Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-19-2000 City Council Agenda Packet
A6ENDA SARATOGA CTTY ¢OUNC'rL APRIL ~9, 2000 OPEN SESSION - §:00 P.M. in the Administrative Conference Room - 13777. Fruitvale Avenue COMM'rSSTON TNTERVZEW5 - PUBL~.C SAFETY COMMT55ION AD.TOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:30 P.M.. Saratoga Vs. Hinz - Existing Litigation - Gov't. Code Sec. 54956.9(a) Santa Clara SuperiOr Court No. CV784560. ConferenCe with Legal Counsel- Anticipated Litigation - Tnitiation of Litigation Pursuant to GoVt. Code Sec. 54956.9(cc) (One Potential Case) MAYOR'5 REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION REGULAR MEET];NG ' 7:00 P.M. - c'rv'rc THEATER/COUNCTL CHAMBERS AT :~3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. PLEDGE OF ALLEG'rANCE ROLL CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POST];NG OF AGENDA (Pursuant'to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for ·this meeting was properly posted on April 14, 2000) COMMUNICA"I'~ON5 FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of'thee pUblic will be allowed to address the City Council for.up to 3 minutes on matters not on this agenda. 'CommunicatiOns fr°m B°ards and Commissions - None · Written COmmuniCations - None ... ....... '- Oral CommUnications .- Council ~irecfion to' Staff .Instruction tO ~staff regar~iing actions on.Current-Oral communications ·2. Appointment of Heritage Preservation Commissioners and Oath of Office. Recommended Action: Approve Resolution of ApPointment and Administer'Oath of Office. .... commendation of Volunteer Appreciation Week. Proclamoti°n fOr HelleF Ermon Low Firm. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of Check Register. Recommended Action: Note and file.. 4B. 4C. Certification of March 7, 2000 Special Municipa! Election Results· and Canvass of Returns from County Registrar of Voters for~ Meosure~N. .Recommended Action: ·AdOpt resolution deClaring canvass of returns and results of the Special Municipal Election. Planning Commission Actions - April 12, 2000. 'Recommended Action: Note and File. Prohibition Of Parking on a Portion of Saratoga Hills Road and Prohibition of No U-Turns at. Specific Locations of Fruitvale Avenue - Adoption of Motor. Vehicle Resolutions. Recommended Action: Adopt resolution. 2 4E. 4F. Landscaping and Lighting Assessment DistriCt - Preliminary Approval of' Engineer's. Report and AdOption of Resolution of Intention for FY2000/OZ. ." Recommended Action:' Adopt resolution. Adoption of Ordinance Mai '1'9'8 - Administrative Appeals Provisions. Recommended'Action: Adopt ordinance. Resolution DenYing Apl 99-051. Recommended Action: PUBliC HEARTNG5 '. OLD BUSINESS. 8. Allocation,. Of AT&T/TCI Planning Commission Decision on DR- Adopt reSOlution.` Public Hearings will start promptly at 7:30 p.m. when.t~he'Council will move from whatever item it is considering at that. time to public hearings. Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision to ApprOve a 2-Story, 6500 'Sq. Ft. Residence. boca~ted at 14805 Masson Court. (biu). Recommended Action: ! Deny the Appeal.and Uphold Planning Commission decision. Appeal of. Planning Commissioh Decision to ApProve a 2-Story, 4258 Sq..Ft: Residence LOcated at 20550 bomita Avenue.($aunders) (Recommended Action: Deny the Appeal and UPhold Planning commission's decision. Extension Of Interim Moratorium on Residential Development of Commercially Designatled Land. Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance. Settlement Agreement Proceeds. CITY CoUNc'rL ZTEM$. .- Agenda 'Items for the 'next Adjourned 'Meeting - MaY 9, ZOO0. The purpose'of 'listing the items immediately fo!lOwing is not to discuss or · take action on ~rhem., but simply t°decide whether they are to be >laCed on the agenda fOr the next .adjourned regular meeting. -- Other CITY MANAGER'S REPORT AD,TOURNMENT 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 t° make reasonable'arrangements to ensure accessibility t.o this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 AbA Title II)' 5CHEbULED c'rTY cOuNC'rL MEE'I-ZN65 7:00 p.m.. .7:00 7:00 p.m.. 7:00 p.m. APril 25, 2000 MaY 3,'2000- May 9, 2000 May 17, 2000 Adjourned. City council Meeting -'Adult Care Center.- 19655 Allendale . Regular City CoUncil Meeting AdjOurned City Council Meeting -.Adult Care Center- 19655 Allendale Regular CitY. Council Meeting 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARy NO. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE; AOril '1'9, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager AGENDA ITEM CITY.MANAGER: ~ ~ ~--~ ~ · PREPARED BY: City clerk SUBJECT: COMMISSION INTERVIEWS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY'COMMISSION -RECOMMENDED MOTION: REPORT SUMMARY: 'FISCAL IMPACT: ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: 'CONSEQUENCEs OF NOT ACTING ON MOTION:' FOLLOW Up ACTIONS: rATTACHMENTS: That Council conduct interviews. · ~The following applicants have been scheduled for interview: ·. 5:00 P.M. - Frank LemmOn* · ~..~1. F~ O' ~,{ A --~1~,,~- ~..