HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-1994 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAEXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
2 4S�
AGENDA ITEM`�°�
MEETING DATE: June 15, 1994 CITY MOR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant
SUBJECT: Renewal of the Agency Agreement for a Countywide AB 939
(Integrated Solid Waste Management Act) Implementation
Fee
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the Mayor to execute the renewal of the Agency Agreement
for the Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee, on behalf of the
City.
.Report Summary;
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939), grants
authority to a city,,county, or city and county., to impose fees in
amounts sufficient to pay the costs of preparing, adapting and
implementing an integrated Waste Management Plan. On June 21,, 1992, ,
the -Board of Supervisors approved collection of the $1.00 per ton
fee to be assessed on all ,wastes landfilled in the county. The
purpose of this fee is to assist jurisdictions in funding programs
associated with implementation of ,their Source Reduction,,,
Recycling, and Household Hazardous Waste Elements of the Countywide
Intbgrated Waste Management Plan. Agency Agreements between the
Board and each participating city were executed for a two year
term., which expires on June 30, 1994.
Landfill tonnages have decreased since the $1.00 per ton fee was
adopted,. The Solid Waste Commission of, Santa Clara County
recommends reauthorization of the Fee for a second two -year term at
a level of $1.15 per ton, to maintain the revenue stream ensuring
adequate funding for,ongoing AB .939 related.progr.ams.
I.n .order to insure uninterrupted collection of the. fee, all 15
cities must approve the Agreement by June 30 1994. The Board of
Supervisors will take action on a resolution approving the
continued collection of the Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee on
June 21,, 1994.. To expedite the approval - process, the Agreement is
being sent to the cities for endorsement, contingent upon the
Board's approval.
Fiscal Impacts:
There are no negative impacts on the City's General Fund. The fees
will be collected and administered by the County Solid Waste
Program. Each jurisdiction will be reimbursed according to the
formula contained in the Agency Agreement. The revised Fee
Agreement includes a new revenue distribution formula which refines
the disbursement process by taking into account increased recycling
at landfill sites. Saratoga's share of the fee for 1993 was
approximtely $20,000. The proceeds of this fee will be used for
preparing, adopting and implementing the integrated Waste
Management Plans.
Attachments:
Agency Agreement for a Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee
Motion and Vote:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z��1 AGENDA ITEM.
MEETING DATE; June 15, 1994 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant
SUBJECT: Resolution of the Saratoga City Council Authorizing
Preparation of a. Demonstration Grant. Program for Used
Motor Oil
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution approving a grant application to the
California Waste Management Board ,(CIWMB) for $302,49.5.00 to fund
an information and education program for the promotion of existing
used oil curbside collection programs.
Report Summary:
The California Integrated Waste Management Board. is offering a
grant - opportunity to local governments for,the ,promotion of
existing used oil curbside collection programs and to encourage
residents already served by curbside collection to make use of this
part of Clalifornia's used oil collection infrastructure.
The County of Santa ,Clara is applying for total of $302,495 in
grant funding on behalf of the following jurisdictions: Campbell,
Los A1tos,.Palo Alto_, Saratoga,,, Sunnyvale, and the County for.the
unincorporated area. The cities of San Jose, Gilroy, and Santa
Clara are preparing their own grant proposals.
The CIWMB anticipates awarding up to $2,000,000 in Curbside
Promotion Grants during ,FY95,. Eligible. local governments may
request up to $0.50 per resident. If requests for this program
exceed $2,,.00.0,,000, the award of $0.5.0 ,per resident will be reduced
to a level where all applicants can be funded._ CIWMB staff
estimates that the awards will not fall below.$0.40 per resident,.
The County's request for funding is based upon the cumulative
population figure of 604,990 for the jurisdictions.
Eligible applicants are cities; counties or regional programs which
have a permanent, ongoing used oil, curbside collection program.
Applicants must complete an application, form summarizing the
proposed promotion program,and budget.. Grant funds must be used
for public education and information campaigns that promote local
curbside collection programs occurring between July 1, 1994 and
June 30, 1996. This may include presentations at schools, public
exhibits., information ,materials, radio advertisements, public
service announcements, newspaper advertisements, promotional
premiums, etc.
If awarded the grant, the County will issue a request for proposals
to public relations firms to create the necessary promotional
materials in,English, Spanish and,Vietnamese.
Fiscal Impacts•
If the grant application is successful, funds will go into the
Countywide Solid Waste Planning Fund and will be disbursed for
promotion of alternatives to the illegal disposal of used oil and
to encourage residents to make use of existing curbside oil
collection programs. The County is seeking a maximum of $302,495,
however, the minimum award expected is $241,996.
Consequences of Negative Action
T. The County and participating cities will miss an excellent
opportunity for funds which will not be available through any
other source.
2. The County and participating cities will be unable to promote
curbside used oil collection.
Attachments:-
Resolution Authorizing Used Oil.Curbside Promotion Grant
Motion and Vote:
0
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. a 4 AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: JUNE 15, 1994 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAE
SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement with City of Cupertino for
Maintenance of Traffic Signal at Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.
and Prospect Rd.
Recommended Motion(s): Move to approve the agreement and authorize
its execution by the Mayor.
Report Summary: The City of Cupertino is developing a project under
ISTEA whereby they will be interconnecting the traffic signals.on
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. from Prospect Rd. to Bollinger Rd. This
will then allow Cupertino to connect the signals into an existing
interconnect system which operates the signals from Bollinger Rd.
to Homestead Rd. The City has an agreement with Caltrans to
operate and maintain the interconnect system and the traffic
signals north of Bollinger Rd. Before 'Cupertino can assume
operation and maintenance of the signals south of Bollinger Rd., it
is necessary for that City to enter into an agreement with the
other agencies which share the maintenance responsibilities for
those signals.
Saratoga has responsibility for 25% of the costs of operation and
maintenance of the signal at Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and Prospect
Rd. The signal is presently maintained by Caltrans and the City is
invoiced for its share of the costs every other month. The
attached agreement, if approved, would shift the maintenance
responsibilities for the signal to Cupertino and Saratoga would
agree to pay Cupertino for our 25% share of the costs. Considering
that Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. is slated for relinquishment sometime
after the opening of the new Route 85, I believe it is appropriate
for Saratoga to enter into this agreement at this time. Further,
the expanded signal interconnect system will improve the flow of
traffic along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd., thereby reducing traffic
congestion and improving air quality. .
Fiscal Impacts: The new agreement will not significantly effect the
City's signal maintenance costs. The City will simply reimburse
Cupertino for our proportional share of the signal costs instead of
reimbursing Caltrans. I have examined Cupertino's signal
maintenance costs and they are very comparable to what Saratoga
presently pays.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The
agreement will not be approved and Cupertino would be unable to
extend the signal interconnect system to Prospect Rd. Caltrans
would continue to maintain the signal until Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd.
is relinquished. At that time, the maintenance responsibilities
would transfer to either Cupertino, San Jose or Saratoga depending
on what the three Cities would agree.
Follow Up Actions: The agreements will be executed by the City and
returned to Cupertino.
Attachments: 1. Agreement.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: JUNE 15, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITE
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD
SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 -
Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report and Adoption of
Resolution of Intention
Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to adopt the Resolution
preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report. 2. Move to adopt
the Resolution of Intention.
Report Summary: The next step in the process of reauthorizing the
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 for FY 94 -95 is
to receive and approve the Preliminary Engineer's Report and to
adopt the Resolution of Intention which, among other things, sets
the times and dates for the public informational meeting and
protest hearing. If adopted, the informational meeting will be
scheduled for July 6, and the protest hearing for August 3.
This year, I am proposing several changes to the District to
promote greater equity among the various Zones. To begin with, I
am proposing the merger of the four Village Parking Districts and
the Village Commercial Lighting District into one combined Village
Commercial Zone. This will create the means to assess all
commercial properties in the Village for the costs of maintaining
the four public parking lots. The rules for spreading the costs
are defined in the Engineer's Report which will be available at
your meeting. In general however, the costs for maintaining.the
public parking lots are proposed to be allocated using a formula
which takes into account the leasable floor area on each parcel,
the type of use (retail, office, restaurant, etc., which relates to
intensity of use) of each parcel, and the number of parking spaces
provided on site.
