According to the SFD's "Statement of Revenues & Expenditures" for the "10 Months Ended April 30, 2001" reserves had grown to $2.7 million or more. Most of the SFD's funding comes fi.om a percentage of county wide secured real property taxes. Although I have not seen a 2000- 2001 fiscal year budget for the SFD, at the beginning of this last fiscal year it expected it would receive $2.5673 million in funding fi.om thecounty [a 12% increase fi.om the previous fiscal year]. According to the County Controller's Office by fiscal year end the SFD will receive about $2.8356 million in secured real property tax ~unding [a 10% increase fi.om the beginning of the year and a 13% increase over fiscal year 2000-2001 revenue] now bringing the SFD's reserves to roughly $3 million! The SFD's budget for fiscal year 2001-2002 projects a little under $3 million of revenue from County secured real property taxes. Although fiscal year 2001-2002's projected secured real property tax revenue will not be calculated by the County until September, given recent real estate sales/reassessment activity look for the number to total $3.2 million or more - at least 13% higher than this last fiscal year's actual! If this occurs then by year end the SFD will have cash reserves of $3.25 million or more! In May of 2001 the SFD prePared a cost estimate for reconstructing the existing fire station [assuming expansion to the current requested 13,325 square feet]. The estimate [excluding an hold back for con- tingencies] totaled $3.695 million. True $3.695 million is more than $3.2 million in reserves and the cost to reconstruct may exceed the estimated $3.695 million figure. However, part of the reason the cost totals $3.695 million is because of the SFD's gratuitous inclusion of twice the square footage of the existing fire station. Further, the $500,000.00 deficiency could very likely be repaid over a very short number of years fi.om what will be further increases in revenue based upon the recent massive increases in secured real property values. Even if the increases are not quite as rapid as predicted, the SFD boasts it has a credit line of over $1 million with West America Bank. 4 The argument in support of Measure F represented that, "...Engineering experts have informed the fire district that further remodeling is not cost effective..." [see http://www, sccvote, org/e77, htm]. But it out this representation was MISLEADINGLY inaccurate. In poim. of fact appellant has been informed the engineer's report on the fire station did not say the fire station was unredeemable but rather, it could be seismically retrofitted for a relatively low cost [about $200,000.00]! The reason the report ultimately recommended reconstruction versus remodeling was because the cost differential ASSUMING THE FIRE STATION REMAINED A~ ITS CURRENT size was only about $200,000.00 [i.e. like MANY MAJOR REMODELS THESE DAYS it makes more financial sense to raze and rebuild than to work -- TABLE OF CONTENTS (com.). Description X. Global Conclusions: Exhibits: July 6, 2001 Statemem of Charles Hackert January 1998 Santa Clara County Fire Departmem Business Plan Enlarged/Yellow Highlighted Fire Station Floor Plan June 26, 2001 Letter to Planning Commission From Firefighters' Local 3875 June 21, 2001 Letter to John Keenan From Santa Clara County Fire Department June 23, 2001 Letter to Planning Commission From MurietMahrer Page 15 AB C D E F IV. The Council's Jm .°diction: Staff informed the Planning Co,anission that, "... the site[s] for [both] the proposed fire station...and...the temporary building...are existing non-conforming lots.." SMC §§ 15-65.050(a) and 60(a) state that absent a variance [SMC, § 15-65.140(a)], "a nonconformin$ use may not be altered, enlarged, expanded nor intensified.., changed to nor replaced by another non- conforming use..." The SFD is before the Council because it must seek such. a variance. The Council is permitted to condition the granting of a uSe permit_".., as [it] deems necessav,, or appropriate, including, but not limited to, require[ing] improvements or modifications to the property,' limitations on hours of operation... [the] nature of operations, and the construction and dedication of public facilities reasonably related to the continuation of the use." This means that unlike the Plannihg Commission, the Council has the discretion to grant or deny the requested use permit upon ANY grounds whatsoever! The Appeal raises new grounds. V. Reclusal Request: Councilman Bogosian was one of the authors of the ballot argument in sup-port of Measure F. As such he has already formed opinions and taken sides insofar as some of the issues made the subject of the Appeal. Additionally appellant contacted each councilperson prior to the filing of the Appeal asking that he/she vote to independently review the Planning Commission's action. Mr. Bogosian returned appellant's telephone call leaving a message to the effect that he felt any appeal would be irresponsible given the "so called" overwhelming "will of-the-voters." Given the foregoing appellant does not feel Mr. Bogosian can be a fair and impartial judge of the Appeal and respectfully asks he be reclused from its consideration. VI. The Bases Proper for the Appeal:. 1. The Applicant [las Misled the Public Into Passing an Unnecessary Bond Measure Which Sanctioned Unnecessary Acquisition of the Former Contempo Realty Building/Razing and Recon- struction of the Fire Station: Contrary to the SFD's representations to the voters, a. The SFD does not need to raze and reconstruct the present fire station [see footnote 4 above]: b. The'SFD did not require the proceeds of Measure F to fund razing and reconstruction of the present fire station [see footnote 3 above]; and, c. The SFD did not need to condemn the former Contempo Kealty Building [see footnote 6 above]. Now that it has, it should be compelled to utilize this structure for a portion of its fire protection service functions. d. Conclusion: Although the public cannot undo Measure F, it certainly has the right to ask the Council to represent its interests in mitigating the above-wrongs perpetrated by the SFD. Additionally, when the SFD tells the Council it "requires" something made a part of the application, prior experience dictates that the assertion should not be accepted at face value and as a given. 2. The Planning Commission Refused to Consider the SFD's Future Use of the Former Contempo Realty Building: Although the Planning Commission was interested in exploring creative ways in which to divert some of the sFD's intended activities into the former Contempo Realty Building which would have mitigated the need for such a massive and bulky per se fire station proper, Staff in- structed the Commission that, "...the utilization of the interior space i~ell] outside of the purview of Design KevieW..." Thus the Planning Commission felt its hands were tied insofar as other issues were concerned. Unlike the Planning C,ommission the Council is not restricted by the design limitations of Nor did the voters realize they were voting for the SFD to use the proceeds of the bond measure to condemn~ and unnecessarily purchase6 the former Comempo Realty Building. Nor did the voters realize the SFD imended to unnecessarily more than double the square footage of the existing fire station, the intention of which was to create a legacy, for its Chief. Nor did the voters realize the advertised "bond oversight committee~'' would have no power whatsoever, to protect the public from the SFD's wasteful and unnecessary spending of bond proceeds! The SFD is a modem day fiefdom oblivious to the concerns of the City of which it forms a part thereof. Unlike the recent library expansion, it has gone out of its way to exclude the public and its fire- fighters from participating in the fire station's design. When it comes to financial and other matters the SFD has gone out of its way to stonewall disclosure. There is no citizen's oversight committee to con- trol Measure F's purse strings. If the Council does not step forward protect the public from the SFD's .irresponsible development at the expense of but approximately 4,000 of the City's property owners, there is no one else who will. This is what the Appeal is really about. III. Preface: The SFD came before the Planning Commission asking it be treated the same as any other applicant before it. The appellant agrees with this observation! The subject comer is one of the most visible and historic in all of Saratoga! The Council has before it what will probably be the last opportunity of the Century to make a signature statement [design wise] for this intersection that will likely serve as the model for foreseeable future Village development! Appellant urges the Council to not rush t° judgment. Please do not be seduced by "Chicken Little" safety arguments. The fire station has stood for more than 70 years; it will stand for another several months while the Council addresses this important development request the correct way the first time. BE razed and reconstructed. I have made a formal Public Records Act request for turnover of all reports by engineering experts commenting upon the safety/reconstruction of the present fire station, however, the SFD's attorney has refused my request as being "harassing." s "Buried" within the text of Measure F were the "magic" words, "shall Saratoga Fire Protection District maintain top quality fire protection/emergency medical services by acquiring property and replacing its unsafe.., fire station2 .~ ?" [see htrp://www, sccvote, org/e 77. htm]. 6 The SFD argued before the Planning Commission none of its administrative or communication func- tions could be diverted to the former Contempo Realty Building; i't all had to be housed within the con- fines of the proposed reconstructed fire station. Some on the Council may argue condemning the former Contempo Realty Building was necessary to secure a temporary fire station. To the contrary; I have at- tached hereto as Exhibit "A" to the Appeal a letter fi.om that building's former owner which makes clear he was more than willing to rent the facility and renovate it to the SFD's requirements during recon- struction of the fire station; but the SFD was not interested. Some on the Council may argue the former Contempo Realty Building was purchased for its 22 "off site" parking spots. Maybe so but at nearly $100,000.00/parking spot [the SFD has admitted it paid $2 million for the former Contempo Realty Building plus another $100,000.00.for attorney's fees to prosecute an eminent domain lawsuit against the building's former owner], "off street" parking could have been secured somewhere else close by for substantially less! 7 The text of Measure F misleadingly represented there would be, "... citizen oversight..." [see http://www, sccvote, org/e77, htm]. ,At least one bond oversight committee member has resigned in disgust realizing'no one controls the bond proceed's purse strings other than the SFD itselH in time there will never be mor. an 1 captain on duty? Whyl° the need such a large dawoom? Why the need for such a large exercise room when at any single moment in time there will likely never be simultaneous use by all 8 firefighters on duty? Why the wasted second floor ihallway between bed- rooms 2 and 5? Why is it acceptable for AMR personnel to "share" their sleeping quarters, yet it is not for firefight ers ~ ~ ? c. The Square Footage Savings of Eliminating a Second Story: Additionally, if there were no second story quite a bit of"wasted" square footage could be eliminated from the application. For in- stance, there would be no need for: a) an elevatori b) an elevator mechanical room; c) a pole: d) three sets of stairwells; e) hallways leading to/from stairwells; and, f) shared restrooms on two floors. d. The Improvement Requirements of SurroUnding/Comparable Fire Stations: Another way the Council can intelligently evaluate the SFD' s alleged justification for a 13,325' square feet [ actually 17,575 if the former Contempo Realty Building's square footage is included in the calculation] Village fire station is to survey surrounding comparable fire stations. Attached as Exhibit "B" to the Appeal are pages 28 - 29 of the 1/98 Santa Clara County Fire Department Business Plan. These pages survey the fire station improvements constructed at nine surrounding yet comparable fire stationsz:. Some on the Planning Commission wanted to tour these 'surrounding fire stations with a mind to independently evalu- ating the necessity for a combined 17,575 square feet of two story Village fire station. HoweVer, this tour did not take place because as aforesaid Staff instructed the Commission "...the utilization of the interior space [fell] outside of the purview of Design Review." If the Council wants to get a flavor for the massiveness of what a smaller 12,750 square foot fire station looks like, it need only~ew.the newly constructed Cupertino Station on Stevens Creek Blvd. It can also extend its examination to additional fire stations beyond the aforesaid suggested 9~3. Essential- ly NONE encompass two stories of improvement space! Thus for the SFD to assert it requires an additional 4,819 square feet of interior improvements [compared to the Cupertino Station] is not only ludicrousl4; those on the Council require no special "training" to reach such a conclusion l~ e. Appellant's Enlarged/ltighlighted in Yellow Fire Station Floor Plan: Appellant Previously submitted to the Planning Commission an enlarged floor plan of the proposed fire station. Thereon he Other than the fact that potential living area square footage is available. l~ Note the application proposes 8 upstairs bedrooms with two beds/bedroom to be simultaneously occu- pied by no more than 8 firefighters, whereas the AMR "apartment'~ proposes a single bedroom with two beds to be simultaneously occupied by 2 persons. l: Cupertino, Seven Springs, Los Gatos, Redwood, Winchester, Shannon, Monta Vista, Quito and West Valley. 13 There.are smaller single story fire stations on: Union Ave. just south of Campbell Ave. in Campbell; University Ave. and Shannon Road in Los Gatos; and, Fremont Ave. in Los Altos. 14 The applicant has requested approval ora reconstructed fire station consisting of 13,325 square feet improvements to supplement the current 4,250 square feet in the former Contempo Realty Building for a total of 17,575 square feet. The West Side Station [located in Saratoga] responds to roughly the same number of emergency calls as does the SFD, yet according to the widely publicized DMG rep°rt it is able to perform "adequate" fire protection services out of a 3,137 square'foot facility! l~ In other words,' "you don't need to' be bakers to know what a good cake tastes like!" 