~n ~1 ~ · 5:20'P.M. - Paige McClellan · 5:30 P.M. - Donna Romaniak · 5:40 P.M. -Mitch Kane · 5:50 p.M. _ Thomas Edel* *Candidates eligible for re-appointment. Francis Andreson iseligible for re-appointment, however, is unable to be interviewed on April 19~h. · There are four vacancies to be filled for the 'CommissiOn. Four vacancies to serve a four year term expiring April,· None Posting of the Council agenda. Vacancies will not be filled and a quorum would not exist." Adopt resolution and administer oath at scheduled Council meeting. Applications of above-named applicants. Date: March. 1, 2000 Commission apPlying for: Name:. Mr'::.Le~mon, 'Frank B.-'' TelephOne: Hom.e .(408)· 867_230'0~ ~ Address: 20653 WoOdward Ct.,' .SaratOga, CA 95070 Year you became a Saratoga resident: '1969 'WOuld you be able'to attend daytime 'meetings? CITY'OF SARATOGA *' COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM· . PublicSafety commission ~ : .... Yes Would you be able to attend evening meetings? Yes · Brefly describe y ur involvement in eaCh of,the following areas: ' re i~'' '"" i° "'~'~"' "~"'~".' '" i'. "'" cUr n uccupation and Employment History: ~ Retired, oing much volunteer work For example' pUblic safety Commission, Friends of ti'ia Saratoga Library, Lions, Good Government Group, Masons, . Republican act~wtles and a Professional Defense Electronics Association. Educational ackground: BS Electrical Engineering, Ohio State University. - Master ofEqg~neering, UCLA . .~' · All class work for PHD in Economics,.claremont GradUate School AdditiOnal Inform tion or Comments: Have'served for'four years On the Public Service Commission, Chairperson - - 1999. Attend,ed Sheriffs Academy. Acted as interface between the City and the Sheriff and Fiire Departments. 'Personally led the successful effort t° extend the · Class A Roof-,;Ordinance. to the entire City. Much_ involved, with. . traffiC 'safety around the C~ty schools. Actively'participated in improving the working ' elatlonship between'the Saratoga Fire District and their Fire Fighters. . PartiCipating in the Fire Commission Steering Committee for the consultants hired to evalgate the 'City's fire proteCtion requirements..Dealt effectiVely and fairly with citi~Zens apPearing before the Commission.. ' ' city-°fsara'toga .. ' ' c0mmi~SiOn~A~P!icatioq~Fbrm · References: Mayor 'Bogosia Fire Chief Ernest Kraule Under Sheriff Wilson'~; Fire Chief Sporle~er-' Signature: Print Name: Date: Frank B. Lemmon March 1,2000 Please complete and return your complete application and suPplemental questionnaire to the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruihtale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070, Attention · City Clerk. If you have 'anytquestions,Y0u may call the City Clerk at 868-1269. .~ " SUPF LIC SAFETY COMMISSION: ,i'.:,:.., LEMENTAL QUi=~sTioNAIRE 1) What.do you think the Public Safety (~ommission does? 2) 3) erves as the interface between the ~ity and the. Sheriff,. tl~eFire Departments and the Emergency Response Agency... · SatiSfact°r~. resolveScitizens' real or pei'ceiVed traffic a'nd °ther ,~afety problems. · Interact with theSchool Districts toimP~0ve student safety l · · Involved in all City pubiC safety matters..' · Performs special assignments.given tO'it bY theCity Council or the City Manager. What new dimensions do you feel .you WoUld.offer to the Commission? · Through my close and friendly relationship'With:the saratoga Fire DistriCt, county Fire and the Fire Fighters, assist them in reaching a sOlution tOtheir interface problems for the best overall interest of Saratoga.. '" Have you had any involvementand/or experience with police and fire" protection agencies? If yes, please elaborate. · Yes, see "Additional Information and Comments" above. 4) What do you consider to be the major safety issues facing the city? Get the new Fire House built as soon as' possible. ResOlve the friction.between the Saratoga Fire District and it's Firefighters. In the best interests of the City, settle which Fire Department will man .tlie'Central Fire HOuse. Excessive traffic around all city 'schOols during student.dr°p .off and ,pick up times.. Traffic congestion at the freeway, at Saratoga-and FrUitvaie Avenue; at Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues and at Big ~Basin Way and HighWay 9. - -fCOMMIss. ION APPLICATION' · .::.!.'....:;--. - Date 3 / 10/O0 :.. ":'- '.~ .- . . -: _:~:: '..:.'.. :~-:-.... i:.~~ 'Commission :"ApPiy~'ng "for PUBLIC 'SAFETY Ms- - . . -':'.:' .... '- Mrs. Hg2,~IEL .... · -: ' - ARTHUR Mr. Last :Name Telephone 408-867-16'96' ,First Home Work Address 13056 BRANDYWINE DRIVE Street Year you became a Saratoga resident.' 1973 Would you be able to attend daytime meetings?: Would you be able to' attend evening meetings? 95.070 ZIP YES · YES DESCRIBE YOURINVOLVEMENT-IN EAcH.oF THE FOLLOWING AREAS: Current Occupation and Employment History: ~ RETIRED CEO/PRESIDENT OF MANUFACTURING COMPANIES IN THE US AND MEXICO FOR THE PAST THIRTY YEARS.. "' Educational Background -- BS INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING PENN STATE· Additional Information or comments':. City of Saratoga' c°. .ission Appli'eation'Form.... .:..- Page 2 References: 9'10 Capisi Ct., .Campbell' ·95008 · 408-377-8700 ' PETER PORS CPA PETER SANFORD ATTORNEY 333 W. SANTA 'CLARA,SAN ~OSE '95113 ~08~2R6'9700 ERNEST COCKRELL RECTOR ST ANDREWS EPISCOPAL CHURCHiSARATOG~" 408-867-3493 S I ~NATURE PRINT NAME Date ARTHUR B. HAMEL Please complete and return your complete application and'' su lem' questionnaire to the Ci~f Sa~=~-~ ,~,. _ '.' ~ Pp 'ental ~7 Fruitvale AVenue Sarato a. CA ~ention: Ci~C~~erk. If.you'haVeanYquestions, yoU may call'the City Clerk at 868-1269. ' pUBLiC SAFETY.