By combining the five Zones into one, a large surplus of funds
becomes: available to apply against next year's costs. It is
possible in fact to cover all expected costs for next year with
this surplus and to not assess any of the Village Commercial
properties for one full year. This is what I recommend.
Further, I propose funding improvements in each of the four public
parking lots to bring them into an equivalent condition with one
another. Afterwards, the level of effort required to maintain each
lot should be the same so the cost of providing public parking in
the Village will not vary from one parking district to another.
Each commercial property.will receive an equivalent benefit from
the available public parking, therefor a single formula which is
applied uniformly to all commercial properties to spread the costs.
of providing the public parking is appropriate.
Other changes to the District which I am proposing are the merger
of Zones 2 and 9 into Zone 25, and the merger of Zones 10, 14 and
18 into Zone 26. I also propose that Zones which have a deficit
carryover from prior years make up 25% of the deficit amount, and
that there be no assessment next year to create a reserve since the
LLA -1 fund balance is sufficient to cover all costs until the first
allocation of assessments is received from the County. Attached
are spreadsheets which show the proposed assessments for FY 94 -95,
and the history of the assessments for each Zone since the District
was created.
Fiscal Impacts: None directly to reauthorize the District. All
costs are recovered via the assessments.
Advertising, Noticing and Public-Contact: Nothing additional.
Mailed notices will be sent to property owners whose assessments
are proposed to be increased from all previous years, as well as to
all Village Commercial property owners, advising them of the
upcoming public meeting and protest hearing.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The
Engineer's Report will not receive preliminary approval and the
public meeting and protest hearing will not be scheduled. This
will effectively halt the reauthorization process which is very
time sensitive. All proceedings must be complete by August 10 in
order for the assessments to be added to next year's property tax
roll.
Follow Up Actions: Mailed notices will be sent for the public
meeting and protest hearing.
Attachments: 1. Spreadsheet of proposed assessments for FY 94 -95.
2. Spreadsheet of annual assessments by Zone. .
3. Resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's
Report.
4. Resolution of Intention.
CITY OFSARATOGA - LLA -1 FY94 -95
ZONE 1 ZONE 3 ZONE 4 ZONE 5 ZONE 6 ZONE 7 ZONE 11 ZONE 12 ZONE 13 ZONE 15 ZONE 16 ZONE 17 ZONE 22 ZONE 24 ZONE 25 ZONE 26
M OF PARCELS 29 167 897 107 64 777 250 9 36 41 55 200 691 81 133 40
FACTOR 0.0081 0.0467 0.1949 0.0299 0.0179 0.2172 0.0699 0.0025 0.0101 0.0115 0.0154 0.0559 0.2491 0.0226 0.0372 0.0112
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
TOTAL
3577
1.0000
WAGES&BENEFITS
ATTORNEY
$187.09
$1,077.40
$4,496.69
$890.31
$112.90
$5,012.81
$1,612.87
558.06
$232.25
$264.51
$354.83
$1,290.30
$5,748.28
$522.57
(858.05
$258.06
523,077.00
ASSESS.ENGRG.
4.05
45.81
23.34
263.78
97.43
1,100.94
14.98
169.01
5.95
101.09
108.81
1,227.30
34.95
1.26
5.03
5.73
7.89
27.96
124.55
11.32
18.59
5.59
5500.00
ADVTSG.
4.05
23.34
97.43
14.96
8.95
108.81
394.68
34.95
14.22
1.26
56.88
64.76
86.57
315.91
1,407.37
127.94
210.08
63.18
$5,650.00
MISC.
1.62
9.34
38.97
5.98
3.58
43.44
13.98
0.50
5.03
2.01
5.73
2.29
7.69
3.06
27.96
11.18
- 124.55
49.82
11.32
4.53
16.59
7.44
5.59
$500.00
INDIRECT COSTS
OVERHEAD
17.71
34_05
101.98.
196.09
425.57
65.33
39.08
474.41
152.64
5.50
21.98
25.03
33.58
122.11
544.02
49.46
81.21
2,24
24.42
$200.00
$2,184.00
- --
-------
818.42
---- ---
125.54
- ------
- -- 75_15
912.35
-------
293.55
----- --
- -- 10_57
42_27
48_14
54_56
234.84
1,046.21
95_11
156.17
$4,200.12
TOTAL
$294.39
$1,69526
$7,075.44
$1,086.19
$849.68
$7,887.54
$2,537.82
$91.36
- --
$365.15
_ --
$110.20
- --
$558.32
----- --
$2,03026
--- ----
$9,044.79
- --
$622.26
----- --
$1,360.12
- -- -46_97
5406.05
- -- ------
$36,311.12
MAINTENANCE COSTS
WAGES & BENEFITS
CONTR. MAINT.
2,040.09
2,340.00
1,260.00
1,500.00
2,780.00
1,380.00
500.00
2,200.00
$18,338.00
9,925.00
7,440.00
4,740.00
$16,33900
$36,085.00
CONTR. REPAIRS
IRRIGATION WATER
510.00
250.00
555.00
250.00
315.00
375.00
275.00
345.00
220.00
2,000.00
1,860.00
1,185.00
$7,570.00
ELECTRIC POWER
13,000.00
6,500.00
1,500.00
2,630.00
450.00
200.00
750.00
5.00
00
1,750.00
2,615.00
1,500.00
$8,265.00
INDIRECT COSTS
325.00
125.00
21,750.00
200.00
200.00
$46,230.00
OVERHEAD
- -- 368 -24
415.29
-------
1,700.40
- ------
650.20
-------
196.20
-------
344.00
-------
254.87
271.41
0.00
495.08
288_14
65.40
398.29
3,066.00
71172.03
1,554.64
997.35
$3,086.00
$15,389.54
TOTAL
$3,188.24
53,59029
$14,700.40
$7,35020
$1,696.20
$2,974.00
-------
$2,289.87
------- --
$2,346.41
-----
$0.00
-------
$4,280.08
- --
$2,318.14
- --
$585.40
-------
$3,443.29
-------
582,004.03
-------
$13,899.64
-------
$8,822.35
---------
$133,046.54
CONSTRUCTION
$3,000.00
$11,308.00
$45,232.00
$565.00
$565.00
$60,670.00
SUB -TOTAL
$3,460.83
$5,285.55
$21,775.84
$8,438.39
$2,345.88
$10,BB1.55
$4,827.69
$2,437.77
$365.45
$4,696.28
$2,676.46
55,595.86
$23,796.07
$108,05626
$15,814.76
$9,593.40
$230,027.65
RESERVE ALLOWANCE
,
$0.00
TOTAL COST
53,460.63
$5,285.55
$21,775.84
$8,438.39
$2,345.88
$10,861.55
$4,827.69
$2,437.77
$365.45
$4,696.28
$2,676AB
$5,595.68
523,796.07
$106,05826
$15,814.76
$9,593.40
$230,027.65
PRIOR YR. CARRYOVER
($699.67)
($3,185.06)
$53,986.69
$24,858.52
$715.32
52,77220
($351.54)
($4,610.14)
$238.30
($14,36528)
($1,101.87)
5542.70
$3,610.07
$125,935.43
($15,557.48)
($8,201.53)
$164,604.66
EST. PROP. TAX
$1,150.00
$1,580.00
$12,250.00
$4,950.00
$32,900.00
5220.00
$53,050.00
NET COST
$3,010.30
$8,870.61
($44,460.85)
($21,370.13)
$1,630.58
$8,089.35
$5,179.23
$7,047.91
$127.15
$19,081.56
53,978.33
$5,052.96
520,188.00
($50,777.15)
$30.95224
$17,794.93
$12,372.99
C'OVER NOT RECOVERED
($524.75)
($2,373.80)
($283.88)
($3,457.81)
($10,773.98)
($826.40)
($11,888.11)
($6,151.15)
($36,039.13)
C'OVER NOT REIMBURSED
544,480.85
$21,370.13
550,777.15
$116,808.13
NET TO ASSESS
$2,485.54
54,498.82
$0.00
$0.00
$1,630.58
$8,089.35
$4,915.57
$3,590.31
$127.15
$8,287.60
$3,151.93
$5,052.98
$20,186.00
$0.00
$19,284.13
$11,643.78
$92,941.70
ASSESSMENT
$85.71
$26.93
$0.00
$0.00
$25.48
$10.41
$19.68
$398.92
$3.53
$202.14
$57.31
$25.26
$22.66
N/A
$144.99
$291.09
C: \WK\LLA 19495
SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1
ZONE
DATE
CREATED
- -
0 (7C)
-
4/16/80
1
4/16/80
2
4/16/80
3
4/16W80
4
4/16/80
5
4/16/80
6
4/16/80
7 (7R)
4116180
8 (VPD #1)
4/16/80
9
5/4/83
10
4/1884
11
4/1884
12
4/17/85
13
4/17/85
14
4/17/85
15
4/17/85
16
4/16/86
17
4/15/87
18
4/1587
19 (VPD #2)
4/19/89
20 (VPD #3)
4/19/89
21 (VPD #4)
4/19/89
22
4/17/91
23
5/1/91
24
8/3/94
25
8/3/94
26
8/3/94
(1) - Zones 0. 8. 19, 20 & 21 merged to create Zone 24.