'SMC §§ 15-46.040. As will be uemonstrated, there is no reasons why the ~FD's administration func- tions cannot be diverted into the former Contempo Realty Building, thus eliminating the need for a two story fire station proper. a. The Former Contempo Realty Building: Exhibit "B" to Staff's report to the Planning Com- mission depicts the SFD's proposed recortfiguration of the former Contempo Realty Building. Therein the SFD suggests how the current 4,250 square feet of improvement space [a) a lobby: b) two bath- rooms; c) 15 offices; d) workstation/clerical areas; e) a conference room; f) a work room; g) a lunch room; and, h) storage area] can all be reconfigured into a temporary fire station. Appellant submits 4,250 square feet are more than adequate to accommodate all of the SFD's: a) administrative; b) dis: patch and limited communications; c) training; d) storage; and, e) public interface/meeting requirements. What else does the SFD require to be housed within the confines of a reconstructed fire station proper(' b. The SFD's Administrative Functions: The Planning Commission was confused insofar as what kinds of functions performed by what SFD employees were "administrative" for purposes of diver- sion into the former Contempo Realty Building. When appellant uses the term "administrative" func- tions, he refers to those activities performed by the SFD's: a) fire chief, b) assistant chief: c) Early Warning Alarm System ["EWAS"] dispatch person; d) business manager; and, e) secretarx,. NONE of these functions is performed by the firefighters, and there is no legitimate reason they cannot be ade- quately performed behind the proposed fire station in the former Contempo Realty Building! The SFD has represented to the public it needed the former Contempo Realty Building using the public's moneys to involuntarily condemn it. Now that the SFD has acquired the building, it is the pub- lic's duty to ensure it is fully and efficiently utilized after reconstruction of the fire station proper! The Council is the public's only-means of forcing the SFD to either: a) use this asset as represented; or, b) return it to the former owner. 3. The Planning Commission Refused to Inquire as to the SFD's Need for All of the Improvements Made the Subject of the Application: Similarly, Staff instructed the Planning Com- mission it could not question the "need" for any of the interior improvements proposed by the applicant. Thus the Planning Commission felt its hands were tied insofar as this issue were concerned. Again, the Council will not be similarly hamstrung. a. AMR's Private Apartment: The Council is urged to take a close look at the SFD'sproposed interior improvements. Why is there a need for American Medical Response ["AMR"] personnel to oc- cupy their own all inclusive [living quarters, bedroom, kitchen and private bat~oom] first floor "apart- ment?" Can't they share the firefighters' second floor shared living quarters? b. Examples of Unnecessary Square Footage: Why the need for two [versus a single] adminis- trative offices, a reception area and lobby? Why the need for a stand-alone library [rather than incorpor- ating bookcases into a multi-purpose, dual use conference room-library]? Why such a large dispatch of- fice when the-only function dispatch performs is one person monitoring of the SFD's EWAS system? Why the need for a communications office when as a result of the SFD's boundary drop agreement with County Fire this function has been/will be transferred to the latter? Why the need for 8 separate fire- fighter workstations when at any single moment in time there will likely never be simultaneous use by all 8 firefighters on dutyg? Why the need for 2 separate captain workstations when at any single moment Other than the SFD's self-serving argument it does not want to fully utilize this asset. It is Unreasonable to conclude that all on duty firefighters will have a need to use their work stations the former Contempo R. -y Building and the proposed reconstm d fire stationper se consti- stance tute a single development unit~7. Examining the two structures made a part ofth~ application, they are clearly NOT harmonious! The City's "design criteria" mandate that they be made harmonious. 'In the SFD's application to the'Planning Commission it relied heavilv upon the exterior designs of Montalvo and the Federated Church for "compatible" exterior design requirement. Montalvo is largely hidden from the public's view, and the Federated Church primarily fronts Oak Place/Park Ave. What is more indicative of the exterior design of the surrounding area canbe viewed traveling down Saratoga Ave. from Saratoga-Los Cratos Road. Very, very few structures along Saratoga Ave. exhibit the present fire station's monolithic stucco wails with Spanish tile roof coverings. Additionally, the historic Heritage Lane begins within a stone's throw of the fire station. Add the "design criteria" man- dated for a single development unit consisting of more than one building or structure like the one under review, and it is obvious the proposed design of the fire station must be softened to a less bulky and · massive earth tone wood or wood appearing structure which IS harmonious with the "height, elevation. roof, material and color" of the former Contempo Realty Building. If not, the ~m-anting of a variance would be improper. 5. The Proposed Development Will be Detrimental to the Surrounding Area: Per SMC, § 15-65.140(a)(3) "... a use permit for an otherwise nonconforming use may be granted only if the Council is able to [find]...that the use or structure, and the conditions under which it will be continued, will.., not be detrimental to the surrounding area..." In this case the proposed structure and its in- tended use[s] will be detrimental to the surrounding area. For instance, a. Parking: As discussed below, SMC § 15-35.20(a) requires a minimum of one off street park- ing space for every SFD 6mployee! The SFD's proposed off.street parking demands will more than triple the City's minimum parking requirements. Where will SFD employees [let alone the public] park when conducting business at the fire station? The net answer is "detriment to the surr°unding area." b. Traffic: Staff prepared a traffic survey that concluded the application had a negative effect up- on traffic. With all due respect Staff'was and is wrong! The SFD proposes adding two additional emer- gency vehicles~8 while at the same time reducing one of the existing apparatus bays. More vehicles housed in less 'bays parked in tandem equals more trips out of/into the fire station; each trip adversely affecting traffic at this buSY intersection. When the traffic issue was raised by the Planning Commission the SFD's response was if need be, AMR emergency vehicles could be parked in the former Contempo Realty.Building's off street park- ing away from the fire station. Translation: detriment to the surrounding area, traffic and parking! ~7 It is interesting that when the off' street parking issue is discussed, the former Contempo Realty Build- ing and the proposed reconstructed fire station are treated as one. Why should the result be any different when "design-criteria" are examined? ~s Currently the SFI) has four emergency vehicles. Engine 30 is the primary response engine. Engine 31 responds in place of Engine 30 when the alarm is in a no truck zone [i.e., Bohlman Rd.]. In addition the SFD needs to have a reserve engine to replace either engine if one breaks down, goes in for service, etc [Engine 32]. In addition the SFD must commit one en~ne to "mutual aid" [even though the SFD will have more equipment coming from County Fire, this fact does not relieve it of the responsibility of participating in the Santa Clara County "mUtual aid plan"]. For this reason the SFD has already an- nounced it will be purchasing an extended ladder truck [Truck 30]. In addition .an ambulance [AMR vehicle] will still be housed at the fire station. Finally, under the "boundary drop" agreement, the SFD e. Appellant's Enlargt,., rlighlighted in Yellow Fire Station },,,or Plan: Appellant previously submitted to the Planning Commission an enlarged floor plan of the proposed fire station. Thereon he highlighted in yellow all proposed improvements he felt were unnecessary if the SFD's administrative/ communications/dispatch/public functions were diverted into the former Contempo Realty Building. The net conclusion was that the remainder of the SFD's requested interior improvements would fit nicely imo the application's proposed first floor footprint. Another copy of this enlarged/highlighted fire station floor plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" to the Appeal. Reducing unnecessary fire station square footage has the added benefits of reducing the proposed structure' s: a) design height, bulk and mass making it more compatible with the surrounding area; and, b) cost which is being underwritten bx' we citizens. f The Firefighters Themselves Never wanted to be Housed on a Second Fioor~ As the Council will learn, when the firefighters were first shown the proposed plans it was their wish to have living quarters constructed on the first floor adjacent to the apparatus bays. Once the firefighters took sides against the SFD, their design concerns were discarded. At the Planning Commission hearing the SFD's firefighters submitted a letter in opposition to the proposed development. That letter represented the unanimous opinion of the firefighters' union. An- other copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" to th6 Appeal. If the Council is of the opinion it is not qualified to "second guess" the fire station design requirements of the SFD, would it not agree that the firefighters themselves who spend every work day living out of it ARE? Isn't it interesting the fire- fighters' design requests and the public's appear to match? This fact makes it clear that just because the applicant tells the Council it "needs" something in a reconstructed fire station DOESN'T nec- essarily mean it doest6!" g. Conclusion: In a perfect world, a) with a conforming building site which adheres to design set backs, lot coverage, height limitations and minimum off street parking requirements; b) whose improve- ments are privately funded; c) there is little need to inquire into the necessity of a design review appli- cant's interior improvements. However, THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEFORE TIlE COUNCIL! We are looking for ways to compromise, to allow a nonconforming building site to continue as a noncon- forming -site; to provide for safety yet not overwhelm an extremely visible and important intersection;. and, to protect the public from the SFD's wasteful spending of we citizens' moneys! It is therefore ap- propriate for the Council to independently review the requirements of surrounding/comparable fire sta- tions to explore ways to .eliminate the application's unnecessary interior improvements. 4. The Proposed Development is Not Compatible With the Surrounding Area: Per SMC, § 15-65.140(a)(3) "... a use permit for an otherwise nonconforming use' may be granted only if the Coun- cil is able to [find]...that the use or structure, and the conditions under which it will be continued, will be compatible with...the land uses and properties in the surrounding area..." In this case the pro- posed exterior design is incompatible with the properties in the surrounding area. The City's design standards [SMC, § 15-46.040(a)] state that, "...where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features [shall] include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances." In this in- 26 Approximately half of the City receives its fire protection services from the West Valley Fire Station on Cox Ave. This station is approximately 18% of the size of the proposed reconstructed Village Fire Station combined with the former Contempo Realty Building. Is the Council suggesting the City's citi- zens receiving fire protection services from the West Valley Station are the recipients of"second class" service? The answer is obviously no; fire station size does not equate to quality of service. The SFD has admitted t,.~ district will employ a minimum of 25 ~,..sonsTM. But in reality it will de facto employ far more! And what if the district moves to three shi~s versus two thus adding another ten employees? Adding more personnel together with offering on-site training for off duty personnel [while on duty personnel are on site] IS going t° increase demands upon off street parking. The SFD will ar~e the City's off-street parking requirements should no't be literalh' imposed because it will assert that at any one time there will not be more than a collective 15 employees occupy- ing both the reconstructed fire station and the former Contempo Realty Building. But SMC § 15-3 5.30 does not declare an "employee" for off street parking requirement purposes can be half an "employee" as.long as two employees do not occupy the improvement simultaneously. As for the SFD's assertion that at any one time there will not be more than 15 employees occu- p.ving both the fire station and former Contempo Realty Building, the assertion is false. First, the fire- fighters themselves will tell the Council that whenever there is a change in shifts, the fire station houses all 25 of its "employees" plus at least 2 - 3 of its "volunteers" for an overlapping period of about an hour! ._ Second, because of the high cost of housing, most of the SFD's firefighters live some distance from the fire station. Rather than fighting rush hoilr traffic to drive long distances after their shifts end. the firefighters will tell the Council a good number will remain at the fire station to sleep. Again this translates into more than 15 employees simultaneously occupying both the fire station and the former Contempo Realty Building. Third, whenever {he SFD's fire commissioners hold a public meeting at the fire station, at a min- imum:: there are an additional 3 employees. Fourth, whenever the applicant calls for "volunteer" firefighter assistance there will be anywhere from 1 - 35 additional personnel simultaneously occupying the fire station. F!nally and most bothersome of all, as aforesaid the SFD proposes initiating on site training and some- alternate public use of the former Contempo Realty Building. Whenever training takes place, the 15 or 18 - 19 on duty employees occupying the fire station together with any off duty "sleepovers," will be supplemented by up to an additional .15 or even more23 offduty employees. And if the public is en- couraged to visit the reconstructed fire station for emergency care/otherwise, there will be even addi- tional parking demands. and, b) 22 on the former Contempo Realty Building site. It has now been conclusively established that the additional 5 off street parking spaces initially relied upon by the SFD belong to 'its neighbor, the Post Office. : 2~ Two full shifts of two engine companies consisting of 8 firefighters/2 paramedics per shift [for a total of 20 employees]; a chief} assistant chief; dispatcher; secretary; and, business manager. But in reality it employs an additional 29 -.44 personnel [a) 3 PAID fire commissioners when public meetings take place; b) the SFD's attorney; c) someone to perform future on site training; and, d) up to an additional 4 off duty firefighter "employees" and 20 - 35 PAID "volunteer" firefighters] ! 22 If the applicant's attorney is present [an event which has been regularly occurring more and more these days], there will be a minimum of 4 additional de facto employees. 