-.COMMIS~IOI~ :. .. SUPPLEMENTAL'QUEsTIoNNAIRE l) What do you think the Public Safety CommisSion does? INCREASES CO~MUNITY AWARENESS OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, CRIME/FIRE ~REVENTI 2) '~II,~t~~eRS~~iF~uC~d :~q~~r~ .9 S CH OOL SAFE TY. 27 years of,observing problems in Saratoqa. 3) Have you had any involvement and/or experience with police and fire protection agencies? If yes, please elaborate. NO~: 4) What do you consider to be the major public Safety issues facing the City? a. bicycle safety , bike-lanes , poorly educated riders b. drivers driving in bike lanes c. tailgating and poor driving by Saratoga drivers d. lack of driving courtesy e. better education in .fire :prevention Revised 2/98 CITY OF SARATOGA comUssio~ ~n~C~TiO~ ~om~ Commission Applying for MS. Mr. Last Name Telephone Mom. Home Street Year you became a Saratoga resident Work lqq ZIP Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? Would you be able to attend evening meetings? DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS: Current Occupation and Employment History: Educational Background: Additional Information or Comments: City of Saratoga Commission Application Form Page 2 References .- SIGNATURE PRINT NAME Date Please complete and return your complete application and supplemental questionnaire to the ~itv of Saratoqa, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoqat Ch 95070, Attention= Cit~ clerk. If you have any questions, you may call the City Clerk at 868-1269. CITY OF SARATOGA COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM Commission Applying for _ Mr. Last Name First Telephone .~ome . -q Street MAR 14 2000 M.I. Work Year you became a Sa. ratoga resident Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? /~'~' Would you be able to attend evening meetings? ~-~ DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS: Current Occupation and Employment History: Educational Background Additional Information or Comments: C 4,Tr6r /.gm City of Saratoga Commission Application Form Page 2 References: Please complete and return your complete application and supplemental questionnaire to the City of Saratoqa, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoqa, Ch 95070, Attention: City Clerk. If you have any questions, you may call the City Clerk at 868~1269. PUBLIC SA~ETY,coMMIssION SUPPLEMENTAL Q~'ESTIONNAIRE~ 4) What do you think the Public Safety Commission does? What new dimension do you feel you Would offer to the Commission? Have you had any involvement and/or experience with police and fire protection agencies? If yes, please elaborate. -.. What do you consider to be themajor public safety issues facing the City7 Revised 2/98 Donna Romaniak SUpplemental Questionnaire Responses 1. My understanding lis that the Public Safety Commission meets once a month to review issues of con(~ern presented by the Community and analyzes these for the purpose of resolutionl by ' ~'~ . recommendabons addressed to the City Council. The Commission is able to hold public hearings for overall Community safety concerns, fire prevention, crime and traffic safety. This Commission is in place for the Community's benefit; to use as a voice to the Common Council in order to change existing laws or to propose new laws for public safety in the Community. 2. My contribution would be to act as an unbiased, careful listener to the concerns of the Community and then ~to analyze these concerns with the other committee members for the purpose of resolution. I would draw upon my 11 years of experience as a member of the Erie County Consumer Protection Committee in Western New York for similarities of issues and review the, methods of resolving them. 3. I was a Fire Marshall for my floor in the office building where I worked in Buffalo, NY which also led into many other Health and Safety related issues. This building was built in 1906 and there were numerous fire hazards and environmental issues that were addressed. We commissioned a study, which proposed major reconstruction and renovation procedureS and presented this to the building landlord and after discussion, all of the Fire, Health .,and Safety issues were addressed and resolved. 4. A. The major Public Safety issue, in my opinion, that the City of Sarato a faces toda · , . g Y is the traffic problem, which stems from the daily commute to work. I believe that there should be more encouragement to use the public transportation systems. If these sys!ems are inadequa, te, then this should be addressed. The public safety and the enwronmental health of our Community would both benefit from this review. B. Another issue that I have dealt with is the flooding that occurs on the highways, where it seems that th~ere is an insufficient drainage problem. There have been several traffic accidents that h'ave occurred due to standing water on the highways and major thoroughfares. Being ~ fairly new resident of the City of Saratoga places me at a disadvantage; (not knowing the evolutionary history and the