(2) - Zones 2 & 9 merged to create Zone 25.
(3) - Zones 10, 14 & 18 merged to create Zone 26.
(4) - Zone dissolved on 5/20/92.
C: \WK\LLA- SUM.WK1
$0.00
$144.99
$291.09
ANNUAL
ASSESSMENTS
80 -81
81 -82
82 -83
83 -84
84 -85
85 -86
86 -87
87 -88
88 -89
89 -90
90 -91
91 -92
92 -93
93 -94
94 -95
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
$102.01
$92.50
$92.58
$56.80
$21.02
$34.56
$35.38
$21.60
$21.66
$21.66
----
$14.64
--- -------
$73.56
--------
$49.72
- -
$72.64
-- - - (
1 )
$34.26
$10.54
$0.00
$10.90
$6.80
$203.76
$207.82
$113.70
$113.54
$105.94
$95.12
$101.54
$62.20
$90.32
$85.71
$11.30
$5.62
$6.16
$6.62
$7.86
$8.86
$35.14
$27.40
$29.66
$32.00
$34.62
$36.50
$5.98
$18.15
(2)
$4.76
$4.46
$0.00
$0.00
$4.20
$11.60
$8.70
$20.50
$2a06
$48.82
$13.14
$15.36
$25.80
$45.21
$26.93
$20.95
$11154
$0.00
$2.06
$2.30
$5.86
$6.70
$2.26
$1.86
$1.86
$1.60
$2.10
$23.84
$0.00
0
$23.52
$21.28
$2.12
$0.84
$1.24
$5.00
$6.56
$5.14
$4.98
$4.98
$6.24
$6.40
$0.00
$0.00
0
$42.03
$38.68
$0.00
$15.68
$11.32
$14.78
$16.94
$10.54
$10.60
$10.60
$8.62
$8.58
$0.00
$0.00
$25.48
$10.411
$8.90
$6.66
$5.78
$2.54
$2.50
$3.32
$3.14
$2.64
$2.64
$3.78
$4.26
$6.88
$0.00
$10.41
$269.07
$48.26
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$213.80
$341.32
$330.36
$117.20
$0.00
$133.36
$0.00
$0.00
(1)
$65.00
$84.86
$83.52
$90.82
$87.40
$113.74
$157.20
$135.74
$144.82
$138.82
$161.30
(2)
$1,416.00
$0.00
$167.34
$186.26
$234.70
$435.80
$348.74
$385.38
$371.12
$326.17
(3)
$14.32
$5.66
$8.38
$7.70
$8.04
$8.76
$9.58
$10.72
$11.32
$15.48
$19.66
$172.00
$153.02
$154.16
$168.04
$188.04
$209.84
$222.60
$242.42
$203.01
$398.92
$18.00
$5.24
$3.04
$3.60
$3.60
$3.70
$3.16
$0.00
$0.00
$3.53
$142.10
$121.30
$107.04
$114.48
$1512.48
$137.56
$148.72
$192.74
$110.10
(3)
$222.00
$170.76
$87.44
$83.76
$126.18
$102.60
$100.72
$98.90
$227.39
$202.14
$2,376.44
$3.04
$3.22
$3.22
$59.88
$40.56
$45.16
$42.58
$57.31
$110.00
$7.70
$7.70
$8.72
$8.66
$0.00
$5.06
$25.26
$50.00
$6.08
$135.18
$154.56
$164.94
$88.10
$0.00
(3)
$1.851.00
$1,520.30
55,243.00
$6.969.76 $13,620.00
(1)
$6,412.00
$6,414.00 $14,092.00 $18,770.62 $21,252.35
(1)
$0.00
$977.78
$2,933.00
$5,406.00 $14,385.56
(1)
$36.00
$0.00
$ta21
$22.66
$110.00
(4)
(1) - Zones 0. 8. 19, 20 & 21 merged to create Zone 24.
(2) - Zones 2 & 9 merged to create Zone 25.
(3) - Zones 10, 14 & 18 merged to create Zone 26.
(4) - Zone dissolved on 5/20/92.
C: \WK\LLA- SUM.WK1
$0.00
$144.99
$291.09
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 1b, 1994 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant.
SUBJECT:_ Access Restriction on Bohlman Road and Parker Ranch Area
on July 4, 1994
Recommended Motion:
11 Authorize two Sheriff's reserve Deputies to establish a
checkpoint at the beginning -of Bohlman-Road to restrict access
on July 4th from 6:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. as requested by
Saratoga Fire Chief Kraule.
2. Authorize staff to grant permission through the Special Event
Permit process to restrict access to roads in the Parker Ranch
area on July 4th from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. as requested by
the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association.
Report Summary:
In the past, Council has taken action to restrict access of
outsiders wishing to ,view fireworks on July 4th in certain - hillside
areas of Saratoga which are in the hazardous_ fire areas and have
very limited .access. In both the Bohlman Road and Parker Ranch
areas 'reserve deputies will be,limiting access to residents and
guests of residents by establishing checkpoints, rather than
actually closing roads.
The City has covered the cost of. assigning two reserves units to
Bohlman Road in past .years. The Parker Ranch _Homeowners
Association will coordinate the activities through their protective
services management, and will assume all costs for the operation.
Because of the nature of this activity, I am recommending waiver of
the requirement 'fox a filing fee, clean -up ,deposit, and extra
liability insurance for issuance of a Special Event Permit for the
Parker Ranch Homeowners Association.
The two fire districts in Saratoga and the Sheriff's Office have
approved the proposed plans.
Fiscal Impacts•
Approximately $200 for.two reserve units at Bohlman Road.
Attachments:
Letter dated April 11, 1994, from Robert Bruno, Director of
Protective Services, Parker Ranch Homeowners Association and
Saratoga Fire Chief,Kr.aule .
Motion and Vote:
PARKER RANCH PROTECTIVE SERVICES
A division of Investigative & Protective Services
t
April 11, 1994
Ms. Carolyn King
Assistant to City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
• 90 W. Main Avenue
• Morgan Hill, CA 95037
• 408 - 778 -7988
• 408 - 295 -9044
(Emergency Phone)
RE: ROAD CLOSURES FOR JULY 4. 1993 - PARKER RANCH COMMUNITY
Dear Ms. King:
We are again requesting city approval for the use of Reserve Deputies for the annual Forth of July
road closure at Parker Ranch.
Last year, as in years past, the City of Saratoga granted permission to the Parker Ranch
Homeowners Association to utilize the Sheriffs Office for assistance in securing the Parker Ranch
Community on the evening of the fourth of July with the use of paid Reserve Deputies.
On July 4, 1993, this operation commenced. for 4, hours with complete success in cooperation with
the neighbors and those not part of the Parker Ranch Community.
The response of the public was positive and very accepting.
The following is to confirm the actions which are to take place on July 4, 1994:
1. Three (3) Reserve Deputies with patrol cars are to meet with Parker Ranch Protective
Services Personnel at Parker Ranch Road and Burnett Court at 6:45 p.m.