23 Appellant says "more" because ':volunteer" firefighters require training just as do "employee" fire- fi~hters, and another on duty "emrflovee" instructor will be reauired. The SFD has worked ~ .... the City to increase the line of sight fr~... Saratoga-Los Gatos Road onto Saratoga Ave. But in the process what is now an "apron" adjacent to the front of the fire station has been sacrificed. Where will eme~ency vehicles be washed [the former Contempo Realty Building's off street parking]? Translation: detriment to the surrounding area, traffic and parking! c. Training: Currently firefighter training is offered off site by County. Fire. The SFD has stated it intends to begin offering on site training once the fire station is reconstructed. The SFD employs 24 firefighters supplemented by another 25 - 35 PAll) "volunteer" firefighters [see - http:/a~ww, saratogafire, cotn/Sorneways, hrml]. All 49 - 59 fire safety professionals require training. I{ on site training is initiated by the SFD, appellant hopes the Council can see that in addition to: a) 8 on duty firefighters; b) 2 on duty AMP~ personnel; c) an instructor; d) the chief, e) the assistant chief; f) the SFD's business manager; g) the SFD's secretary; h) 3 fire commissioners when public meetings take place; i) the SFD's attorney when public meetings take place [we're up to 19 "employees" so far]; j) the public; and, k) up to an additional 51 off duty firefighter "employees" and "volunteers" will be traveling to/from the fire station for training. Translation: detriment to the surrounding area, traffic and parking'. d. Public Use: The SFD has suggested t. hat rather than using the former Contempo Realty Build- ing for its day-to-day administrative functions, part or all be used as some type of public emergency care/other facility. Translation: additional public use which detriments the surrounding area, traffic and parking! e. Excess Bulk and Mass: Although reasonable minds may differ, appellant's view is that the proposed fire station's design is equivalent to "Argonaut Shopping Center in a can." The Council is en- couraged to visit the mere 25 foot high offwhite stucco single story exterior laden with tile accent and tile roofing shopping center. Stand in front of Long's Drug Store and imagine the archways being appa- ratus bays. Now look straight up - you're viewing at the proposed fire station's monolithic exterior! The fire station's proposed design needs to be reduced from two stories to one, and the stucco exterior needs to be jettisoned in favor of a softer wood look compatible with the surrounding area. f. Conclusion: Unless and until the proposed structure and its intended use[s] are modified as - suggested above, the application will be "detrimental to the surrounding area" making the granting of a variance under the SMC improper. 6. The Proposed Development Violates the City's Parking Ordinance: As aforesaid SMC § 15-35.020(a) is quite clear on the subject of off street parking: "at the time of... an alteration or en- largement of a site or structure, there shall be provided off-street parking spaces for automobiles in accord with the schedule of off-street parking space requirements prescribed in Section 15-35.030...?' SMC § 15-35.030 states that, "off-street parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the follow- ing schedule... (r) ... public buildings and grounds other than offices and public utility structures and facilities - one space for each employee, and such additional spaces as may be prescribed by the Planning Commission." Putting aside the fact that the former Contempo Realty Building is really a structure which stands alone from the proposed reconstructed fire station, if as here the two will be col- lectively~9 occupied by more than 27 of the SFD's employees2°, the application cannot be approved! ~9 As opposed to 15 employees per shift that is what the SFD asserts. 20 The application proposes a maximum of 27 off street parking spots; a) 5 to the rear of the proposed reconstructed fire station [currently there are 7 but the application proposes eliminating 2] on what is now City owned property [remember, the application is contingent upon the City deeding 529 square Fire Chief Sporlede~ .)bservations: On June 21, 2001 Fire ,,f Sporleder of Coung' Fire e. wrote a letter to John Keenan commenting on the application:~. Quoting Chief Sporleder at page 2 of his letter, "...if County Fire was the service provider to the SleD and was building the new proposed facility.., we would not need the amount of square footage or configuration proposed. We are always looking for space to store reserve apparatus, and would take advantage of the opportunity to build as bi! an apparatus room as possible...If we were to become the contractor and provide services there, we would use the station just like we use the stations in our other contract locales..." Translation: the pro- posed fire station is overkill! .. f The Firefighters Themselves are Against the ApPlication: On June 26, 2001 SFD's 21 fire- fighters who are members of Local 3875 unanimously authored a letter to the Planning Commission wherein thek "... very strong feelings in regards to the size and working function of the [proposed] ney,' fire station..." were reduced to writing. As aforesaid, a copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "D".to the Appeal. Rather than quoting the letter, translation: the proposed fire station is overkill! There has been talk I have heard that the firefighters' concerns should be disregarded because somehow they are motivated by self interest having nothing to do with the merits of the application. I diSagree! All parties whether in favor of or against the application have their own particular reasons. Whatever they may be, the Council should make no mistake: i) FACT's motivation is nothing more than safety; ii) my motivation is nothing more than preventing the overburdening of a small and one of the most visible building sites in the City with an incompatible neighborhood design exhibiting unnecessary bulk, mass, square footage; and, iii) if the Council does not believe its own firefighters, then why believe the SFD which is more interested in constructing a Taj Mahal legacy for itself and its chief than securing the support of the community they allegedly serve? g. As the SFD's Future Role in the Fire Protection Community Evolves, More and More "Headquarters" Functions Will be Diverted to County Fire: The SFD is a "work in progress." The Council really does not know how of if it is going to survive in the near future. However, as its role in the county wide fire protection community evolves, its need for more square footage of fire station diminishes. For instance, i) Communications: Under the boundary drop agreement with County Fire, Centralized communications' functions have been transferred from the SFD and in favor of County Fire. Translation: the proposed fire station neither requires the equipment, improvement space nor manpower to conduct communications activities; ii) Supervision: Under the boundary drop agreement with County Fire the SFD's fire- fighters will be under the supervision of County Fire personnel whenever away from home. Translation: the SFD does not require an Assistant Chief, and the proposed fire station neither requires more admin- istrative improvement space/overhead devoted to an assistant chief, iii) Training: Currently the SFD relies upon County Fire to conduct its training func- tions at a remote facility located outside of its boundaries. Although for purposes of the application the SFD suggests future firefighter training be diverted to the reconstructed fire station, the appellant asks WRY? Translation: the SFD does not own a large enough parcel of land to support the luxury of on sit~ firefighter training; :5 A copy of this letter was sent to, Tom Sullivan and should be in the City's files. Notwithstanding another copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" to the Appeal. Conclusion: Because o, .e foregoing, a) at the very least there n ~ to be use conditions placed upon the requested use permit which address these off street parking concerns; and, b) at most the num- ber of SFD "employees" and the square footage they occupy should be reduced. 7. Although the SFI) Has Self-Proclaimed it Needs a Fire Station "Headquarters," in- Truth-and-in-Fact Nothing More is Required Than a Much Smaller Satellite Facilit3? Which Func- tions as Part of a Larger All Inclusive County Wide Fire Protection Strategy: Although 70 yea[s ago before there ever was a "Saratoga" there may have been a need for the SFD and its fire station head- quarters, that is no longer the ease today. The simple fact of the matter is that under essemialh, anvone'.s scenario, the Village fire station need be no larger than any of the aforementioned 9 surroundinWcom- parable fire stations. Why then sanction the wasteful construction of something completely unnecessary at the public's expense24? For instance, a. Life Under "Boundary Drops:" Let's assume the SFD survives as an independent special district. As aforesaid the SFD has agreed to enter into a "boundary drop" agreement with County, Fire. It is appellant's understanding that under "boundary drops," fire protection within the County becomes centralized and seamless; SFD's boundary lines evaporate. When a fire company anywhere within the West Valley responds to an emergency call, the fire companies from every other fire station "rotate" to fill the void. Thus a fire company from the SFD will move to a surrounding fire station, and a fire company from one of the County's Fire stations will move to the SFD's Village fire station to fill the void. If more than a single fire company is required anywhere in the West Valley, the resources of all fire stations will come to bear. Since all of the resources of Central Fire will be available to the SFD if required, the Village fire station need be no more of a "headquarters" than any of the other 9 surround- ing/comparable fire stations. Translation: the proposed fire station is overkill! b. Life Under Subcontracting with County Fire: Let's assume the SFD elects to contract with County Fire for fire protection services operating out of the Village Fire Station. The Village Fire Sta- tion will respond as it would under the "boundary drop" agreement, the only difference being its day-to- day orders would come from County Fire. Thus again, the Village Fire Station need be no more of a "headquarters" than any of the other 9 surrounding/comparable fire stations. Translation: the proposed fire station is overkill! c. Life Under Merger With CoUnty Fire: Let's'assume the SFD elects to merge with County Fire. The Village Fire Station will respond as it would under the "boundary drop" agreement, the only difference being its orders would come from County Fire rather than a surviving SFD. Thus again, the Village Fire Station need be no more of a "headquarters" than any of the other 9 surrounding/compar- able fire stations. Translation: the proposed fire station is overkill! d. Life Under SFI) Dissolution: Let's assume the SFD is dissolved. The Village Fire StatiOn will respond as it would under merger with County Fire. Thus again, the Village Fire Station need be no more ora "headquarters" than any of the other 9 surrounding/comparable fire Stations. Translation: the proposed fire station is overkill! 24 If you give government money, they will find a way to spend it whether or not necessary or. Here there is but one thing the proceeds of Measure F can be spent on; reconstruction of the fire station. If LESS needs to be spent for less fi~ station square footage, then the public is entitled to a refund. Like President Bush, the public is looking to the Council to deliver our request for a refund! sessment and Urges the Counch .o not be "brow beaten" into any develop. _,ent approval that is not in the/ best interests of the citizenry. For instance, a. Waiver: The City Attorney will tell the Council that there is a concept in law called "waiver." Simply stated, when a person consciously i~maores a right readily available in faw>r of another, he/she/it can be held to have waived the former! In this instance the SFD has voluntarily submitted to the City's development processes/jurisdiction. Further, it has asked the Council to treat it the same as it would any other development applicant coming before the Council. Having voluntarily submitted to the City's jur- isdiction, it is the appellant's view the Sled has voluntarily waived any asserted right it may claim to "build whatever it damn well pleases." b. The SFD Needs Something From the City: The facts are clear that for some time the SFD has been encroaching upon City property [the current 7 off street parking spaces behind the fire station for instance]. The SFD is asking for 529 square feet of City property to supplement what it already has/ incorporate that additional square footage in its proposed reconstructed fire station. Ignoring the City's development regulations would be suicidal to its request for 529 square feet of the public's lands, so it won't! c. Politically the SFD Cannot Ignore the City's Development Standards: It is no secret that the very future of the SFD is a heated political issue. With an upcoming election of 2 of the SFD's 3 fire commissioners, it would be political suicide for the SFD to balk at the Council's ultimate decision on the Appeal. d. Conclusion: Please make'the "right" decision on the Appeal without concern for what the SFD may or may not do. VIII. Use Permit Conditions: Regardless of the merits of the Appellant's objections to the ap- plication, there need to be additional conditions imposed which protect the public. As the Council is aware, it has the power under SMC, § 15-65.140(a) to condition the granting of the requested use per- mit, "... as [it] deems necessary or appropriate, including, but not limited to, required improvements or modifications to the property, limitations on hours of operation, limitations on nature of operations, and the construction and dedication of public facilities reasonably related to the continuation of the use..." Therefore, the appellant requests, inclusion of the following conditions: a. Continuing Jurisdiction: SMC, § 15-65.'140(a) states that, "... the [requested] use permit shall ...be revocable and subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the Planning Commission." The requested use permit should be revocable and conditioned upon continuing Planning Commission jurisdiction. b. Number of SFD "Employees:" Because of the aforesaid parking and traffic concerns, apPel- lant suggests that, i) the collective number of SFD "employees" [whether labeled "employees," "volun- teers,'' "interns," "fire commissioners," attorneys or "otherwise"]; and, ii) whether they occupy the for- mer Contempo Realty Building or the reconstructed fire station; iii) shall not exceed the number of off street parking spaces. In fact appellant would suggest there be even more off street parking. As afore- said the Council has the power and should require more than one parking space/SFD employee27. c. The SFD's Use of Off Street Parking: Because of the aforesaid parking concerns, appellant suggests that the SFD should not be permitted to park emergency vehicles in or over any of its off street 27 For instance, where will the public to park, especially for public mee~tings? iv) Equipment intenance: County Fire operates a stz done fire engine mainten- ance facility. Since under the boundary drop agreement with County Fire in essence the SFD's fire en- gines will be used at County Fire facilities responding to County Fire emergency calls, it only makes sense that equipment maintenance be commonly shared. Translation: the SFD does not own a large enough parcel of land to support equipment maintenance; v) Administration: If there be any major change in the way the SFD provides future fire protection services or