problems that must have already been tackled bY your Committee) I do not propose to be critical, only to be helpful in overcoming Some of the problems that are inevitable with Community living and sharing. Commission Application Form Date: 3/22/00 Commission Applying for: Public Safety Applicant's Namei Address: ~ Telephone: i Mr. Stuart M. Kane, "Mitch" 12418 Palmtag Drive (408) 257-5418, Day or Evening Year you became ~i Saratoga resident: 12/86 Meeting Availability: I am able to attend daytime and evening meetings. Current Occupation and Employment History: 20+ years exPerien6, e working for High Tech companies in Silicon Valley. I have held management and in~tividual contributor roles in both product development and product I. marketing organizat)ons: Brocade Communications, Adaptec, Seagate, Advanced Micro Devices, and NCR. iAt present I am assisting my wife in launching her business. Educational Background: B. S. E.E.,. Universit~ of California at Davis, 1979 Ongoing professional education includes seminars and course work in engineering, marketing, sales, and general management. Additional Informatmn or Comments: None References: 1. Roy Shenfield, 255-6149 2. Karen Bryant, 927-9870 3. MervSobol, 996-1666 4. Lynna Taylor, 867-7032 Print Name: Signature: Supplemental Questionnaire 1.) What do you think the Public Safety Commission does? I understand the role of the Public Safety Commissions is to make recommendations to the Saratoga City Council regarding policies and services in the areas of fire prevention/protection, crime prevention, traffic safety, emergency preparedness, code enforcement and general public safety. These recommendations typically appear to be a result of soliciting and evaluating input from multiple constituencies (city departments and public) and applying experience, judgment, and city government knowledge in the development of proposed solUtions/actions. Based upon observations made at a Public ~ Safety Commission meeting it appears that commissioners act as a facilitat'or/problem solver for fellow citizens of Saratoga with speci~c public safety concerns or issues. 2.) What new dimension do you feel you would offer to the Commission? I am a resident of Brookview and feel our neighborhood needs to increase its participation and add it's perspective in addressing Saratoga's fundamental concerns. I bring the perspective and concern for safety that any father of three young daughters (3, 6, & 9 years old) growing up in Saratoga would have. In addition I bring 20+ years of professional experience in both engineering and marketing working issues across multiple organizations to successful resolution, both as a leader and as a team player. Together, my experiences working and parenting have given me insight for managing individuals and groups with conflicting objectives. My strengths include attention to detail, especially when arbitrating between competing interests, positioning decisions to make them acceptable (or at least supportable) to parties with a vested interest and identifying and dealing with issues before they .become crises. 3.) Have you had any involvement and/or experience with the police and fire protection agencies? If yes, please elaborate. Very limited: Neighborhood watch program participant, user of police services, extended-family members employed as Firefighter & Deputy Sheriff. ' 4.) What do you consider to be the major public safety issues facing the City? I have not as yet been involved in the public safety issues of the community, so my perspective is limited to perceived trends. · Families with young children are increasing in my neighborhood as many retirement age residents are moving away. Associated with this demographic change I am seeing more kids plaYing in the streets, renewed use of park play areas, and increased traffic to/from childcare, school and sporting/recreation centers. · More and more families are moving to our city from out of the area, and frequently from out of the country, increasing the density of the community and thus increasing the stresses on community services and infrastructure (e.g. library). As a Bay Area native and decade long resident of Saratoga, I hope to participate in a proactive and positive way that helps prepare the community for change. Schools and business centers are being updated and revamped to increase capacity. These changes provide opportunities to identify win-win solutions that balance our communities economic growth with our communal safety conditions (parking, traffic flow, emergency services). CITY OF SARATOGA CO~SSION APPLICATION FORM Date February 15. 