2. The Reserve Deputies will be briefed on the details of the operation and will be given a
typed list of the residents and guests of Parker Ranch.
3. Deputies will be posted at the following locations:
Parker Ranch Road @ Burnett Court
Parker Ranch Road @ Parker Ranch Court
Comer Drive @ Arroyo.De Arguello
Licensed by the State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs
State Licenses PI 12749 • PPO 10101
1 4. This operation will terminate at 11:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter.
The senior Reserve Deputy in charge of this operation will determine if it will be
necessary to continue past the cut -off time.
The Parker Ranch Homeowners Association will be paying the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office
for the use of the reserve deputies and the Sheriff Department's patrol vehicles.
The City of Saratoga will assume no costs for this operation.
If the City of Saratoga is requiring the Homeowners Association to file any Indemnification
Agreements or required permits for this event, please forward this paperwork to our office at your
earliest convenience.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call our office anytime.
Very truly yours,
Robert A. Bruno
Director of Protective Services
Parker Ranch Homeowners Association
RAB /twr
cc: Board of Directors, Parker Ranch H.O.A.
17-41,
SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
SERVICE SINCE 1923
June 9, 1994
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga CA 95070
Dear Paula,
In response to your request, this letter shall serve as an authorization to restrict
access to Bohlman Rd. during the Fourth of July holiday.
Traffic is to be monitored for the time period of dusk to approximately 1030 P. M.
on the Fourth, with periodic patrol checks during the day for both the 3rd and the 4th of
July.
Access is to be limited to "residents only" and their guests, during the evening.
If you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely yours,
Ernest Kraule, Chief
Saratoga Fire District
cc: file
14380 Saratoga Ave. • Saratoga, CA 95070 a (408) 867 -9001 • Fax (408) 867 -2780
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ��E�O a AGENDA ITEMR/ V
MEETING DATE: _June 15, 1994 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. _City Clerk
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
Recommended Motion(s):
Direct staff to review Conflict of Interest Code.
Report Summary:
As the City Council knows, Government Code Section 87306.5 requires
that the code reviewing body (the City Council) direct the local
agency (the City administration) to review its Conflict of Interest
Code every two years. That direction is to be given by July 1;of
even - numbered years.
The Conflict of Interest Code was last modified_ on January 5,
1994_, when the designated employees' title changes were
incorporated into the Code. At this point, no further changes are
necessary. ✓
Fiscal Impacts•
None.
Follow Up Actions:
Assuming no revisions are necessary, the staff must present a
statement to that effect to the Council by October 1. For
practical purposes, that would mean agendizing the statement for
the September 21 Council. meeting.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The City Council would be in technical non - compliance with
Government Code Section 87306.5.
Attachments:
Resolution 799.6 adopted l /5/94
RESOLUTION NO. 779.6
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 779, THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has undergone recent organizational
changes, resulting in changes in department head designations and
the deletion.of the Environmental Programs Manager and Maintenance
Director position.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Saratoga that Section 2 of Resolution 779 is hereby am nded to read
as follows:
SECTION 2: APPLICATION OF CODE. This Conf
of Interest Code shall be applicable to
Finance Director, Public Works Direc
Community Development .Director, Recrea
Director, City Codes Administrator, St
Superintendent, Parks and Build
Superintendent, and Assistant to the
Manager.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and ac
Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the 5th da:
1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Anderson, Burger, Kohler, Monia
Mayor Tucker
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
yor
ATTEST:
Deputy City C rk
ct
he
r,
on
gs
ty
pted by the
of January,
and
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. '2 4(01 AGENDA ITEM: 0
MEETING DATE: June 15, 1994
ORIGINATING DEPT. :omm ity Development
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT:
Draft amendments to the Northwestern Hillsides Specific Plan and
the associated draft Addendum to the Northwestern Hillsides
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the Planning Commission recommendation and adopt the proposed
amendments to the Specific Plan and the Addendum to the Specific Plan
EIR.
Report Summary:
Background:
In 1992 the Northwestern Hillside Residential (NHR) Zoning District and
the Hillside Conservation Residential District (HC -RD) were combined
into the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. Subsequently, the
Planning Commission directed staff to place an item on the Community
Development Work Program to consider amendments to the Northwestern
Hillside Specific Plan. This item proposed to amend the existing
Specific Plan boundaries to include all of the properties previously
zoned HC -RD. This amendment would make the Specific Plan boundaries
consistent with the HR Zoning District boundaries already in effect.
In October of 1993, the City Council adopted Resolutions 93 -048 and 049
directing staff to prepare additional revisions to the Specific Plan.
These resolutions provided the framework to delete all references to the
proposed SW -NE Road and to amend the "Economics" section of the Specific
Plan as it relates to benefits assessment districts.
The Planning Commission considered these draft amendments over the
course of four study sessions and one public hearing. On May 25, the
Commission resolved to forward a recommendation to the City Council to
adopt the draft Hillside Specific Plan (Resolution 94 -001 is attached
for reference).
Proposed Amendments:
The specific amendments are as follows:
1. The City Council directed amendments to delete all references in the
Specific Plan to the SW -NE Road project. This revision deletes
(indicated by overstrikes) action programs numbers 1 and 2 and adds a
new action program number 1 (highlighted) on page 21 of the draft
document under the heading of "Circulation ". The remaining action
programs are renumbered.
2. The City Council directed amendment to the "Economics" section on
page 22. Policy number 1 and action program numbers 1 and 2 are replaced
(overstrikes) with a new policy and action programs (highlighted).
3. The Planning Commission directed modifications to the existing
Specific Plan boundaries. A map identifying the existing boundaries and
the proposed expansion area is attached for reference. A draft map is
contained in the draft Specific Plan after page 2.
4. The proposed title change to Hillside Specific Plan ". This title more
accurately reflects the geography of the proposed revision to the
Specific Plan boundaries. This modification is indicated on the cover
page with a parenthetical reference to the original document title and
adoption date.
5. New language is proposed following the Environmental Analysis on
page 2 and after the Introduction on page 4. These entries indicate
that the Specific Plan and the associated environmental documentation
was reviewed and updated in 1994.
6. Various reference to the word "northwest" or "northwestern" have been
amended appropriately throughout the draft document.
All of the above referenced amendments are contained in the attached
draft of the "Hillside Specific Plan ".
Environmental Documentation:
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an
Initial Study was prepared for this project. No potentially significant
environmental impacts were identified resulting from the proposed
General Plan Amendment.
After consultation with the City Attorney's office, staff drafted an
Addendum (attached) to the Northwestern Hillside .Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report. An addendum is permitted under CEQA
Guidelines, section 15164, when a local jurisdiction proposes minor or
technical modifications to an existing specific plan. The draft addendum
consists of a statement summarizing the proposed amendments to the
Specific Plan with the previously prepared Initial Study as supporting
documentation.
Public Notice:
A notice of these proceedings was mailed to each of the property owners
with the original.Specific Plan area as well as those individuals within
the proposed boundary expansion area. A total of 622 notices were
mailed.
Fiscal Impacts:
Pursuant to the completion of the follow -up actions listed below, the
Hillside Development Fund will be dissolved and the balance therein will
be distributed to the Hillside Street Repair Fund and to individual
property owners as indicated below:
Existing
Total amount in Hillside Dev. Fund 6/94 $1,134,454.00
Total number of parcels in Hillside Dev. Fund 197
Amount per parcel 5758.63
To Hillside Street Repair Fund
Total amount of new Street Repair Fund 120,816.00
Total number of parcels in Street Repair Fund 48
Amount per parcel 2517.00
To be refunded
Total amount of full refund 858,036.54
Number of parcels - full refund 149
Amount per parcel 5758.63
Total amount - partial refund 155,598.46
Number of parcels - partial refund 48
Amount per parcel 3241.63
Total amount refunds 1,013,635.00
Follow -up Actions:
1. Amend Chapter 9 -65 of the City Code to establish a Hillside Street
Repair Fee to finance future street repair in the HR Zoning District.
(Ordinance introduced at June 1 Council Meeting).
2. Adopt Resolution repealing Resolution No. 1084, relating to
acceptance of Hillside roads as public roads (adopted by City Council at
June 1 public hearing).