if the SFD itself merges with County Fire or is dissolved [see paragraphs 7(a) - 7(d) above], the administrative functions it currently performs will become duplicative and unneces- sary. Translation: the SFD will neither require the administrative staffnor more administrative ira-' provement space/overhead in the proposed fire station; and, vi) EWAS: There is an EWAS battle brewing. Simply stated, the SFD has unilaterally declared it can ignore the private sector in mandating EWAS installations/monthly service charges that benefit the SFD as a "for profit" ventUre. Translation: if these services were provided by a private con- cern26, the SFD would neither require the administrative staff nor more administrative improvement space/overhead in the proposed fire station to support EWAS functions. h. The "Core" Station Distinction: The SFD will makefne argument it is a "core" fire station which means it requires twice the fire companies and square footage of an "ordinary" fire station.. First. it is not such a fire station. Under County Fire's proposal for boundary drops, in the future it will be so designated. But more importantly, all a "core" fire station designation really means is that the Village Station always will have at least one fire company in reserve - it has nothing to do with whether or not ~the station acts as a "headquarters." Translation: the proposed fire station is overkill! i. Fire Protection Services Provided by the SFD are No More "Adequate" Than Those Pro- vided by the West Valley Station Which Utilizes a Structure Less Than 20% the Size of the Pro- posed Fire Station: When it comes to comparing fire protection services provided in Saratoga, bigger does not necessarily translate into better! Currently the SFD operates under a "mutual aid" agreement with County Fire. Simply stated whenever the SFD responds to a fire call within its boundaries, County Fire supplements the SFD's efforts under "mutUal aid," and vice versa. As aforesaid, the West Valley Station responds to essentiallY the same number of yearly emergency calls as does the SFD. Assuming the City's residents residing within the Central Fire District are receiving "adequate" fire protection ser~ vice from County Fire, why does the SFD require four times the fire station to deliver the same level of fire protection services to the properties located within its boundaries? Translation: the proposed fire station is overkill! j. Conclusion: The SFD does not operate in a vacuum. Its role is evolving t0the point where it will become part of something much larger; a comprehensive county wide fire protection response.' Al- though 70 years ago there very well may have been a need for the SFD to operate a headqUarters facility, that will no longer be the case in the future! VII. Please Do Not be "Brow Beated" Into an Hasty Decision Not Truly in the Best Interests of the Community: There has been much talk about the SFD being an independent state recognized governmental entity which need not comply with the City's developmental regulations. Appellant has even heard talk that if the City pushes the SFD too far, the latter will simply ignore the City's develop- mental regulations altogether and build whatever fire station it wants. Appellant disagrees with this as- 26 There would be no cost to the SFD per se inasmuch as this equipment, and monitoring would be paid for by the property owners who used them. cations in exterior design as suggested herein which include replacing th,. ,.,'oposed two story structure with a less massive and bulky single story one. Thank you for your collective courtesies and considi~/~ ~ anc~/¢ery truly yours, P.O. Box 116 Saratoga, CA. 9507 l-0116 (408) 741-1008 (408) 741-8927 e-mail- srnarten~.slatr~ps, net parking spaces28 since it will rt,_,,ce the minimum number of available p~, _,ng spaces. Additionally, hone of its "employees" should be allowed to park on any neighbor's [such as the Post Office, Feder- ated Church, Don Whetstone's Office Building across the street from the Post Office, etc.] off street parking spaces. d. The SleD's Use of Off Street Right Away: Similarly, the SFD should not be permitted to park any emergency vehicle [whether an AaMR vehicle or otherwise] to the front or side of the recon- structed fire station. If the SFD has not proposed adequate.off street parking, then the application should be revised 'to provide therefore. Parking emergency vehicles to the front or side of the reconstructed fire . station will have a detrimental effect on traffic flow at this sensitive and very busy intersection adding to what is already a bad traffic situation. e. Future Conveyance of the Former Contempo Realty Building: The applicant should be prohibited fi-om conveying the former Contempo Realty Building to any third person[s] unless: i) ade- quate off street parking in accordance with the City's Municipal Code is conveyed as well; and, ii) what 'remains as the applicant's fire station continues to provide adequate dedicated off street parking in ac- cordance with the City's Municipal Code. f. Future Use of the Former Contempo Realty Building. The applicant should be prohibited from leasing or subleasing [whether formally or informally] all or any portion of the former Contempo Realty Building to a third person[s] unless ADDITIONAL adequate off street parking in accordance with the City's Municipal Code is provided. The SFD represented to the public it required the former Contempo Realty Building funded by Measure F. If this is true, the SFD should be compelled to use the building. If not true, the SFD should be prohibited from using this building for any other purpose. IX. There Are Others Out There Who Support an Intelligently Designed Reconstructed Fire Station, Yet Oppose the Application: The appellant is not the only person who opposes the appli- cation! Besides FACT, the 21 SFD firefighters who authored Exhibit "D" which is attached hereto and Don Whetstone, Muriel Mahrer took the time to write a June 23, 2001 letter to the Planning Commission to voice her opposition! Rather than paraphrasing Ms. Mahrer, another copy of her letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "F" to the Appeal. Prior to the hearing on the Appeal the appellant hopes to be able to provide the names of addi- tional SFD residents in'oppoSition to the application. X. Global Conclusions: From a development standpoint.the application as submitted: a) con- tinues to be far, far too massive; b) it is not compatible in design with the surrounding area; and if ap- proved, c) would have a very negative impact upon the flow of traffic at its very visible and important intersection. The appellant is of the opinion the reconstructed fire station should imbue the "charm" of the Village emphasizing "softer" wood elements/earth tone colors. We now know the proposed second story is completely unnecessary, and the combined 12,756 square feet suggested by the former Contem- po Realty Building [4,250 square feet] complemented by the first floor of the proposed reconstructed fire station [8,506 square feet] when compared to surrounding/comparable fire stations, is well in excess of the reasonable future needs of the SFD. Further, it wastes citizens' tax dollars with no independent oversight. The application as presented should be referred back to the Planning Department for modifi- 28 Remember the applicant has suggested AMR vehicles may very well occupy some of these spaces as a result of admitted fire station design deficiencies [i.e., 3 proposed apparatus bays versus the current 4]. Also with the loss of a front apron, where is the SFD supposed to wash its emergency vehicles? Page 2 Please let me. know if there is any further information I can supply. Best Regards Charles Hackett Charles & Charles 15400 Suview Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 356-2200 fax: 358-6435 email: eharles~,eharlesandeharles.eom Aaron Katz, 6 July 01 You have asked about my dealing with the Saratoga Fire Commission, so here is the sequence as I remember it. I received a preliminary title report in the mail on my Saratoga property at 20473 Saratoga Los Gatos Road. Wondering What was going' on I called the Title Company and asked for the person who put the file together and why it was prepared. The answer was Bob Eagan of Caldwell Banker ordered the title report. I call Mr. Eagan, and over several months and conversations let him know I had no interest in selling the property, but I would lease the Contempo building short or long term, I would remodel or build a new building if required He would have no Part of a rental or lease and the Saratoga Fire Commissioners decided to take the building by eminent domain. There is still pending litigation as a result of their taking. Winchester Station, !-i85C WLv. d-;ester Blvd., Los Ga:os 95C31: Built: !965 $,.ze: 25'_2 so..*:. / 2-bay, $:,ngie ~.~r.. ~,_.-~'.'~d~-.-,u_-: Ow'nershim: Town of Los Gatos. le~ed bv Coumty Fix~ O~-du:-y star-finD Truck 5 - -'., ?a~:..: Condi~o~: ~ Re_nov~ions: None scheduJef,, ms: ;~-m/shower taciiit)' to ~ ~.s:;e:. %'~ roches.,. Blvd., Los Gatos Maintenance fi-top, 14850 ~' ~' bay, sU~e 6~p, ba~ ~, ~ne~: Co~- Fke Shannon Station, 16565 Sha'mon Rd., Los Gatos 95030 Built: Remocieted 1997 $'~e'. 3,i52 sc. ft. (765 s~. ~ ba.~e_"ae_nt'... 2- dr.:v c-C'.rough Ov,~,e.,-shJp: Town of L~s Gatos, leased ~:- Count')' Fire On-ciuc), stMiing: Engine 6 - 3 Condition: Excellen: Renovations: P,l~odel a.nct e,,'~i~r~e (7.:: sc. ~.) ofiiee, kitchen, cio.~ completed ha F:' Craft workers Maintenance Sko~ Built: 1963 (cor, vemion 1994) Size: ~:0 s~. fl. C~'n'er~hip: Town of Los Gatos, leased b)' C~,mt)., Fh-e Condition: Good Monta Vista Station, .2_262'] Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupe:-~mc Built: Replaced FY 97-98 Size: 71C,0 sa. P~ / doubl~bay, ~ers~p: Co~U Fke ~-du~ s~D ~e 7 - 3 Con~on: ~c~t Q'.tito Station, 18870 Saratoga../Los Gatos Rd., Los Garos Built: 1948 Size: 5,.'.~O ~q. fi_ / ~-bay, single CAvnerst-jp: County Fi.re ~ :ong as ugh-.5 £or hte station, if not, re."_'m~ :o 0::~'.'~:2 c '...-:.:: On-duty staf/.mg: Engine 8 - 3 Condition: Fair Renovations: New roof Ff 94-95, kit~.o_n rerr, odel FY 95-96 (SZO,00:.:;, C,c,-~_ r:m2c, c-: T:' 93-99 ($10,0'DD), add res: too=/shower laY OO-O1 (SS0,OOg) West Valley Station, 19800 Co:< Ave., Saratoga 95070 Built: 1965 5Lze: 3,137 sq. ft. / 2-bay, single dee2, back Ch,,merskip: Cotmty FLre On-duty staffing: F_qg'me 9 - 3 Conctiiaon: Good Renovations: Upg'tade to compl7 '.','i5-. ADA and privacy issues, do.,-~_ ar.a 29 sigTtificarttly as cities have con~ue~ to develop. En~-v.e ti, .-pically staffed with three ,/~.,~ been added to the Fire Preven~on Division a fire safe cornmum9'. Preve:,.~,:-, coupled v,,i~ public resulted in/ewer fires r~er :o:'a2ation. improved skies helped to offset increased ~.sk. :-~ue Volunteer Divis'.on positions to augment special sra.FSLng needs. C_ Facilities Cupertino Station, 20215 5revev, s Creek Blvd., Cupe~,nv 5uilt: 194~ 5rze: 56C'O ~c. ~t. / 3-bay, single dee." Owne.-ship: Count' Fire On-ctuty sra.ffing: E.n~me ! - 3. T.-u-k '_ - .i, Pa~ol 1 Condition: Poor 1Kenovetions: Station tobe repiac~. F':' 95-99 w'~th a 12,775 through Seven Sprin~ Station, ~n'~'~',.,~.o~ Seven 5prirtgs Pku?, Curezr.:-.c ~' :_' 7.':.: Built: 1992 Size: :',.'20 ,' 3-bay, doubl~ deep, ' · Ownership: Structure - Court~' Fi:e. La~-,a - Civ,' of Cupertino OnJdu~. staff~.ng: Engine 2 - 3, Haz ~.'.at '- - 2, Battalion 2 - 1, reserve =_--._z-m:- ' '- Condition: ExcelJea~: Renova~ons: None scheduled 3. Los Gatos Station, 306 UrUversit'c Ave., Los Gatos 9.~C30 B'ailt: 1964 5:-ze: 6'212 sz. b. / 2-bay iouble deer. dn.'~-t?.:: Ch~ .-nersh!p: Town of Los Garos, ie-.,s~ ~?' CotmtT On-<lurv sta.ffi.ag: Engine 3 - 3, ?,es,'-ue 3 - ' Battalion 3 - ! Condi~on: Good Renovauoru: Kitchen re-model i~.' 9'.--95 ~553,000), Dorm rest roc=, a,-~vi..n~' .... .'~-~, .z-'...: -.-"'. (S:50,Oo0} Redwood Station, 21452 Mad. tone Dr., Redwood Estates c~,--. .~.-t~.e dee?, back i.n Ownership: 5truct'ures - Co'an~' -=L-e. L~-..d - Redwoocl Mutual Water Co. On-alu ,fy stabS, g: Engine 4 - ~ Condilion: Good Renova~ons: Upgrade :o cvmDlv wi:i: .z. gA and Vrtva~, ~$ues. c~vvz'_, a:.4 '- -: 28 ~8/18/2881 14:33 4888672788 SARATOGA FIRE FEH P.,f': PEERS A 5.)C) ~T ES, INC'. ?3 Not'all Ma=i,.,.", Su',:,;t. Sent' 20..0 .:..m, .]cs:. [=4 05110 To: David Anderson, Ci.ty Manager. Ci,.'y of Saratoga Joh~ Cherbone, Pt,bile Works Dir~tor, City of Saratoga From: $okrab Raslad Date: ~.ugust 10, 2001 Subject: Proposed l~eptae~me.t of $aratogtt Fire Station- Fn[O?c As~e~sntent of Temporar), Opt, ratfon.~ and,41ternate ,4cce~,v on SR 9 g~ & P.-.t...~ ,kssociatcs. inc, bas eon~i~ed a preliminary.' assessment of the proposed m~ornry ~e~ion of ~e fi~ station in [he ~iafing Conl~po R~lty building, An ass~smenv of pe~anentiy relncating the fi~ sati~ accel to S~ Los Gatos Road (SR 9} south_of S~aioga A~mue w~ also complete. ~is m~momnaum pwscnts our initial findings ~d conclusions ~lat~ Io ~th sciatic. Tempornry Acces., Undvr die ~;u,-'rent plan, emergency response operations will temporarily be relocatexl to thc Contempo building located south of'the exir..ing station. Access to the Contempo Building eun'ently ~rovide by two drivewayn on guratoga. Los Gatos Road located approximately 300 and 370 fe~ south of Saratol~a Avmnu~.Big Basin Way. Fire vcb. iele~ and ambulances will be storm around the Contempo building. Thc southernmost driveway will serve inbound traffic only. £m~r~ncy vehicles will enter the 'site fi'om the existing driveway on SR g m~d exit the ~;ite via the driveway locatod ~ o£the Po.~ Office. A figure iU. ustratJng this access se. hinge is included as E~hibi! I. Our pr=liminary review of this configuration rcsuhed i. the ¢ollowin8 findings and conclusions: SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT August 28.2001 Dave Anderson Saratoga City Manager 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga. CA 95070 Dear Dave: . We request the following four documents be included as attachments to the staff report being prepared for the fire station appeal hearing September 5, 2001. Each is relevant to the hearing and adds perspective to the issues being considered. A suitable number of copies accompany this letter. Enclosed are the following: '4. T~e floor plan of the new station's equipment bay shOwing the placement of our current apparatus. The floor plan of the new station's equipment bay showing the placement of the apparatus anticipated in support of the boundary drop. Schematics showing the turning radius for each major piece of current and anticipated apparatus as it enters Saratoga Avenue. This document also provides an overview of the new station's placement on the parcel including curbing and sidewalks. The Fehr & Peer assessment of traffic conditions around the station and their preference for access on Saratoga Avenue. Thank vou for vour cooperation. Sincerely. Hugh Hexamer. Commissioner Enclosures CC: Chief Kraule Fire Commissioners ~ 08/10/~001 14: 4088G72780 SARATOGA FIRE [:EHR ,".,'r, Pt= F. RS A55OCL&'I'ES, INC.. Emerge.