2000 Commission Applying for Public Safet~ Commission Last First M.I. Telephone t4081 867-9889 (650) 604~2911 Home Work Address 18965 Alcott Way Saratoga. CA 95070 Street Zip Year you became Saratoga resident 1993 Would you be able to attend daytime meetings Yes(as req'd/ Would you be able to attend evening meetingsYes tBRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR iNVOLVEMENT IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS: Current Occupation and ~-~.loyment History: Current - Special Agent. National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA). Ames Research Center Protective Services Office Previous - Special Assistant to the Director of Center Operations NASA Ames Research Center. Moffett Field. California Educational Background: Santa Clara University. Bachelor of Science (BS) Degree - Business NASA Federal Law Enforcement Academy. Kennedy Space Center. Florida Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC/. Glynco. Georgia Additional Information or Coments: Saratoga Public Safety Commissioner (1998 to Present) Oand Sant~ Clara County Sheriffs ~ff~ce L~ , , _ ' _ ' ' aoersniD DeveloPment Cours~ City of Saratoga Com~ssion Application Form Page 2 References: Jana Coleman. Director of Center Operations. NASA Ames Research Center, M/S 200-9. Moffett Field CA, 94035 (650/ '604-5963 Paul Agnew, Assistant Chief Financial Officer. NASA Ames Research Center, M/S 200-8. Moffett Field CA. 94035 (650) 604-59~2 PRINT NAME Thomas R. Edel Date February 15. 2000 Please complete and return your complete application and supplemental questionnaire to the Cit? of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Att~tion: City Clerk. If you have any questions, you may call the City Clerk at 868-1269. PUBLIC SAFETY CO~ISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE 1) What do you think the Public Safety Commission does? While serving as a member of the Public Safety Commission for the past two years, I have acquired a first-hand knowledge of the valuable role this advisory commission plays within the City. I feel that one of the Commissions most important attributes is that it provides an easily accessible forum for citizens to bring their public safety concerns to the City's attention. Once hearing the citizens concerns, the Commissioners analyze and evaluate the issues involved and make a recommendation to the City, which they 'feel represents the best overall interest of the community. 2) What new dimension do you feel you would offer to the Commission? I believe that my background in Protective Services, along with my heartfelt desire to keep Saratoga a safe and beautiful place to live, allows me to make valuable contributions to the Public Safety Commission (and my community). I also feel that in order for the ssion to best represent the public safety needs of the community, it should have its membership made up of a diverse group of individuals (i.e., varying ages, backgrounds, gender, etc.) I feel that I help bring this diversity to the Commission. 3) Have you had any involvement and/or experience with police and fire protection agencies? If yes, please elaborate. As a SPecial Agent for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Ames Research Center Protective Services Office, I have daily involvement with Law Enforcement, Fire Protection and Emergency Services. I have also had extensive training in these areas, including several courses from the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office and the South Bay Regional Police Academy. 4) What do you consider to be the major public safety issues facing the city? Without a doubt, I feel that traffic is the most serious public safety issue facing the City of Saratoga. I believe that the Public Safety Commission (and the City) will need to continue to aggressively explore ways of mitigating the adverse impact that traffic is having on the community, most importantly, the neighborhoods and schools. Date i~on ~~~ng ' for ~A3 r[ -- T~St Name CITY OF SARATOGA COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM MAR 2 8 2000 L~ First MoIo Telephone Home Work Street ZIP Year you became a Saratoga resident Would you be able to attend daytime meetings? Would you be able to attend evening meetings? DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS: Current Occupation and Employment History: Educational Background: Additional Information or Comments: City of Saratoga Commission Application Form Page 2 References: Date PleaSe complete and return your complete application and supplemental questionnaire to the Cit of Sarato a 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Sarato a CA . If you have any questions you may call the ty Clerk at 868-1269. ' PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE 1) What do you think the Public Safety Commission does? 2) What new dimension do you feel you would:offer to the Commission? 3) Have you had any involvement and/or experience with police and fire protection agencies? If yes, please elaborate. 4) What do you consider to be the major public safety issues facing the City? Revised 2/98 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 19, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager AGENDA ITEM '/ CITY MANAGER:~"~~ PREPARED BY: .City Cler~" SUBJECT: CEREMONIAL ITEM: APPOINTMENT OF HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSIONERS. RECOMMENDED MOTION: REPORT SUMMARY: FISCAL IMPACT: That Council approve the attached resolution appointing the following: Willys Peck - Term Ending April 2004 Norman Koepemik - Term Ending April 2004 Jill Hunter - Term Ending April 2004 Carolyn King - Term Ending April 2002 Attached is a Resolution appointing Willys Peck, Norman Koepemik, Jill Hunter and Carolyn King to the Heritage Preservation Commission; after which the Oath of Office will be administered and signed by commissioners. These appointments will complete the 7-seat Heritage Preservation Commission. None. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON MOTION: FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: ATTACHMENTS: Posting of the Council agenda. Appointments will not be made to the Heritage Preservation Commission. Update Commissioner roster. A. Resolution of Appointment B. Oath of Office RESOLUTION NO. 00- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOiNTING FOUR MEMBERS TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, four vacancies have been created in the Heritage Preservation Commission resulting from the expiration of the terms of office of Willys Peck, Norman Koepemik, Carolyn King and a non-scheduled ,v__acancy of Larry Fine; WHEREAS, a notice of vacancy was posted, applications were received, ' interviews have been conducted, and it is now appropriate to fill those vacancies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following appointments are made for a term expiring April, 2004: Willys Peck, Heritage Preservation Commissioner Norman Koepemik, Heritage Preservation Commissioner Jill Hunter, Heritage Preservation Commissioner NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following appointment is made for a term expiring April, 2002: Carolyn King, Heritage Preservation Commissioner The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 19th day of April, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: Carol Ann Butler, CMC, Interim City Clerk STATE' OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, Willys Peck, do solemnly swear (or affirTM) 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. Willys Peck, Heritage Preservation Commissioner Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of April 2000. Carol Ann Butler, City Clerk City of Saratoga STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF sANTA CLARA I, Willys Peck, 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. Willys Peck, Heritage Preservation Commissioner Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of April 2000. Carol Ann Butler, City Clerk City of Saratoga STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, Jill Hunter; 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. Jill Hunter, Heritage Preservation Commissioner Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of April 2000. Carol Ann Butler, City Clerk City of Saratoga STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, Jill Hunter, 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. Jill Hunter, Heritage Preservation Commissioner Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of April 2000. Carol Ann Butler, City Clerk City of Saratoga STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, Carolyn King, 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. Carolyn King, Heritage Preservation Commissioner Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of April 2000. Carol Ann Butler, City Clerk City of Saratoga STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, Carolyn King, 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. Carolyn King, Heritage Preservation Commissioner Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of April 2000. Carol Ann Butler, City Clerk City. of Saratoga STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, Norman Koepernik, 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. Norman Koepernik, Heritage Preservation Commissioner Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of April 2000. Carol Ann Butler, City Clerk City of Saratoga STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, Norman Koepernik, 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. Norman Koepernik, Heritage Preservation Commissioner Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of April 2000. Carol Ann Butler, City Clerk City of Saratoga SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 19, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: ~~' SUBJECT: CEREMONIAL ITEM: COMMENDATION CELEBRATING VOLUNTEER SARATOGA RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Approve the subject commendation. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is the commendation celebrating Volunteer Saratoga. FISCAL IMPACTS: None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Commendation will not be approved. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): None ATTACHMENTS: Commendation COMMENDATION WHEREAS, National Volunteer Appreciation Week was celebrated April 9th through 15t~, and · WHEREAS, it is therefore appropriate to commend those individuals who work side by side City staff, contributing the success of City programs and · services, and ~ WHEREAS, Saratoga Council is proud of the citizens who contribute time and talent to our community, and WHEREAS, 75 individuals and 5 groups have volunteered over 1700 hours to date, and WHEREAS, volunteers clean-up parks, whte computer programs, fill sandbags, coach youth basketball, word process, draw calligraphy, file, work with children's programs, tutor, escort trips, assist with mailings NOW, THEREFORE, I, THE MAYOR OF SARATOGA, hereby commend each and every member of Volunteer Saratoga for Planting the Seeds of Success. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this the 194 day of April 2000. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 19, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager AGENDA ITEM 3 CITY MANAGER:~~,~~----~ PREPARED BY: City Clerk SUBJECT: PROCLAMATION FOR HELLER ERMAN LAW FIRM RECOMMENDED MOTION: REPORT SUMMARY: Note andfile. Proclamations presented to Elizabeth H. Radur, Joshua Masur and Stan Young for volunteering to provide the necessary specialized pro bono legal services in the Cable Franchise Transfer Agreement with TCI. FISCAL IMPACT: None ADVERTISING, NOTICING CONSEQUENCES OF NOT None ACTING ON MOTION: Posting of the Council agenda. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: ATTACHMENTS: None Proclamations PROCLAMATION of the CITY OF SARATOGA COMMENDING ELIZABETH H. RADER and the LAW FIRM OF HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE WHEREAS, in 1996, the CITY OF SARATOGA entered into a CABLE FRANCHISE TRANSFER AGREEMENT with TCI whereby TCI agreed that, unless requested otherwise by the CITY, Saratoga's Community Access Channel will remain on Cable Channel 6 throughout the duration of the fi'anchise, or unless relocation is required in order to comply with "must carry" and "retransmission consent" requirements." WHEREAS, commencing in 1999, the City of Saratoga had need of specialized pro bono legal services when faced with TCI's relocation of KSAR from Channel 6 to Channel 15 in violation of said CABLE FRANCHISE TRANSFER AGREEMENT; WHEREAS, in recognition of the important public rights jeopardized by the relocation of Saratoga's community television station, the Law Firm of HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE offered to provide essential specialized pro bono legal services to assist the City in pursuing its legal remedies; WHEREAS, ELIZABETH H. RADER, an attorney with the Law Firm of HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE volunteered to provide the necessary specialized pro bono legal services to pursue the remedies to which the CITY was entitled, and working together with Elizabeth H. Rader of said firm and under the supervision of Stan Young of said Law Firm, provided extensive and outstanding legal services to the CITY without charge; WHEREAS, ELIZABETH H. RADER and the Law Firm of HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE obtained an outstanding result in litigation on behalf of the CITY to obtain compensation for TCI's relocation of KSAR and thereby performed an outstanding service for Saratogans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ELIZABETH H. RADER is hereby commended for his outstanding work in providing specialized pro bono legal services to the CITY OF SARATOGA and contributing to the community television access available to Saratogans in a very important way. Witness my hand and the Seal of the City of Saratoga on this 19th day of April in the year 2000. STAN BOGOSIAN, MAYOR PROCLAMATION of the CITY OF SARATOGA COMMENDING JOSHUA MASUR and the LAW FIRM OF HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE WHEREAS, in 1996, the CITY OF SARATOGA entered into a CABLE FRANCHISE TRANSFER AGREEMENT with TCI whereby TCI agreed that, unless requested otherwise by the CITY, Saratoga's Community Access Channel will remain on Cable Channel 6 throughout the duration of the franchise, or unless relocation is required in order to comply with "must carry" and "retransmission consent" requirements." WHEREAS; commencing in 1999, the City of Saratoga had need of specialized pro bono legal services when faced with TCI's relocation of KSAR fi'om Channel 6 to Channel 15 in .yiolation of said CABLE FRANCHISE TRANSFER AGREEMENT; WHEREAS, in recognition of the important public rights jeopardized by the relocation of Saratoga's community television station, the Law Finn of HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE offered to provide essential specialized pro bono legal services to assist the City in pursuing its legal remedies; WHEREAS, JOSHUA MASUR, an attorney with the Law Finn of HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE volunteered to provide the necessary specialized pro bono legal services to pursue the remedies to which the CITY was entitled, and working together with Elizabeth H. Rader of said finn and under the supervision of Stan Young of said Law Firm, provided extensive and outstanding legal services to the CITY without charge; WHEREAS, JOSHUA MASUR and the Law. Firm of HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE obtained an outstanding result in litigation on behalf of the CITY to obtain compensation for TCI's relocation °fKSAR and thereby performed an outstanding service for Saratogans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that JOSHUA MADER is hereby commended for his outstanding work in providing specialized pro bono legal services to the CITY OF SARATOGA and contributing to the community television access available to Saratogans in a very important way. ' Witness my hand and the Seal of the City of Saratoga on this 19th day of April in the year 2000. STAN BOGOSIAN, MAYOR PROCLAMATION of the CITY OF SARATOGA COMMENDING STAN YOUNG and the LAW FIRM OF HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE WHEREAS, in t 996, the CITY OF SARATOGA entered into a CABLE FRANCHISE TRANSFER AGREEMENT with