3. Adopt resolution conditionally accepting dedication of streets -
Tract Nos. 6701, 3781, 7761 (adopted by City Council at the June 1
public hearing).
4. Adopt resolution concerning the establishment of a Hillside Street
Repair Fund for the future repair of hillside streets in the HR Zoning
District (scheduled for June 15 public hearing).
5. Adopt resolution concerning the dissolution of the Hillside traffic
Circulation Fund and causing refund of certain monies therefrom
(scheduled for June 15 public hearing).
Consequences of not Acting on the Recommended Notion:
The Specific Plan will not be amended.
Attachments:
1. Draft City Council Resolution adopting amendments to the Northwestern
Hillside Specific Plan.
2. Planning Commission Resolution GP -94 -001 dated 5/25/94.
3. Expansion area map.
4. Draft Hillside Specific Plan.
5. Draft Addendum to the Northwestern Hillsides Specific Plan EIR.
Motion and Vote:
RESOLUTION NO. GP -94 -001
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA,
RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN RELATING TO POLICY
STATEMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS WITHIN THE NORTHWESTERN
HILLSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN
The Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby
resolves as follows:
Section 1: That the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on May 25, 1994, to consider draft amendments to the
Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan, at which time all interested
parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
Section 2: That the Planning Commission determined that
amendments to Specific Plan boundary map and other minor textual
changes are necessary to maintain consistency between the Plan and
the City Code; and
Section 3: That the City Council directed, by Resolution
94 -048 and 94 -049, that policy and action program amendments are
necessary to delete references to the previously proposed
Southwest - Northeast Road project and to modify Specific Plan
language relating to the formation of benefit assessment districts
and the distribution of the Hillside Development Fund; and
Section 4: That the Planning Commission finds that the
Addendum to the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report prepared for this project reflects the independent
judgment of the City as a lead agency, and recommends that the City
Council adopt the addendum as attached and incorporated herein by
reference; and
Section 5: That the Planning Commission hereby recommends
that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment within the
Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan as attached and incorporated
herein by reference.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga on the 25th day of
May, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Asfour, Caldwell, Jacobs, Kaplan, Murikami, Wolfe
EXISTING PLAN AREA
Q' PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA.
d
DRAFT
Hillside Specific Plan
City of Saratoga
(Formerly "Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan ",
originally adopted 1981)
Planning Commission Recommended approval of Amendment on 5/25/94
Amendment Adopted by City Council on / /94
SPECIFIC PLAN
PREFACE: This report, attached maps and references are a specific
plan for the residential development of approximately 2,100 acres
in the nerth•-,.,ster~ hillside area of Saratoga and adjacent Santa
Clara County lands. This report and maps have been prepared under
the guidance of an 11 member Citizen Advisory Committee and has
been reviewed and revised by the City Planning Commission and the
City Council prior to adoption.
The Specific Plan has been prepared pursuant to the
applicable provisions of Title 7 of the California Government Code
and the Initiative, after careful review of the area,. the related
City documents and further circulation and economic studies. As
adopted by the City, the Ner-thwestern Saratpga Hillside Specific
Plan will guide the subsequent subdivision and development of the
property within the primary planning area and responses to
referrals from the County in the secondary planning area.
ON
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PROCESS: An Environmental Impact Report is
required by State law for projects which may have significant
effects upon the environment. The Environment Impact Report
primarily is a document which informs the public and responsible
agencies about the proposed project and enables them to comment in
order to influence the decision of the project:
State law regarding. Specific Plans encourages an
.Environmental Impact Report to be done in conjunction with the Plan
and to serve as the Environmental Impact Report for each
development proposal found consistent with the General Plan and
Specific Plan. This Environmental Impact Report provides base
documentation for both the Specific Plan and subsequent development
applications. However, given the substantial difference between
the specificity of a Specific Plan and that required for a
development application, further environmental information (i.e.,
details of structure types and design, siting, archeology,
circulation specifics, .etc.) may be. required to augment the
Environmental Impact Report.
The descriptive portion of the Environmental Impact
Report is located in the Appendix of the Specific Plan. The
Environmental Impact Report describes the project and its
environment; discusses the significant impacts of the project,
analyzes the impacts, and describes alternatives. Measures to
reduce the impacts have been included in the appropriate policy
sections. Emphasis is placed on those areas having potentially
significant environmental effects. The Initial Study, prepared by
the City Staff subsequent to a Public Hearing, is also included in
the Appendix. The Initial Study indicated that significant impacts
could occur in the following areas: grading, erosion, geology,
drainage, flora and fauna, density, circulation, services,
utilities and aesthetics.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report has been
transmitted to interested persons and agencies to solicit comments.
These comments, with addition or corrections during the Public
Hearing, have resulted in a Final Environmental Impact Report,
providing information for the decision. This final decision was
made by the City Council of Saratoga after input from the Citizens
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission.
t
INTRODUCTION: In April 1980 the citizens of Saratoga adopted an
initiative "directing preparation of a specific plan for the
Northwest Hillsides of the City of Saratoga and adjacent County
lands" in accordance with the initiative and the Community Planning
Objectives of the 1974 General Plan. The primary goal of the
initiative was "to conserve the City's natural rural character" by
controlling the density of development in the hill areas and
allowing development in an environmentally sensitive manner.
Special development problems were noted - street slopes, potential
landsliding and difficult access. Citizen participation was
required at all stages.
In June the City Council designated an 11 member
Citizens Advisory Committee. The Committee began bi- monthly
meetings on June 26, 1980, inspecting the Study Area, reviewing
related City and County documents and meeting with various experts
from responsible agencies and land use consultants. In all the
Committee met 18 times with 4 additional subcommittee meetings on
the proposed policies and including 2 on -site inspections. Notices
for some of these meetings were placed in the Saratoga News and all
agendas were mailed to 5 area homeowners groups as well as the
affected property owners, their representatives, and interested
citizens. During the course of the study, a circulation study by
Nolte and Associates and an economic study by John Cone were
completed for the are and presentations were made by the City
Geologist. A $2,500.00 study to review the options for hydrology
studies in the area was recommended and agreed to by the City
Council, which has now been approved by the Santa Clara Valley
Water District.
The Nerthwest— Haratega Hills _'^ Specific Plan was
prepared to meet the requirements of the Initiative and State law.
However, its more important purpose is to set up guidelines for the
development of the northwestern hillsides, including policies and
action programs with land use maps which are more detailed than the
General Plan. It is intended to better link the Saratoga General
Plan with subdivision and zoning regulations while not being a site
specific development plan.
The Specific Plan:
* provides a comprehensive plan for the northwestern
hillsides and reviews the planning area in conjunction with all
elements of the General Plan.
* identifies major issues and assumptions on
development in the nee- w•-•,.stern hillsides and develops policies
accordingly.
* proposes ways of dealing with special design and
environmental concerns.
* sets criteria for development plans submitted to the
City on density, access and circulation, to preserve rural
character and minimize use of public facilities.
In summary, this specific plan provides guidelines and
controls to conserve the rural character, while maintaining public
safety and minimizing excessive public costs to the citizens of
Saratoga. It also gives guidelines to affected property owners in
the ;; fe:;P:1an::;boudar;;ar on land use
options.
_ ........... .. ................._... ......._.................
..................................................................... ...............................
4
SUMMARY OF GOALS, POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS
OF
NORTHWESTEM HILLSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN
GOALS: The goals of Measure "A" and those of the 1974 General Plan
affecting this area, are adopted. Furthermore, the following goals
are established:
1. Land use regulations shall be consistent with the preservation
of the irreplaceable natural environment of the Measure "A" area.
2. Access shall be compatible with preservation of rural character
and reduced density of development.
3. Impacts on the overall natural environment shall be minimized
in order to preserve the rural character.
4. Land use regulation shall be based upon natural, flood and
geologic hazards.
5. Development and maintenance of public services shall minimize
financial risks to the City and shall be equitable to all citizens
of Saratoga.
6. The Specific Plan shall be applied with concern for individual
property rights.
7. Overall long term financial, public health and safety risks to
both present and future residents shall be minimized.
8. The City's irreplaceable hillside scenic resources shall be
protected and preserved.