~cy vehi¢l~ d~parllI18 t~ ~mpotary rice at,hun m fl~e Cont~nipo building could ~il ~ ,xi~tin~ P~ Offiz, ~v~ay without ~airmg any ~uh~tamial modifi~flon~ Io ~ffi~ tonal on S~atoga Avmue. ,xisting ~trol of th, ~ffie ~i~i at ~e adj~e~t interaction ~muld be m,m~n~ wi~ the t~por~ .fi~ ~mtion. The ,onm] tins ail light~ red ~e~ for w~tbo~d S~atoga Avm~ ~o ~t amomobil~ ,an mo~'e out of the of ~itlg~ ~ff~f v~iele~. A~ord~g m the Fire ~hief, ~}s op~ation ~i~mg "No U-Tam' si~ at this Post Offioe ~nvew~y ~houtd bc relocated mmi~ze dfiv~ ~ght dis~, m~ n~ '~tch far En~erg~cy Vekicles" (or ~uiv~,nt) ~ should ~ ~ on S~at0gs Avenue in bo~ di~.fions. Dnv~s of exiting ~8~cy vebi:l~ should ~ in;~cted to ~ acutely t~'~c of ped~s wal~ng on th, sidewa~ ~m the Porn Office no~erly on S~,t°ga Avmue. Sounding ~ ~ while ~a~g Smtoga Avmue to warn ped~m~s is ~so ~vis~. Vehiel~ reuming m thc sim ~e not ~ected m ~ve ~y difficully emefi~ the from SR 9 since the d6v~y is lo~t~ o~ite O~ S~et aed r~es~:~ a ~ic~ condition tom a ~v~'s p~h~. Ilow~cr, no~bo~d t~c oflci~ qumm back t~m ~c ~c si~al p~ Oak S~ct on SR 9 dm~g thc morning hour. To minimi,~ ~ p~a) fo, delay io vehicles r~ming imo thc dfiv~ay. "Do Not Bilk bisection" si~s should bc i~tall~ for noah~und traffic or a "K~p Cic~" d~i~afion ~ould ~nted in t~ n~h~und di~ction. Saratoga. Los Gatos Read. ($R 9) Aeec~ alternate plan fo? repLace, men! of the fire station hs.~ be~n proposed. ~is ~t~a, sch~ involv~ cc,stmctin8 a new fire ration in ~: g~e~ vic~ty of the Cont~npo b~Idmg, With ~s layom. ~e ~v~ay semag the 6m station's v~hicle bays would be io~t~l oa 5aatoga-Los Oatos Ro~ (SRO). The aa~on m~ or may ao~ include pull- l~ou~ ~ for 6m station vehicl~ depmdinff on the config~ation of ~¢ ~t of thc site. Wt~out pull-t~ugh ace,s, ~8ines would be r~quir~d to ha¢k into ba~ and emerff~ncy pe~o,ncl would he r~tfir~ to st~ ~ffic o~ SR. 9 ~imil~ to ~i~ng op~afion, on S~m~ A~ue. Al~ou~ a d~lcd sit: pl~ h~ not ~e~ d,~l~g fo: ~s .al~a~ scheme, we have d~elop~ the f~llowi~ ~limin~ findinp ~ collusions: Any n~,v fire station driveway on Saratoss-L~s Gates Drive would bt'. located between Oak Str~.et and the existing raised me, dian on SR 9. Thi~ location would provide for maximum sight distance in both direct:oas and would help to minimize the impacts of vehicl~ queues at thc nearby traffic si&mai except during Ihe .~M'Vl peak hour wht:n lengthy northbound queues form. 08/18,'2081 4888672788 S~TOG~ FIRE FEi.! R,~-PEER, q'~" ' ...... · L..'E. LIATE~. IN(:. Locating the SR 9 driveway opposite the Oak Stte,.r apvmach would st~ll r¢,ult in ~ off, et ofne~ly 30 feet (i.~., the no~h~mo~ ~ of ~he ~vewav ~uld be 30 feet no~h otdm Oak St~t appro~ md not directly opposite the With pmpe~ silage ~d ~mpmg~ a~ possibly an ~erg~cy si~al, access ~om a n~w fire s~ti~ ~ SR 9 could be ph~icaily ~ded. At a minimum, a Clc~" desig~tion would have to ~ naint~ in ~e no~bo~d dJrectiou on SR 9 and '~Vatch for Eme~cy Vcl~cles" ~i~s would have, ~ be ¢osI~ in boLE d~mctioils. Wi~ tM ~iaing $amloF~ ~vanue dnv~,~y, 62 p~ent of respons~ r~quimd ~e~cy v~i~l~ to ~v61 l~ou~l the a4jacent sibmal ;zed according to 600 ~-.to-~t~ app~ms re~ons~ m 2001. ~vewav ace,s; ~:~ SR 9 would ~u~ em~g~ey vehiel~ r~ding to 88 p~aenr of all ealt~ ~o pass through the ~affic signal. ~e mmbin~l ~o-way ~ volume m ~ont of ~e SR 9 tim station driveway is a? p~t ~d 55 pem,nt hi~,r ~m &~ volme in ~onl or irc existing ,Saraoga Avenue d~v~ay dunng the AM ~d PM pe~ ho~s ~speclive!y. not,d above, no~hbound queuing on SR 9 often extends south nf Oak dtmng lhc &M ~¢lk h~r. For the SR 9 ~ivmy, i~ is a~m~ ~a ~e ~xisting si~ p~-cmpfion be recall.fled ~ch ~t ~i si~s ~ ~ to clear no~hbomd vehicle, on SR 9 duNng an m~rgenzy rssp~s~. How~,~r. th~s would roqutre at le~t 32 vehicl~ in hvo I~es to move oul of ~ wsy, ~ op~sed tc~ 8 vehicl~ m iwo }~ the erd~ing Sa~toga Avenue d~v,wsy. Obsm, M ~avet ~e~ds am hi~ on the no~bo~d ;eetion of gR 9 .~ come,ed !o wes~ound Saratoga Av~u, b,~ause of thc-cringe in ch~'~tcr of the m~way ~d ire do,hill g~ to~ ~c ~c si~al at Saratoga Argue. No~hbo~d vehicles on SR 9 ~ ~rnveling at 35 miles p~ hour ~r mor, ~ they ~pm~ tho ill~a~ site ~sy. ~vc~ of westbound vehicles on S~aloga Avenue tend to slow m they ~a~ Big B~ Way ~d ~ Village area. ~c higher svccds would mat~ sto~ing ~c on'SR 9 mom diffizult pull.through ~cess ls nat provided at lh~ alt~ate fi~ station ~Jle. Although d~veway acc~s could bc p~id~ at bo~ locafio~ ~c access on S~toga Av~oe is ptef~ b~usc of low~ ov~ ~c volum~, sh~cr 0ue,cs m cl~r a ~ sig~l, lower travel ~s on the m~way in of ~c fi~ stsfion, and f~v~ ~erg~cy vehicl~ that must ~vel through thc traffic si~ul. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Azule Park - Approval of Master Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Approve Azule Park Master Plan. REPORT SUMMARY: Background For many years the residents in the Azule area have patiently waited for a neighborhood park to be constructed at the undeveloped Azule park site. Recently, the City Council directed staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission to develop a master plan for a new park at the March 27 joint meeting. The following is a summary of the process from the Council/Commission joint meeting to tonight's meeting: · April 18 · May 7 · May 11 - · May 31 - · June 4 - · June 25 · July 16 · August 6 - City coUncil approves consultant proposal to develop Azule Park Master Plan. Parks & Recreation Commission reviews and approves Azule neighborhood survey letter. Survey letters mailed to Azule neighborhood.. Survey letters received fi.om Azule neighborhood. Initial neighborhood meeting held to discuss conceptual Master Plan with landscape architect and Parks and Recreation Commission. Azule Park draft Master Plan reviewed with Azule neighborhood and Parks and Recreation Commission. Revised draft Master Plan reviewed with Azule neighborhood and Parks and Recreation Commission. Final Azule Park Master Plan reviewed with Azule neighborhood and Parks and Recreation Commission. Discussion The develOpment of the proposed master plan for Azule Park was a successful collaboration between the Azule residents and the City. The plan incorporates a broad spectrum of amenities such as: · Tennis Courts (replaces courts lost at Congress Springs Park) · Children's Playground Areas · Horseshoe Facilities · Vollyball Area · Open Play Areas · Picnic Facilities · Perimeter Pathways · Attractive Landscaping As stated above, the proposed Master Plan incorporates a variety of amenities that all of Saratoga residents can enjoy while maintaining the request of the Azule residents that the park site be developed into a neighborhood park. It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Azule Park Master Plan. FISCAL IMPACTS: The preliminary cost estimate for the development and implementation of the master plan is $850,000, which is included in the proposed five-year C.I.P. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The Azule Park Master Plan would not be approved and the project would not move forward. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): Council may wish to change aspects of the plan or place conditions on its development. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): The project will move forward per the proposed C.I.P. schedule and funding constraints. 2 of 3 ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Azule Park Master Plan. 3 of 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Heritage Orchard - Approval of Master Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Approve Heritage Orchard Master Plan. REPORT SUMMARY: In order to ensure the long-term health and character of the Heritage Orchard, the Heritage Commission has been working over the past few months on a comprehensive Orchard Master Plan (see attached Master Plan). The document provides guidelines for renovation of the existing orchard and for well and irrigation improvements. The document sets out the following goals for the Heritage Orchard: 1. -Preserve the orchard as a functioning agrarian use. 2. Provide educational opportunities to learn about agricultural history in the area and orchard management and operations. 3. Maximize views of the orchard from the surrounding area to insure the orchard is an important part of the community's image. 4. Minimize intrusion of site improvements into the orchard that may disrupt orchard maintenance operations or impact the 'natural appearance' of the orchard. 5. Ensure the orchard is maintained in optimum health by implementing necessary orchard maintenance and replacement programs. 6. Implement a tree adoption program. The implementation of the Heritage Orchard Master Plan will occur in phases over a number of years. Phase I Capital Improvements will include: · Remove existing dead orchard trees: $33,750 · Plant new orchard trees (450): $45,000 · Irrigation System: $95,000 · Well/Booster Pump: $41,000 · Electrical: $5,000 · Orchard Monument Sign: $7,000 · Design/Construction Contingency: $45,350 Total: $272,100 The cost to implement Phase I is included in the proposed five-year C.I.P. Future Phase Improvements: · Adopt a tree program development · Maintenance/Bam construction · Ongoing orchard tree replacement as required The City's Heritage Orchard is an important element of Saratoga's past and to ensure that its viability lasts well into the future it is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Heritage Orchard Master Plan. FISCAL IMPACTS: The preliminary cost estimate for the development and implementation of Phase I of the master plan is $272,100, which is included in the proposed five-year C.I.P. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The Heritage Orchard Master Plan would not be approved and the project would not move forward. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): Council may wish to change aspects of the plan or place conditions on its development. 2 of 3 FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): The project will move forward per the proposed C.I.P. schedule and funding constraints. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Heritage Orchard Master Plan. 3 of 3 08/31/2001 10:14 FAX 1 925 736 8184 GATES & ASSOCIATES OO2 Heritage Orchard Master Plan Saratoga, California David Gates & Associates AuguSt, 2001 ~ o8/31/2OOl 10:14 FAX 1 925 736 8184 GATES & ASSOCIATES [~003 Heritage Orchard Master Saratoga, California Plan Acknowledgements City Council Mayor John Mehaffey Vice Mayor Nick Slreit Councilman Stan Bogosian Coundlman Ann Wallonsmith Councilman Evan Baker Heritage Preservation Commission Norman Koepemik, Chair Dora Grens Carolyn King Willys Peck Robert Peepari Beth Wyman City Staff City Manager: David Anderson Public Works Director: John Cherbone Staff Support: John Livingstone 08/31/2001 10:14 FAX 1 925 736 8184 GATES &.ASSOC!~TES 004 Purpose of Document In order to ensure the long-term viability of Saratoga's Heritage Orchard, the Heritage Commission has prepared an Orchard Master Plan. This document provides for the renovation of the existing orchard and sets out guidelines to control future' uses in the interest of minimizing disruption of the existing character or health of the orchard. Context The Heritage Orchard is an approximately 18-acre site at the comer of Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue. The orchard is currently comprised of Prune, Apricot, and Cherry trees. Historically, the orchard was made up primarily of Apricot trees, which still comprise approximately half of the trees in the orchard. A substantial block of Prune trees occupies the western edge of the site. In the last seven years, Cherry trees have been planted along the northern edge of the site to provide greater flexibility in responding to market crop values. Overtime, a number of trees in the orchard have died or declined. A substantial number of trees need to be replanted to maintain the orchard in a healthy condition. Currently, the orchard is irrigated using a tempo~ry system. Irrigation lines are manually laid out on top of the ground to provide flood irrigation to four rows of orchard trees and then relocated to the next four rows of orchard trees. Using this labor intensive approach, the trees are watered four to six times per year from a metered source. The Saratoga Library is located in the North corner of the orchard facing Saratoga Avenue. The Proposed library expansion will necessitate the removal of some orchard trees to accommodate the building and parking expansion. Sixty-two of the removed trees have been transplanted to other locations in the orchard. An additional 140 orchard trees will be planted as a part of the separate library expansion project. These trees will be primarily located in the triangle olrthe Saratoga/Fruitvale intersection and along Saratoga Avenue with the remainder being planted the immediate perimeter of the-library. SARATOGA HERI'I:AGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN I 08/31/2001 10:14 FAX i 925 736 8184 GATES & ASSOC~ATE$ ~005 Goals The following goals have been identi6ed for the Saratoga Heritage Orchard: 1. Preserve the orchard as a functioning agrarian use. Provide educational opportunities to learn about agricultural history in the area and orchard management and operations. Maximize views of the orchard from the surrounding area to insure the orchard is an important part of the community's image. Minimize intrusion of site improvements into orchard that may disrupt orchard maintenance operations or impact the 'natural appearance' of the orchard. Ensure orchard is maintained in optimum ,health by implementing necessary orchard maintenance and replacement programs.. 6. Implement a tree adoption program. Fiew of existing orchard from Saratoga Avenue Znrry driveway Access dirt road to barn site Apricot trees along existing parking SARATOGA HERITAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN 2 08/31/2001 10:15 FAZ 1 925 736 8184 GATES & ASSOCIATES OO6 Recommendations In developing the master plan the Heritage Preserv~on Committee reviewed a number of issues assodated with the orchard from permitted uses to long-term maintenance approach. The following recommendations summarize their input on the ran§e of issues. Replace orchard trees that have died or am in substantial decline. The orchard is comprised of 3 distinct groups of trees-ApriCOts, Prunes and Chert7 trees, This diversity enhances the community enjoyment of the orchard by extending the period in which trees are blooming in the orchard. The diversity also facilitates orchard management with the staging of harvest time for the various fruits. The mix of fruit trees allow "averaging" the crop value from year to year as the price and productivity of the fruit crops will vary. Currently, there are 298 dead or missir~ trees, 15~, are in severe decline and in need of replacement, and an additional 10 trees which will potentially need to be replaced in the next 5 years. Location of replacement tree species should be consistent with the existin§ trees in the various sections of the orchard. William Coates, Farm Advisor (Tree Fruit and Nut Crops) with the University of California Cooperative Extension, has provided the following recommendations for spedes selection when replantin§ the orchard: · Apricot: Bleinhien or Marianna Rootstock 2624 · Prune: French Prune or Marianna 2624 or Moroblin 29C Rootstock · Cherry: Bing Cherry with Black Tartarion or Von Pollinizers or Colt or Mazzard Rootstock Heritage Orchard Stats Existing Tree Inventory Henlth'~ Tree Cano ,y Quarter Half Three Full Young Sub- Dead Total Quarters Trees* Total Trees ApriCOts 25 45 7 305 168 550 200 750 Cherries 0 0 0 0 314 314 61 375 -- Prunes 44 40 3 73 105 265 34 299 Total 1424 _ · Trees under 7 years old Retai,n existing health of non-orchard trees. A number of native oaks and other trees interspersed throughout the orchard, while their existing trees are not typically found in a commercial orchard ns they compete with the fruit trees in sun and space. The Heritage Preservation Committee'felt it is important to retain these trees ns a part of the sites history, However, only orchard trees will be planted in the orchard in the future. SARATOGA HEIUTAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN 3 08/31/2001 10:16 FA2[. 