9. The rural character of the area shall be protected through
substantially lower density and a compatible relationship between
development and the land.
5
POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS
DENSITY
Policies
1. Land use in the western hillside area should be limited to
agricultural and residential uses and appurtances thereto with
plant nurseries, wineries, and recreational facilities subject to
the granting of a conditional use permit. Such other uses will be
allowed as may be added by the City Council consistent with the
purposes and intent of the Specific Plan and Zoning District
established.
2. Maximum density of development shall be based on the 2 -10
acre slope density formula subject to the following criteria.
a. Any uncorrectable geotechnical hazard areas of the
site, (areas designated Md or Mrf, as described in Table 7 of the
Geologic Hazard Analysis of the Upper Calabazas Creek Watershed by
William Cotton and Associates dated January 1980, and those
portions of the Cocciardi and Paul Masson quarries shown by a
geotechnical analysis to be unsuitable for development as approved
by the City Geologist) shall be placed in permanent open space and
subtracted from the gross acreage prior to application of the slope
density formula. Calculation of the slope shall be done for the
entire parcel prior to the slope density calculation.
b. Density may be further reduced due to site restrictions
(see Geologic and Site Grading policies for siting restrictions due
to geology, riparian areas, etc.). In locating building sites,
preference should be given to areas designated as stable (Sbr, Sis,
Sun, Sex) on the Ground Movement Potential Maps. Especially sites
on potentially moving slopes,(Pmw,(Pmw, Ps, Pd) and moving slopes
(Ms) shall not be approved unless geologic and soils engineering
analysis and design provided by the developer clearly demonstrate
the long -term stability of such sites to the satisfaction of the
City, its Geologist and other professional consultants.
2. Any lot shown as a unit on a recorded subdivision or land
division, or any lot otherwise legally created, is exempt from the
density requirements of this Specific Plan provided it was created
prior to April 25, 1978. Any lot so exempted will not lose its
exempt status if either of the following events takes place
subsequent to April 25, 1978:
0
a. A portion of the lot is exchanged for a portion of any
adjoining lot, the result of which does not decrease the original
square footage of the lot; or
b. The lot is enlarged by the addition of land from any
adjoining parcel.
Action Program
1. Amend Zoning Ordinance to carry out density policies and
standards of the Specific Plan and General Plan.
COUNTY LANDS /SECONDARY SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Policies
1. City should control the development of adjacent lands
(developed and undeveloped) with a preferred density of 20 -160
acres /unit depending on slope.
2. Lands shall not be annexed until they can be served by the
City as determined by the City Council.
Action Program
1. Consider a pre- zoning density designation for County lands.
2. Identify lands that the City can serve within the next five
(5) years and review Urban Service Areas accordingly.
SITE GRADING
Policies
1. Grading, when required, shall be contoured wherever
possible even though this practice increases quantity somewhat, and
provide cut and fill slopes of three to one. Graded slopes
should be 3.1 overall (with potential for terracing and ability for
landscaping). Revegetation of graded slopes shall be required.
Steeper fill slopes, up to 2:1 may only be used where it can be
shown landscaping and revegetation can be installed and maintained.
Steeper but slopes, up to 2:1 may only be used where it can be
shown the slope can be adequately landscaped and maintenance over
the long term will not be a problem and /or unusually difficult.
7
2. No home shall be built so as to create a flat visible pad.
3. Allow corrective grading in the western hillsides to
minimize risks from geologic hazards especially for new or existing
development provided it does not remove major trees or irrevocably
damage the City's scenic resources.
4. Grading should be minimized by locating roads and homesites
on slopes less than 30% unless given prior specific approval by the
governing bodies.
5. Landslide and erosion problems on developing lands shall be
avoided or corrected, including replanting removed and damaged
trees where the benefit to the general public exceeds the
environmental impact of the corrective project. City may require
that such problems be corrected on adjacent lands.
6. Roads should be aligned parallel to contours rather than up
the face of hills wherever possible to minimize their visibility
from the valley.
7. Correction of stream erosion problems shall be accomplished
using natural and /or natural appearing materials. Such
improvements shall be considered engineered grading (and therefore
be subject to Planning Commission approval).
8. Long -term maintenance of landscaped areas, open space,
streams and slopes adjacent to roads shall be assured by private
maintenance agreements included in subdivision CC &R's with
provisions for City enforcement.
9. Large, one time grading operations, under proper control
should be promoted as opposed to single lot -by -lot operations by
individual lot owners. All necessary lot, driveway and pool pad
grading should be done by the developer under bond and strict City
control.
10. No home or other structure shall be built on an area with
an average slope that exceeds 30% or an area that exceeds 40%
natural slope at any point under the structure with possibility for
variance procedure and exception from the Subdivision Ordinance for
unusual situations.
3
11. Placement of creeks in culverts for private land use shall
not be permitted except in extreme emergencies (i.e., potential
loss of structure(s), economic considerations, health, safety and
welfare). Use of culverts for road crossings may be permitted.
12. Engineered grading items on the Planning Commission agenda
shall be public hearings.
Action Program
1. Revise Grading Ordinance accordingly.
AESTHETICSISCENIC QUALITIES.
Policies
1. Grouping of residential units shall be encouraged to
preserve the rural character and to allow reasonable economics of
land use provided there is no increase in yield.
2. Place homes near streets where appropriate to minimize
grading. Arrange lot patterns to minimize the length of roads and
driveways.
3. Predominant ridgelines shall be protected to allow clear
views from streets and roads. Scenic easements shall be
established to protect the ridgelines which cup the City.
4. All structures shall be approved through Design Review
prior to issuance of building permits.
5. Encourage common recreational areas.
Action Program
1. Develop a map delineating predominant ridgelines cupping
the City in the western hillsides.
2. Modify the HCRD Ordinance to implement the foregoing
policies.
ECOLOGY
Policies
9
1. Minimize earthmoving and grading, avoiding steep terrain
except where necessary for roadways.
2. Design structures to fit terrain; group structures; phase
building with improvements.
3. Minimize tree removal; avoiding heavily wooded areas,
particularly chaparral.
4. Minimize disturbance of creek ecosystems by placing
riparian areas in open space.
5. Limit horsekeeping and use.
6. Propose trails away from creeks.
7. Revegetate graded areas as soon as feasible with native
plants.
Action Program
1. Review and condition tentative maps accordingly.
CONSERVATION: Land, Air and Water Ouality
Policies
1. The number of horses permitted shall be limited to the
capacity of the site.
2. Preserve natural (creekside) vegetation to the greatest
extent feasible.
Action Program
1. Revise the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the keeping of
horses and their appurtenant structures (at a minimum to disallow
fences on property lines).
2. Establish conditions for horse permits and use permits for
the keeping of horses.
3. Review and revise Grading Ordinance with consideration of
water quality.
10
WILLIAMSON ACT
Policies
1. The following criteria should be used in determinations on
cancelling Williamson Act contracts:
a. Conformity with the Williamson Act in determinations on
cancelling Williamson Act contracts:
b. Open Space Value of the parcel of land.
C. Impact on other Williamson Act lands.
d. Availability of utilities.
e. Public benefits.
2. Encourage renewal of Williamson Act contracts.
Action Program
1. Adopt resolution establishing criteria of cancellation of
Williamson Act contracts.
2. Establish a list of permitted or conditional uses with the
objective of Williamson Act land being preserved for open space for
the Specific Plan area.
TRAILS AND PATHWAYS
Policies
1. Develop equestrian /pedestrian trail system for access to
County recreation areas and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District concurrently, or prior to, the development of each lot.
2. Encourage trails and pathways along roadways.
Action Program
1. Require development and a method of maintenance of
equestrian /pedestrian trail system as part of subdivision/ site
approval.
2. Develop program to promote and maintain trails in the
Western Hillsides per the Trails and Pathways Task Force Report.
11
OPEN SPACE
Policies
1. Preserve the low density and natural character of Saratoga
by the inclusion of, permanent open space, landscaping and
encouragement of agricultural land uses.
2. Conserve natural vegetative and topographic features which
exist in Saratoga's western foothills.
3. Protect historical and archeological values and significant
geographic landmarks from destruction by development whenever
practical.
4. Require open space be dedicated as easements (all Md and
Mrf areas, quarry lands shown to be unsuitable for development
through detailed geotechnical analysis as approved by the City
Geologist and lands within the setback area specified by the City
Geologist for traces of the Berrocal fault). Consider open space
easements on riparian areas and areas with slopes of over 30 %.
5. Preservation of open space should mean preservation of the
natural landscape.
Action Program
1. Establish a legal format for accepting open space easements
and provide a means for maintaining the open space easements.
2. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to conform to these policies.
3. Implement agricultural zoning where appropriate to preserve
open space.
LAND MAINTENANCE
Policies
1. Benefit of residential land use in the hills falls to
hillside residents and to them should fall any extraordinary costs
for maintenance of the lands and features other than City and
Utility Services.
12
Action Program
1. Consider an ordinance and procedural requirements which
ensure residents of hillside subdivisions pay the extraordinary
cost of maintenance of all non - public facilities. Private
maintenance agreements, enforceable by the City without
extraordinary public costs should be developed and included in
CC &R's.
2. Consider use of orders of abatement pursuant to police
powers to ensure private maintenance of drainage and grading
improvements (i.e. Weed Abatement Ordinance).
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Policies
1. Benefit of residential land use in the hills falls to
hillside residents and to them should fall an extraodinary costs
for maintenance of the lands and features other than City and
Utility Services.
2. Every applicant seeking approval of any construction
project within the Specific Plan Area shall at times have the
burden of providing, to the satisfaction of the City and its
Geologist and other professional consultants, that the proposed
development will be constructed in such a manner as to be safe from
known or reasonably predictable geologic hazards which may cause
injury to persons or property.
3. The Geologic Hazards Analysis of the Upper Calabazas Creek
watershed is a planning document which may require modification.
4. No deviations or modifications of the Maps shall be
permitted without prior written approval of the City Geologist.
5. In locating building sites, preference should be given to
areas designated as stable (Sbr, Sls, Sun, Sex) on the Ground
Movement Potential Maps. Especially sites on potentially moving
slopes (Pmw, Ps, Pd) and moving slopes (Ms) shall not be approved
unless geologic and soils engineering analysis and design provided
by the developer clearly demonstrate the long -term stability of
such sites to the satisfaction of the City, its Geologist and other
professional consultants.
13
6. On questionable sites the City Geologist may require slope
stability analysis with the building site and its immediately
surrounding area having a factor of safety against failure of a
least 1.5 or equivalent, in the event of a designed earthquake of
magnitude 8.3 on the San Andreas Fault. The City Geologist shall
review and approve all proposals to insure conformance with this
requirement.
7. The City, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Evergreen
Resource Conservation District and Santa Clara County should
immediately commence proceedings with the landowners for the
stabilization of the abandoned quarry areas on the Paul Masson
Vineyard and Cocciardi properties as well as other erosion
reduction activities.
8. If grading proposed for a project, as specifically approved
by the Planning Commission, City Geologist and City Engineer,
corrects a geologic hazard, then roads., driveways and structures
may be located on such graded areas as approved.
9. Projects or portions thereof that require a high level of
maintenance activity over the long -term to prevent slope failures
should generally not be approved since the City's ability to
perform or enforce performance of maintenance is limited. Project
design should principally use solutions that minimize risk in not
affecting public or private structures in the event of failure.
10. City should continue to strictly enforce its Grading
Ordinance through the City Geologist and Department of Inspection
Services and control of all work by soils engineer and geologist on
all projects in hillsides.
Action Program
1. Design and /or revise Ordinances to carry out the above
policies for entire Specific Plan Area.
HYDROLOGY AND FLOODING
Policies
1. For site specific policies, see Site and Storm Drainage.
2. City Council, Planning Commission and City Staff should
continue all available efforts to secure remedy to flooding and
14
erosion problems along the main Calabazas and in already developed
areas.
3. Long -term maintenance of natural watercourses of smaller
size than would qualify for Santa Clara Valley Water District
jurisdiction should be by homeowners in tributary areas using
private resources and with City review and approval of any proposed
improvements or maintenance.
4. Continue (and expand to include the Specific Plan Area)
pro -rata share fees for drainage, insuring that they are large
enough to pay all costs of necessary facilities to eliminate
flooding at the 100 year storm level.
5. Recommend continuing support of long -term study of
hydrology of area.
Action Program
1. Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to develop
appropriate procedures for the above policies.
FIRE HAZARD
Policies
1. Encourage landscaping with non - hazardous, drought resistant
vegetation.
Action Program
1. Recommend landscaping of non - hazardous vegetation at CC &R
stage.
NOISE
Policies
1. Minimize impact on the existing ambient noise level of the
rural ares of the western hillsides through setbacks, construction
techniques, roads, etc.
15
2. Where appropriate, be sensitive to limiting hours of
construction.
Action Program
1. Review Noise Ordinance to be consistent with the above
policies.
2. Review and strengthen Off -Road Vehicle Ordinance.
ENERGY
Policies
1. Promote energy conservation through building design (as
with roof orientation of new homes).
2. Promote use of both passive and active solar energy
systems.
Action Program
1. Consider cooperation with County on Energy Element and
adoption of related ordinances.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Policies
1. Involve the historical society early in the tentative map
process.
2. If archeological or historical objects are encountered
during construction, halt activity and seek advice of qualified
archeologist or local historian.
3. Prior to tentative map approval, conduct an archeological
study of each site by a professional archeologist for
recommendations /mitigation.
Action Program
1. Adopt a Cultural Resource Ordinance.
16
WATER
Policies
1. Upgrade provisions of water for adequate fire protection in
the hillsides.
2. Improve supply of water for fire protection for existing
homes by establishing the water improvement project.
Action Program
1. Allow formation of the water assessment district.
2. Continue Subdivision Ordinance Section with requires 1,000
gallons per minute of water for any new development prior to
issuance of building permit.
FIRE /EMERGENCY SERVICES
Policies
1. Require wiring for Early Warning Fire Reporting System
adopted by Saratoga Fire District Board with optional hookup to
homeowner.
2. Improve response time for hillside area.
Action Program
1. Adopt Early Warning Fire Reporting System Ordinance.
2. Study need for a Fire Station in the western hillsides and
possibly for joint ownership between the two fire districts.
3. Consider specifying roofing requirements (other than wood).
4. Adopt such other measures as are necessary to increase fire
protection in this area.
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
Policies
1. Require all new residences on newly created lots to hook up
to a sanitary sewer system to avoid groundwater contamination
problems.
17
2. Existing residences should hook up to sewer if the
structure comes within 200 feet of the sewer main.
Action Program
. 1. Allow the formation of assessment districts for sewer
systems on existing lots with criteria for exemptions.
TELEPHONE, PG &E, CABLE TV
Policies
1. All new utility lines should be located underground when
possible.
Action Program
2. Coordinate utility construction throughout the hillside
areas whenever possible.
PARR SYSTEM
Policies
1. The park site on the Fremont High School parcel should be
reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
2. Condition maps for development of trail system for access
to the County recreation areas concurrently with development of the
subdivision.
3. Encourage scenic open space.
Action Program
1. Require development of equestrian trail system prior to
final building approval.
GARAGE /SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Policies
1. Reduce dependence on sanitary landfill.
18
Action Program
1. Utilize Guadalupe site.
2. Comply with resource recovery program of Solid Waste
Management Program.
SITE AND STORM DRAINAGE
Policies
1. Developer, through actual improvements and fees, to provide
for installation and maintenance of Storm Drainage System.
2. All major facilities to be designed to provide for 100 year
storms - local and minor facilities design provide for 20 year
storms.
3. Landscaping and resultant site drainage plan to be approved
with Design Review approval of the residence prior to issuance of
permits.
4. Site drainage plans to be approved so as to not impact
adjacent properties.
Action Program
1. Increase improvement criteria and fees if called for in
study.
POLICE SERVICES
Policies
1. Encourage participation in a neighborhood crime prevention
program.
Action Program
1. Require installation of wires and recommend connection to
a residential electronic fire and burglary detection system.