1 925 736 8184 GATES & ASSOCIATES ~007 Provide informal pedestrian paths in orchard. Pedestrian paths in the orchard shall have minimal impact on the natural appearance of the orchard and not interfere with maintenance. Pedestrian access through the orchard should be limited to hard packed, dirt paths created by dragging or rolling a disced area to create an even smoother surface. Paths will need to be recreated each year. Install a permanent irrigation system in the orchard. A permanent spray irrigation system should be provided to water the orchard trees. The irrigation system should be designed to achieve maximum watering efficiency through head to head coverage. The system should be laid outto work with the discing pattern between the orchard rows. The system should be designed to work with both a metered water source or a well system. A permanent system will minimize the labor associated with the current temporary irrigation system approach and to provide greater flexibility with watering in response to predpitation pattems and indMdual tree needs. Install a well with a booster pump for irrigation water supply. In order to reduce the city's reliance on and the expense of a metered water source, the city should initiate the process of implementing a well system. Preliminary information would seem to indicate a well system at this site would be successful. A test well needs to be drilled to confirm the feasibility of a well system for irrigation use. If the well system feasibility is confirmed, a booster pump or holding tank system should be designed to accommodate irrigation supply demand. Construct a "barn" to house orchard maintenance equipment and provide a focus for education programs. The maintenance barn should be located in the existing open area in the eastern portion of the site at the end of the existing access road. In addition to storage the barn could also be used as a garnering area for docent educational programs about the orchard. The barn would be approximately 40'x 80' and house all maintenance equipment and supplies stored on site. No outdoor storage would be allowed. The character of the barn should be consistent with the historic character of the orchard. (Public restrooms would not be provided in the barn area.) Design of the barn would be subject to review by the city. A gravel forecourt would provide all-weather access to the barn. The gravel area should be a minimized size for barn uses. Access to the barn should be via the existing access road and would only be used for orchard maintenance. Access to the barn for educational purposes would be via the pedestrian pathways. A water tower could also be located in this area to provide a visual landmark. SARATOGA HERITAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN 4 08/31/2001 10:16 FAX 1 925 736 8184 GATES & ASSOCIATES______ ~008 g~ Implement an adoption program for orchard trees. In order to increase community involvement in the orchard preservation and to off set some of the orchard maintenance costs. The commission would like the City to implement a tree adoption program. While the details of the program would need to be refined, the commission envisions a freestanding kiosk to be used to identify individual adopted trees rather than plaques scattered throughout the orchard. Pedestrian access through the orchard would be created by discing the rolling paths between the rows, parallel to the irri~tion lines. Provide sign to identify "Heritage Orchard". Sign should be located at the Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenue intersection. The design of the sign should be visually consistent with the agrarian theme similar to "rock wall" Saratoga entry monument. Sign should be sited to avoid both conflict with sightlines and orchard operations. Kiosk should be visually consistent with the orchard area. SARATOGA HERITAGE ORCMARD MASTER PLAN S 08/31/2001 ~009 10:16 FAX 1 925 736~ 8184 GATES & ASSOCIATES Implementation Phasing: The implementation of the Master Plan will occur over a number of years. In addition to the ongoing management strategies, there are a number of capital improvements, which are a part of the master plan. The phase I improvements should be undertaken in the next year to insure the continuing health of the orchard. Phase I Capital Improvements · Replace missing or dead orchard trees · Install a permanent irrigation system · Explore feasibility of a well and install well system as appropriate · Construct orchard sign Future Phase Improvements · Adopt a tree program development · Maintenance 'Barn" construction · Ongoing orchard tree replacement as required Phase II Schedule: Typically orchard trees are planted in January from bare root stock and ordered in fall. Consequently, in order to maintain the schedule, it will be important to initiate the project in a timely manner. A~I other improvements such as well and irrigation system could be installed subsequent to planting. Order bare root trees October 200 I Initiate well te~ and install well and pumps Oct./November 2001 Plant bare root trees January 2002 Prepare construction documents for irrigation system January 2002 Obtain bids for installation of irrigation system/award contract Febi'uary 2002 Install irrigation system March 2002 Design and install orchard si§n April 2002 Initiate adopt-a-tree program July 2002 SARATOGA HERITAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN 6 08/31/2001 10:16 FAX 1 925 736 8184 GATES & ASSOCIATES ~010 · Phase I Construction Costs_:_ The city council will need to allocate funds for Phase t improvements as follows. The following Phase I' costs are anticipated: Item Unit Cost Cost Remove Existing Dead Trees / stumps (450) $75/tree $33,750 Assorted Orchard Fruit Trees (450) $ 100/tree $45,000 Irrigation System Lump sum $95,000 -Booster PumpANell Lump sum $41,000 Electrical Lump sum $5,000 _ Orchard Monument Sign I $7,000 Subtotal $226,750 Contingency 20% $45,350 __ Total $272, 100 SARATOGA HERITAGE ORCHARD MAb-['ER PLAN 7 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation PREPARED BY.~~~'~ AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Establishment of New Commission RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): 1. Adopt resolution establishing a new Commission with an emphasis on the arts. 2. Select name for Commission. REPORT SUMMARY: On August 15, 2001 the City Council voted to establish a Commission to promote and support an increase emphasis on the arts in Saratoga. The Council was interested in a variety of programs, including an increase in visual art displays in public buildings, support of drama and music activities and a greater involvement of children in art programs. This new Commission will also be asked to establish a City policy on accepting donated art Recommended names are either City of Saratoga Cultural Arts Commission or City of Saratoga Arts Commission. The Council felt the number of members of this group be set at seven. FISCAL IMPACTS: Amount of staff time to support this new Commission is unknown at this time. Time allocated will depend on the goals set by members once the Commission is formed. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): NA ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): NA FOLLOW UP ACTION: Advertise for Commission openings, interview candidates and appoint members. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution establishing a new Commission RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING THE SARATOGA ARTS COMMISSION WHEREAS, on August 15, 2001 the Saratoga City Council voted to promote and support an increase emphasis on the arts in Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the establishment of the Saratoga Arts Commission is now in order; and WHEREAS, the Arts Commission shall consist of seven members, who shall be residents of the City of Saratoga. Members of the Arts Commission shall be appointed by Council. At least four members of the Commission shall be appointed to serve four-year overlapping terms. Upon initial appointments the City Council shall designate the order of terms. The term of office of the members of the Arts Commission shall be four years and shall end on April 1, 2005. No Commissioner shall serve more than two consecutive terms, except that a Commissioner that has been appointed by the Council to fill an unexpired term may serve two terms following the expiration of the term to which he or she was initially appointed; and WHEREAS, the Commission is an advisory agency to the City Council. The Arts Commission is not authorized to set policy or give direction to City staff. The Commission is authorized to investigate, review, and analyze issues and make recommendations to the City Council. WHEREAS, the Saratoga Arts Commission shall elect its Chairperson and Vice-chairperson from among its members and shall appoint a secretary. Terms of the chair and vice-chair shall be for one year and shall be completed on April 1; and WHEREAS, the Arts Commission shall establish a regular time and location for its meetings and shall otherwise call and conduct its meetings in compliance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54952 and following) and abide by State law. Meetings of the Commission shall be once monthly on a regular schedule to be determined by the Commission. Study sessions and special meetings may be set by the presiding officer. A majority of the Arts Commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting the business of the Commission; and WHEREAS, the Commission shall keep an accurate record of its proceedings and transactions and be kept and filed with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the powers of the Arts Commission shall be to foster, encourage, and assist the realization, preservation, and advancement of the arts for the benefit of the citizens of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, Members of the Arts Commission shall serve without compensation, but all necessary expenses reasonably incurred by them while acting in their official duty shall be paid by appropriate action by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby establishes an Arts Commission. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall review the effectiveness and progress of the Commission after one year of its operation. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the5th day of September 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mayor Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING~er PREPARED ~ ¥l: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Designation Of Voting Delegate For League Of California Cities Annual Conference RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council reconsider their decision on the voting delegate for the City of Saratoga. REPORT SUMMARY: At its August 15, 2001 City Council meeting, the City Council appointed Tom Sullivan, Director of Community Development was appointed the voting delegate and Dave Anderson, City Manager, was appointed as the alternate for the League of California Cities annual conference on September 12 through September 25, 2001. Unfortunately staff was unaware of the fact that Councilmember Bogosian would be attending the conference and has requested that the City Council reconsider their appointment and delegate him as the City's voting delegate for the conference. The League bylaws provide that each city is entitled to one vote in matters effecting municipal or League policy. The deadline to return the "Voting Delegate Form" to the League of California Cities was August 17, 2001. Staff has contacted the League and has gained permission to change the voting delegate if Council desires. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Tom Sullivan, Director of Community Development, would represent the City of Saratoga. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Fax revised "Voting Delegate Form" to the League of California Cities. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Revised form. 2 of 2 Incorporated October 22, 1956 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE ° SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 ° (408) 868-1200 COUNCIl. MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey Nick Strei! Ann Wa/tonsmith September 6, 2001 League of California Cities Attention: Lorraine Okabe 1400 K Street Sacramento CA 95814 RE: VOTING DELEGATE FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE Dear Ms. Okabe: Enclosed is an amended "Voting Delegate Form" appointing Councilmember Stan Bogosian voting delegate for the City of Saratoga for the Leagues annual conference. Should you have any questions please feel free to call me at (408) 868-1269. t~,incerely, Boyer, CMC ~ .... City Clerk Eric. Printed on recycled paper. CITY: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 2001 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE FORM 1. VOTING DELEGATE: Stan Bogosian, City Councilmember 2. VOTING ALTERNATE: Dave Anderson, City Manager ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: City Attorney SUBJECT: Saratoga Fire District Request for Boundary Line Adjustment RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Direct staff regarding boundary line adjustment. STAFF REPORT: The existing Saratoga Fire District fire station encroaches on the City property between the fire station and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The design of the new fire station requires a small amount of additional land. The total amount of land required to compensate for the existing and proposed encroachment is approximately 529 square feet. The Fire District has offered lands that it owns in front of the fire station in exchange for the land needed for the boundary adjustment. There are two options for the City's response to this request. First, if the City Council approves the design of the proposed fire station and believes it is in the public interest to facilitate City development 'of the new fire station in accordance with that design, the City Council could direct staff to proceed immediately with the boundary adjustment. Staff believes that the land the District has available to offer for exchange would be of little benefit to the City and would increase the burden of maintaining a separate small parcel of City property. Staff also believes that if the City Council approves the design of the proposed fire station it would be reasonable for the City to facilitate development of the fire station in accordance with that design by conveying the land to the Fire District at a nominal cost. Accordingly, if the Council wishes to proceed immediately with the transfer, staff recommends that the Council direct staff to prepare a resolution authorizing the transfer in exchange for one dollar. Alternatively, the Council may choose to defer action on the boundary line adjustment request pending a final report from the Mayor's ad hoc committee on the Public Safety Center Feasibility Study. If the Council believes that the Study will produce information relevant to determining the benefits associated with the boundary line adjustment or that the adjustment would interfere with the work of the ad hoc committee, the Council may prefer to take no action on the adjustment at this time. In that case, staff recommends that the Council direct staff to present the proposed boundary line adjustment to the ad hoc committee. FISCAL IMPACTS: None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice for this meeting. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: City staff to implement Council direction. ATTACHMENTS: None 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ~ ORIGINATING DEPT.: Ci_ty Manager's Office CITY MANAGER: ~~~ PREPARED BY: Danielle Surdin, Econ. Dev. Coord. DEPT. HE~(~. ~_/.~' ~,~ ~'-; SUBJECT: Approval of Village Decorative Lighting Guidelines & Funding RECOMMENDED ACTION (S) 1. Move to approve guidelines for Village lighting 2. Move to authorize City Manager to contract with KC Enterprises REPORT SUMMARY: Background In 1994 Village merchants decided to try and improve the downtown area by purchasing pole-mounted holiday wreaths for the downtown light poles and commercial grade decorative lighting for the Village street trees. Ms. Donna Collins, a local Village merchant, was designated the liaison to these efforts and has purchased, installed, and maintained these lights and wreaths as needed. Ms. Collins has done this through merchant donations and personal finances. In the fiscal year of 2001-2002, the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce awarded $7,000 dollars to Ms. Collins to cover the cost of the pole-mounted wreaths during the holiday season. The City of Saratoga has supported merchant efforts to improve the downtown by covering electricity costs for the decorative lighting, and assisted Ms. Collins during the holiday season by installing the wreaths on the downtown light poles. To date, the City of Saratoga has no official decorative lighting guidelines for the Village, and local merchants have funded the lights and wreaths that currently exist. The current state of the Village tree lighting consists of non-energy efficient decorative lighting placed intermittently throughout the trees. The lights installed on the Village street trees are in the lower branches of trees in the C-1 zone and consist of large commercial grade C-9 bulbs that use 5-watts of energy per bulb. These bulbs are not energy efficient and cannot be utilized to light the entire downtown if we were to fully light each tree. Village Lighting Guidelines Energy Issues In March 2001, Govemor Gray Davis issued an Executive Order Implementation Plan D- 19-01 to discourage the use of decorative lighting in the business/retail districts. Though there is no particular statute on decorative lighting, many California cities have discontinued the use of this lighting until the energy situation has been stabilized. Other Cities Many cities bordering Saratoga and throughout California have set time limits and seasonal guidelines for decorative and/or holiday lighting; purchased consistent lighting styles for the trees and/or poles, and have either city staff or paid contractors responsible for installation and maintenance. The following is a list of cities that provide this service for their downtown: City of Palo Alto Downtown street tree lighting with "Mini-lights" is permitted all year round with hours of operation limited to 6 p.m. - 1 a.m. c> Tree lights are purchased by the City of Palo Alto o Installation of lights are done through contract work, paid for by the City of Palo Alto Town o of Los Gatos "Mini-lights" are permanently installed year round with hours of operation limited to 7 p.m. - 12 a.m. Lights are purchased by the Town of Los Gatos and installed by the Public Works Department City of Los Altos o "Mini-lights" are installed the last week of October and removed the first weekend after New Years o Downtown lights are purchased and installed by the Downtown Merchant Association City of San Juan Capistrano Lights and pole-mounted seasonal banners are installed the day after Thanksgiving and removed the first weekend after New Years o Lights and pole-mounted banners are installed by the City's Public Works Department o Decorative lights and pole-mounted banners are purchased by the City of San Juan Capistrano Village Lighting Guidelines Town of Danville o 17 large oak trees are lit with "Mini-lights" in the historic downtown area between the day after Thanksgiving to the middle of January The City contracts for maintenance provided by a private contractor The lights are on a timer operation from dusk to midnight each night The.town of Danville has a tree lighting ceremony that attracts thousands of visitors each year, the day after Thanksgiving. After the tree lighting ceremony, downtown merchants hold an open house and provide hot cider and cookies as a kick off for the holiday shopping season. This event is much like the Christmas open house sponsored by our Village merchants on the same day in November. Guidelines Two decorative lighting options were presented at the Saratoga Business Development Committee (SBDC) on July 31, 2001. Option 1 consisted of the purchase and installation of commercial grade lighted wreaths to adorn the city light posts at all four major intersections along Big Basin Way, and the first two light poles entering the Village. These wreaths would supplement Ms. Collins' wreaths. Option 2 included replacement of existing tree lights with "Mini-Lights" purchased and installed by the City of Saratoga throUgh the Economic Development Program. Option 2 was the choice preferred by the SBDC and the following guidelines were proposed: · Lights will be utilized year round during regulated evening hours o Regulated summer hours of 7 p.m. - 11 p.m. o Regulated winter hours of 6 p.m. - 11 p.m. · · All lights will be connected to the City timer · Lights will be purchased by the City of Saratoga · Lights will be installed by lighting vendor and maintained through cooperation of the lighting vendor and City staff · The City of Saratoga will assume the cost of electricity as is the current pracitce FISCAL IMPACTS Several vendors in the northem California area were contacted for bids but the City received only two. Both vendors specified that if this project were to be installed in time for this holiday season, purchasing of the product would need to take place before October 1, 2001. There are a total of ninety-eight (98) village trees located along Big Village Lighting Guidelines FISCAL IMPACTS (CONTINUED) Basin Way. For bidding purposes the trees have been divided into three categories small, medium, and large. The following is a breakdown on the cost: KC Enterprises # Of Light Cost per Cost Per Tree Total Strands Strand 35 Small 6 sets $10.50 $65.00 x 35 (t) $2275.00 58 Medium 12 sets $10.50 $126.00 x 58 (t) $7308.00 5 Large 24 sets $10.50 $252.00 x 5 (t) $1260.00 73 Extension $6.50 each $474.50 Cords Subtotal $11,317.50 Sales Tax $933.70 $12251.12 Less 10% 1225.11 Discount $11026.01 Installation Cost: $8575.00 For (98) Village' Trees: (8 7. 50 per tree) Shipping Cost $500.00 Overall Project $21,500 Cost Annual Costs/Additional Costs Annual and additional costs will consist of nominal ongoing maintenance fees (10.50 per · strand for replacement and staff time for the installation of the new strand) and electricity cost. The City of Saratoga has provided the electricity for the downtown lights in the past out of the Landscape and Lighting District Fund/Village Lighting District, past accounts show a yearly charge of approximately $3,600. Staff had also contacted surrounding cities that utilize the "Mini-lights" for decorative lighting; they were unable to provide a cost breakdown on electricity. It should be noted, that with the installation of the new "Mini-Lights", the old 5-watts per C-9 bulb will be reduced to .5-watts per bulb on the new mini light, thus providing lower electricity cost than currently incurred by the City. Funding will be through the Economic Development Program's Contract Services Account. Sufficient funds are available in this account to cover the initial installation costs and ongoing maintenance cost. Village Lighting Guidelines CONSEQUENCES OF NOT -ACTING Delays the overall beautification of the Village and no decorative lighting guidelines will exist. ALTERNATIVES 1. Postpone the purchase of lights until the energy crisis is resolved. 2. Create different lighting patterns to utilize fewer trees, thus decreasing the overall cost assumed by the City i.e., light every other tree or intersections only. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS 1. Contract with the vendor KC Enterprises to install lights during the month of mid October 2001. 2. Update the Saratoga Business Development Council (SBDC) and Heritage Preservation Commission on the approved Village lighting guidelines. ADVERTISING, NOTICING, AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing Additional. ATTACHMENTS: None. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 5, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Radio Interoperability and Public Safety Data Communications RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Joint Funding Agreement with other Santa Clara County cities to fund a professional services contract with William L. Doolittle & Associates for the purpose of establishing a Radio Interoperability and Public Safety Data Communications network at a cost to the City of $19,500. REPORT SUMMARY: Background Public safety agencies in Santa Clara County have been confronted with a number of performance issues over the past few years associated with the inefficient and untimely exchange of information, a lack of inter-agency field communication, and unnecessarily long call processing times. These limitations severely impact the delivery of timely and quality law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services throughout the County. In 1998, at the direction of the Santa Clara County/Cities Managers' Association, the Santa Clara County Police Chiefs, Fire Chiefs and Communications Managers formed two working groups to study interoperability issues for two projects: voice radio and data communications. The working groups include representatives from law enforcement and fire agencies from Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, County of Santa Clara, Campbell, Morgan Hill, Milpitas, Gilroy, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, San Jose, Saratoga, San Jose State University, South Santa Clara County Fire District and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The City of Palo Alto is taking a leadership role, by serving as Director for the project. The working groups identified a number of potential solutions that could assist a single agency, or agencies that bordered each other, but none of the solutions provided for a 1 of 4 comprehensive approach that could meet the collective need to share information and communicate with each other, regardless of jurisdictional boundary. In June 2000, the City of Mountain View issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on behalf of the participating agencies soliciting professional services for the Public Safety Data Communications Network portion of the project. This network would "virtually" link all the public safety agencies in the County and provide the capability for information exchange and dispatch monitoring capability. Nine (9) proposals were received and ranged in cost from $250,000 to $1.3 million. After careful screening and very detailed presentations by the three finalists, William L. Doolittle & Associates, Inc., was selected for the project. In October 2000, the Radio Interoperability Work Group completed its conceptual design for a system that would patch radio equipment between agency dispatch centers and enhance radio communication. The final design connected audio from any radio channel or frequency to other agencies via high-speed phone lines and data connectors and allowed field users to communicate without requiring them to change radio channels in the field during an emergency incident. It was at this time the discovery was made that the conceptual design for the proposed voice network could also serve as a data network. Discussions were held with William Doolittle & Associates and the Managers Association regarding the efficiencies and economies of integrating both projects. The decision to merge these two projects and form a single Radio Interoperability/Public Safety Data Communications project was approved by the Managers Association. A Communications Steering Committee was established to serve as an oversight committee for the project. A copy of the organizational structure for the project is provided in Attachment A. Discussion Participation on the Radio Interoperability/Public Safety Data Communications Network Project provides a great benefit to the citizens of Saratoga. By partnering with other local municipalities, the Santa Clara Sheriffs Office and our two fire districts will reap the benefit of information gained through this project. Ensuring that the Sheriffs Office and Fire personnel can seamlessly communicate in the field during an emergency, without interruption and regardless of jurisdiction, has a profound public safety benefit. Any delay or interruption of critical field communication can have serious consequences. Communications problems associated with such high profile disasters as the Oklahoma bombing and the Columbine School incident has brought this issue to the forefront of public safety on the national level. These examples illustrated the problems associated with numerous agencies being unable to easily communicate with each other during response and aftermath. 2 of 4 To facilitate the funding of this project, a Joint Funding Agreement (JFA) was drafted to outline the terms and conditions for the partnership of the Nineteen (19) Participating Agencies. Each participant, regardless of jurisdiction size, is funding an equal portion of the cost for this project. In addition, a negotiation with William L. Doolittle & Associates was conducted and a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) was completed. A copy of the PSA and Scope of Work for the Project is provided in Attachment A. These agreements (professional services and JFA) cover the first two phases of this project. During Phase I of the project, Doolittle & Associates will collect information on existing public safety systems (hardware and software), mutual or automatic aid agreements between jurisdictions, current and future technology projects and other relevant data from each of the participating .agencies. Using information gathered in Phase I, Phase II will provide recommended solutions for solving the Radio Interoperability and Data Communications Network issues. At the end of Phase II, Doolittle & Associates will provide each of the participating agencies with a final report detailing the recommended alternatives. A "cafeteria style" approach has been requested which will provide options that best meet the needs of individual jurisdictions and the collective group of public safety organizations as a whole. After review of the Phase II final report, decisions can be made regarding the funding and implementation of Phase III of this project. Phase III will cover the purchase and installation of the network by individual agencies and/or collectively as part of participating agencies. Ifa decision were made to move forward collectively, additional professional services agreements and a more formalized Joint Powers Authority (JPA) would be required. FISCAL IMPACTS: The total cost of Phase I and Phase II. of the Radio Interoperability and Public Safety. Data Communications Network project is $370,490. As an equal parmer in the JFA, Saratoga's share of the '$370,490 project cost is $19,500. Funding for this project is provided in the Fiscal Year 2001-02 operating budget. No additional appropriation of monies by the City Council is required at this time. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The city would not have a Radio Interoperability and Public Safety Data Communications Network. 3 of 4 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Santa Clara County Data Radio and Communications Network Joint Funding Agreement 4 of 4 SANTA CLARA COUNTY DATA AND RADIO COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT This Joint Funding Agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between the Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto~ San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, South Santa Clara County Fire District, the County of Santa Clara, San Jose State University and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Recitals WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County/Cities Managers Association has established a Santa Clara County Data and Radio Communications Task Force for the purpose of creating county wide radio interoperability and a public safety radio and data communications network to enable the real time exchange of event and resource data between automated and nonautomated Public Safety Communications Centers within Santa Clara County to improve public safety and emergency services by enhancing field communications during emergencies and reducing response time of emergency resources; and WHEREAS, the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, South Santa Clara County Fire District, County of Santa Clara, San Jose State University and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (individually referred to as "Network Participant" and collectively "Network Participants") all desire to contract with a single consultant to design county wide radio interoperability and a public safety radio and data communications network system that can be implemented in each of their respective agencies at a significant cost savings to each Network Participant; and WHEREAS, through a competitive bid process, the Santa Clara County/Cities Managers Association has selected consultant William J. Doolittle and Associates, Inc. to conceptually design and develop an implementation strategy for county wide radio interoperability and the public safety radio and data communications network; NOW THEREFORE~ each Network Participant agrees as follows: Purpose In accordance with California Government Code Section 6502, the purpose of this Agreement is to jointly exercise the contracting power of all the public agencies that are Network Participants to this Agreement to retain the professional services of William L. Doolittle and Associates, Inc. (hereinafter referred to aS DOOLITTLE) to conceptually design and develop an implementation strategy for countywide radio interoperability and a public safety radio and data communications network and realize a significant cost savings. Be Authorization Each Network Participant is authorized by its respective governing body or Board of Directors to enter into this Agreement to jointly exercise each Network Participant's individual power to retain the services of DOOLITTLE for the sole purpose of conceptually designing and developing an implementation strategy for countywide radio int_eroperability and a public safety radio and data communications network. C. Agreement for Professional Services Through a formal bid process, the Santa Clara County/Cities Association selected DOOLITTLE's bid for the conceptual design and development of an implementation strategy for county wide radio interoperability and a public safety radio and data communications network for Three Hundred and Seventy Thousand and Four hundred and Ninety Dollars ($370,490). A copy of the professional services agreement, including DOOLITTLE'S scope of work is attached hereto as Attachment "A". D. Communications Steering Committee Eo Delegation of Power: Each Network Participant hereby delegates to the Communications Network Steering Committee its individual power to (1) execute the professional services agreement with DOOLITTLE attached as Exhibit "A" in the name of the Network Participants and (2) the ability to administer the agreement, including, but not limited to the power to authorize payment for services rendered under the agreement and the power to terminate the agreement on behalf of all Network Participants. 2. Composition: ~he Communications Network Steering Committee shall consist of the following five (5) representatives appointed from their respective associations: a. A City Manager from the Santa Clara County/Cities Managers Association; b. A Fire Chief from the Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs Association; c. A Police Chief from the Santa Clara County Police Chiefs Association; and d. Two representatives from the Public Safety Communications Managers Association 3. Project Manager: For purposes of this Agreement, the Technical Services Coordinator for the Palo Alto Police Department and the Manager of Technical Services Bureau for the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety shall be designated the Project Managers. The Communications Network Steering Committee is authorized to appoint a different member as Project Manager provided that written notice is given to the Network Participants and DOOLITTLE. Funding 1. Proportionate Share of Funding. Each Network Participant shall share the expense for DOOLITTLE' S professional' services equally. The .amount of each Network Participant's share shall be Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety-Nine Dollars and Forty-seven cents ($19,499.47). Thi's amount was derived by dividing the total amount due for DOOLITTLE'S services under the attached professional services agreement by nineteen (19), which is the total number of the Network Participants. 2. Payment Due Date: Each Network Participant shall make no more than two payments to the'City of Mountain View. Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) is due no later than June 30, 2001 and the balance of Four Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety-nine Dollars and forty-seven cents ($4,499.47) must be received by the City of Mountain View no later than December 31, 2001. Payments shall be made payable to the City of Mountain View and sent to the attention of the Finance Department, 500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540, Mountain View, CA 94039. 3. Agency/Internal Trustee Account: The City of Mountain View shall deposit all the payments it receives from the Network Participants into an Agency/Internal Trustee Account. In lieu of an administrative fee for administering the account, no interest shall accrue to the account. Upon receipt of written authorization from the Communications Network Steering Committee or its designee, the City of Mountain View shall make Go progress payments to DOOLITTLE on behalf of the Network Participants for services rendered to conceptually design and develop an implementation strategy for a.county wide public safety radio and data communications network. Use of Funding: The City of Mountain View shall use any monies received under this agreement for the sole purpose of paying DOOLITTLE for professional services rendered pursuant to the agreement attached as Attachment "A" and only upon written authorization of the Communications Network Steering Committee or its designee Accounting: No more than twice per fiscal year and only upon receipt of written request from the Communications Network Steering Committee, the City of Mountain View will provide an accounting of the monies paid from the Agency/Internal Trustee Account to DOOLITTLE for professional services rendered, the account balance and supporting documentation to the Communications Network Steering Committee. o Disposition of Any Remaining Funds: If funds totaling One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) or more remain in the agency account when the professional services agreement is terminated, then the City of Mountain View shall pay each Network Participant its proportionate share. of the amount remaining. Indemnification In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation which might otherwise be imposed between the Network Participants pursuant to Government Code Section 895.6, the Network Participants agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by any Network Participant shall not be shared pro rata but instead each of the Network Participants agree that pursuant to Government Code Sec_ti_on 895.4, each of the Network Participants hereto shall fully indemnify and hold each of the other Network Participants, their officers, board members, employees and agents, harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or any liability arising out of the performance of this Agreement, payments made by the City of Mountain View to DOOLITTLE or the acts of the Communications Network Steering Committee. Notices All notices required by this Agreement will be deemed given when in writing and delivered personally or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the other Network Participants at the addresses set forth on the signature pages of this Agreement or at such other address as the Network Participants may designate in writing in accordance with this section. Governing Law This Agreement has been executed and delivered in, and will be construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. Proper venue for legal action regarding this Agreement will be in the County of Santa Clara. Severability If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, invalid or unenforceable, the same will either be reformed to comply with the applicable law or stricken, if not so conformable, so as not to affect the validity or enforceability of this Agreement. The Network Participants have Caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. CITY OF CAMPBELL TOWN OF LOS GATOS Bernard Strojny, City Manager City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 CITY OF CUPERTINO David Knapp, City Manager City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF GILROY Jay Baksa, City Administrator City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 CITY OF LOS ALTOS Debra Figone, Town Manager Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Post Office Box 949 Los Gatos CA 95031 CITY OF MILPITAS Tom Wilson, City Manager City of Milpitas 455 East Calaveras Boulevard Milpitas, CA 95035 CITY OF MONTE SERENO Brian Loventhal, City Manager City of Monte Sereno 18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road Monte Sereno, CA 95030 CITY OF MORGAN HILL Phil Rose, City Manager City of Los Altos 1 North San Antonio Road Los Altos, CA 94022 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Ed Tewes, City Manager City of Morgan Hill 17555 Peak Avenue Morgan Hill, CA 95037 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW Maureen Cassingham, Town Manager Town of Los Altos Hills 25379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills~ CA 94022 Kevin Duggan, City Manager City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Post Office Box 7540 Mountain View, CA 94039 4 CITY OF PALO ALTO COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Frank Benest, City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 CITY OF SAN JOSE Richard Wittenberg, County Executive Santa Clara County 70 West Hedding Street Eleventh Floor, East Wing San Jose, CA 95110 SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY Del Borgsdorf, City Manager City of San Jose 801 North First Street, Room 436 San Jose, CA 95110 CITY OF SANTA CLARA Ric Abeyta, Chief of Police San Jose State University Police One Washington Square San Jose, CA 95192 SOUTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT Jennifer Sparacin0, City Manager City of Santa Clara 1500 Warburton Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95050 CITY OF SARATOGA Dave Anderson, City Manager City of Saratoga 13.777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 CITY OF SUNNYVALE Steven Woodill, Fire Chief South Santa Clara County Fire District 15670 Monterey Street Morgan Hill, CA 95037 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Signature Bob LaSala, City Manager City of Sunnyvale 456 West Olive Avenue Post Office Box 3707-94088 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Name & Title Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118-3614 Attachment B - April 26, 2001 Progress Deliverables Provided ............ Payment Miiestone Payment 1 Deliverables: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, The last day of the first calendar month 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. of project execution. $30,300 AIl deliverables received by Network 2 Deliverables: 8, 25, 26 and 27. Participants. $39,400 3 Deliverables: 9, 10, 28 and 29. The last day of thc second calendar month of project execution or all deliverables received by Network $40,700 Participants. 4 Deliverables: 11, 12, 13 and 14. The last day ofthe thkd calendar month of project execution or all deliverables $52,500 received by Network Participants. 5 Deliverables: 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, The last day of the fourth calendar month 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41. of project execution or all deliverables $42,200 received by Network Participants. 6 Deliverables: 15. The last day of the fifth calendar month or all deliverables received by Network $14,200 Participants. -'--- 7 Deliverables: 16, 17 and 42 (draft). The last day of the sixth calendar month of project execution or all deliverables $36,300' received by Network Participants. 8 Deliverables: ,42 (final). The last day of the seventh calendar month of project execution or all deliverables received by Network $14,600 Participants. 9 Deliverables: 43. The last day of the eighth calendar month of project execution or all deliverables $19,600 received by Network Participants. 10 Deliverables: 44 and 45. The last day of the ninth calendar month of project execution or all deliverables ' $8,300 received by Network Participants. 11 Deliverables: 46. The last day of the tenth calendar month of project execution or all deliverables~ $27;000 received by Network Participants. 12 Deliverables: 47, 48, 49 and 50. The last day of the eleventh calendar month of project execution or all deliverables received by Network $16,000 Participants. 13 Deliverables: 51 and 52. The last day of the twelfth calendar month of project execution or all deliverables received by Network $22,800 Participants. 14 DeliVerables: 53 and 54. The last day of the thirteenth Calendar month of project execution or all deliverables received by Network $6,590 Participants. Total of Payments $370,490