19
C. Does the project have impacts which are individ-
ually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate '
YES MAYBE NO
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant). X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? X
III. DETERMINATION
The project will not have potentially significant impacts on the
environment and an addendum to the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan
EIR will be prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, Section 15164.
DATE:
SIGNATURE
adnhrsp
YES MAYBE NO
C. _Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values? X
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area? X
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance:
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade.the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or
prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals? (A short -term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long -term impacts will endure well into the
future). X
YES MAYBE NO
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? X
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruct -
tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or
will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities? X
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archeological site? X
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object? X
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
YES MAYBE NO
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? X
f. Other governmental services? X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy? X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities?
a.
Power or natural gas?
X
b.
Communications system?
X
C.
Water?
X
d.
Sewer or septic tanks?
X
e.
Storm water drainage?
X
f.
Solid waste and disposal?
X
YES MAYBE NO
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing? X
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result
in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _
f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
X
X
X
X
X
X
YES MAYBE NO
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area? X
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? X
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource? X
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the
event of an accident or upset conditions. X
b. Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? X
YES MAYBE NO
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of
any species of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish, or insects)? _
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare or
.endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area
or result in a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish
habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
X
X
X
X
X
X
YES MAYBE NO
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water
. otherwise available for public water supplies? X
i. Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? X
j. Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or
chemical content of surface thermal springs? X
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass crops, and aquatic plants)? X
b.. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants? X
C.. Introduction of hew species of plants into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? X
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
YES MAYBE NO
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements in fresh water? X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface water or any
water in any water body? X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any altera-
tion of surface water quality, including but not
limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity? X
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or
ground waters? X
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations? X
l�
YES MAYBE NO
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features? X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? X
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of a lake? X
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards. such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure or similar hazards? X
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? X
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temp-
erature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally? X
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
CITY OF SARATOGA
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY)
NHR Specific Plan Revisions FILE NO: GPA -94 -001
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070 .
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: City of Saratoga
2. Address and phone number of Proponent: (408) 867 -3438
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
3. Date of Checklist submitted: 2/18/94
4. Agency requiring Checklist: City of Saratoga
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: NHR Specific Plan Revisions
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures? X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
over - crowding of the soil? XX
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief
features? X
area.
b. Modify the "Economicsig section of the Specific Plan as
follows:
Delete existing policy number 1 referring to support of legislation
for special assessment. Replace with proposed policy number 1 as
follows;
111. The risk of failure of newly constructed roads shall
be shared by future property owners served by those
roads; property owners shall share in that risk of
failure with the City for. roads accepted as public
streets. 11
Delete action program numbers 1 referring to lobbying League of
California Cities and 2. referring to formation of assessment
districts if authorized by State legislation. Replace with new
action programs number 1 and 2 as follows:
111. The City shall develop a standard method for
determining the risk of road failure and calculating a
financial exposure associated with acceptance of that
risk."
112. Prior to acceptance of a road as a public street, the
entire amount determined to be the costs associated with
the identified potential risk of road failure shall be
deposited with the City. The City shall hold the deposit
in trust to fund future repair costs which exceed the
City's routine street maintenance obligations."
The City Council has resolved in Resolution 93 -049 that the
existing policy and action programs regarding the formation of
assessment districts "may not be the most equitable or desirable
method of funding the maintenance of roads and other public
facilities."
The new policy and action programs will establish methods for
assessing risks and funding maintenance and repairs of new roads
that may be accepted as public streets in the future.
The City has completed an initial study (attached) which has
identified no potentially significant environmental impacts
resulting from the proposed amendments to the Specific Plana.
The City has reviewed the guidelines of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that address amendments to
specific plans. Because of the minor scope of the proposed
amendments, the City has applied Section 15164 of CEQA which
provides for the preparation of an addendum to the original
Environmental Documentation which, in this case, is the
Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.
ADDENDUM TO THE NORTHWESTERN HILLSIDE SPECIFIC. PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Background:
The Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan was adopted by the City
Council as part of the Saratoga General Plan in 1981. The Specific
Plan established goals., policies and objectives to preserve and
protect the rural environment of the hillside areas and focused on
issues. relating to density,. access, open space, circulation,
geology, economic and land uses within City limits and in the
directly adjacent hillside areas under the jurisdiction of the
County of Santa Clara.
The Specific Plan resulted in the development and implementation of
the Northwestern Hillside Residential (NHR) district for parcels
within the Specific Plan boundaries.
The City proposes to amend the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan
as follows:
1. Retitle the "Northwestern Hillside Specific Plane to "Hillside
Specific Plane and amend the current Specific Plan boundaries to
include all hillside areas merged under the HR zoning ordinance.
In 1992, the City merged the Northwest Hillside Residential (NHR)
zoning district, which originally implemented the Specific Plan,
with the few remaining hillside parcels that were zoned Hillside
Conservation Residential District (HC -RD) and that existed outside
of the established Specific Plan boundaries to create one zoning
district known as Hillside Residential (HR) . This mapping amendment
will bring the Specific Plan into consistency with the Zoning
Ordinance. The new title more accurately reflects the amended Plan
boundaries.
2. a. Under the "Circulation$' section, delete action programs
number 1 and 2 referring to the construction of the SW -NE Road. Add
a new action program number 1 as follows:
111. Construction standards for each new road shall be
developed to minimize future maintenance and repair
requirements and the risk of failure of those roads.11
This road was intended to reduce traffic impacts from development
in the hillside areas to Pierce Road. Recent traffic studies and
historical development patterns have indicated that the
construction of the SW -NE Road is unnecessary. This deletion will
actually reduce the possibility of significant environmental
impacts in that the potential growth inducing and construction
impacts related to the construction of the road will not occur.
The new action program will ensure the utilization of acceptable
construction standards for any future road in the Hillside Plan
2. Promote recreational facilities.
3. Inform prospective buyers through CC &R's as to whether or
not a pool and /or tennis court can be constructed on the site.
Action Program
1. Revise necessary City Ordinances to implement Specific
Plan.
2. Condition tentative maps appropriately.
23
Action Program
1. Adopt Circulation Plan for western hillsides.
2. Consider widening of bridges on Pierce Road.
3. Condition tentative maps appropriately.
4. Develop improvement plan for Pierce Road.
ECONOMICS
Policies
Action Program
PROPOSED ZONING RESTRICTIONS
Policies
1. Allow plant nurseries and wineries as conditional uses.
22
..................... ...............................
QuIonW. ...... .............::................
...................... ...............................
..................... ...............................
and Parker Raneh Read.
A public through road, Saratoga Heights Road, between
Tollgate and Pierce Roads.
An emergency access road from Hillmoor through the
Fremont Union High School District site.
Extensions of all other roadways shall be considered for
emergency /secondary access at the time of development.
Pierce Road Policies:
1. Collect fees on a per lot basis of those newly created lots
to establish a fund for improving Pierce Road in a manner that
would not significantly alter its character as follows:
a. 13 foot paved lanes where widening does not impact the
environment/
b. 11 foot paved lanes as a minimum where feasible.
C. 12 foot between centerline and vertical obstructions
(minimum).
surface.
d. Overlay existing pavement to provide smooth driving
e. Appropriate signs before major intersections.
2. Any tree removal or extensive grading necessitated by
pavement widening shall have City Council approval.
21
2. Adopt ordinances) to require security measures appropriate
for the area.
3. Recognize increased need for police services access gate
and security review by Sheriff's Department.
CIRCULATION
In reviewing the findings of this report, previous reports and
current City policies, the following plan is recommended for
adequate circulation and emergency access:
Policies
1. Continue current policy of general minimum road standards
with Planning Commission. Ability to authorize exceptions given
special circumstances or conditions affecting the subject property.
2. Minimize cuts and fills for roadways.
3. Utilize retaining walls to reduce grading.
4. Overdesign structural section of roadways by 25 %.
5. Require public right -of -way to be offered on all private
access roads used for secondary /emergency access.
6. Allow secondary /emergency access roads to be generated.
7. Roads must be built to insurable standards.
8. The City shall obtain private road maintenance agreements
with subdivision developers.
9. The City shall whenever possible, require private
developers and landowners to maintain private landscaped areas
within right -of -ways.
20