TCI whereby TCI agreed that, unless requested otherwise by the CITY, Saratoga's Community Access Channel will remain on Cable Channel 6 throughout the duration of the franchise, or unless relocation is required in order to comply with "must carry" and "retransmission consent" requirements." WHEREAS, cormnencing in 1999, the City Of Saratoga had need of specialized pr° bono legal services when faced with TCI's relocation of KSAR from Channel 6 to Channel 15 in violation of said CABLE FRANCHISE TRANSFER AGREEMENT; WHEREAS, in recognition of the important public fights jeopardized by the relocation of Saratoga's community television station, the Law Finn of HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE offered to pi'ovide essential specialized pro bono legal services tO assist the City in pursuing its legal remedies; .' WHEREAS, STAN YOUNG, an attorney with the.Law Firm.of HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE volunteered to provide the necessary specialized pro bono legal serx;ices to pursue the remedies to which the CITY was entitled, and working together with . '. Elizabeth H. Rader of said finn and under the supervision of Stan Young of said Law Finn, provided extensive and outstanding legal services to the CITY without charge; · · WHEREAS, STAN YOUNG and the Law Finn of HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE obtained an outstanding result in litigation on behalf of the CITY to obtain compensation for TCI's relocation of KSAR and thereby performed an outstanding service for Saratogans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that STAN YOUNG is hereby commended for his outstanding work in providing specialized pro bono legal services to the CITY OF SARATOGA and contributing to the community television access available to Saratogans in a very important way. Witness my hand and the Seal of the City of Saratoga on this '19~h day of April in the year 2000. STAN BOGOSIAN, MAYOR SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 19, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: ~ ~_~~'~~ SUBJECT: Approval of Check Register RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Note and file. 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 419/00 Checks Checks A81189 - 81337 1 GENERAL 100 COPS-SLESF 97,659.44 110 Traffic Safety 150 Streets & Roads 373,660.03 160 Transit Dev 170 Hillside Repair 180 LLA Districts 1,641.99 250 Dev Services 33,002.91 260 Environmental 30,689.30 270 Housing & Comm 290 Recreation 15,171.55 292 Facility Ops 653.32 293 Theatre Surcharge 300 State Park 310 Park Develpmt 400 Library Debt 410 Civic Cntr COP 420 Leonard Creek 138.14 700 Quarry Creek 710 Heritage Prsvn 720 Cable TV 730 PD #2 740 PD #3 138.14 800 Deposit Agency 810 Deferred Comp 830 Payroll Agency 990 SPFA 2,204.84 (637.36 (178.26) (5oo.oo) i 445.94 (3,282.89) (50.00) (373.80) Subtotal 552,754.82 2,650.78 (5,022.31 PAYROLL CHECKS:B25392 - 25426 TOTAL Prepared by: Date: JApproved by: Ap>99 ~0 O~ u § ~o~o~ 0 0 o~ oo ~ g o § o o § o o 0000 § o o [-' o o ~o 0~. ~ .. ~0 O~ C~O n o~ :> ~ ~ oo Oo g go° 0 0 H 0 n ,-4 § § oo § ".co Oo 0 oo oo § oo § Oo ~ o oo ~' 0 0 0 0 0 coo~ § o© oo 0 o 0 o oo oo § oo E~ 0 ~ 0 oo 0 ~'~ 0 n 0 ~O ,0 g oo g ,~o :>~ O~ ~0 0 :> O0 go° (P 0 ~ 0 0 g o o 0 0 0 oo oo 0 n~ 0 0 ~ r~ oo § § 0 0 8., § 0 oo § § H § § 0 ~0 O~ oo 0 ~g ~o § g oo Om ~o oo oo g oo § oo 0 § § oo § o o© 0 0 oo 0 o ,--I 0 0 o~ 0 0 0 o § 0 0 o~ § 0 ~ 0 § oo § O0 ~o ,~,. O~ :> oo OZ § § § § oo o oo oo oo oo o 0 § (~0 r~ ~> ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~o ~o'oo ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o o o o oo § ~o 0 Z 0 ~ 0 g oo oo° b 0 ~§§°°o ,.30 0 o 0~. (~0 ~> 0 ~ 0 t~ § § 0 r~ 0 0 0 ~n 0 ' 0 oo oo 0 oo oo § g § g ~0 r~ ~> oo oo § oo 0 o7, oo g § § oo ,-.1 § § § 0 I> § g § 0 o~ 0 t~ Oo o § g § § 0'~ [.-,~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ Oo rj ,-3 oo g § § § ....o§ §§ §§ §§ gg .......... SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY No.: AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPT: April 19, 2000 CITY MANAGER: Community Development PREPARED BY: James Walgren~ Director SUBJECT: Planning Commission Actions, April 12, 2000 RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Note and file. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the Planning Commission action minutes of April 12, 2000. 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. DATE: PLACE: TYPE: CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES Wednesday, April 12, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. Council Chambers/Civic Theatre, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA ' Regular Meeting ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF: Commissioners Barry, Page, Roupe and C..hair Bernald CommissionersJackman, Kurasch and Patrick Director Walgren and Minutes Clerk Swanson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - March 22, 2000 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 7, 2000. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR DR-99-036 (517-14-094) - BELSHAW, 20620 Sigal Drive; Request for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,083 square foot, two-story residence. The site is currently vacant, is 1.63 acres in size and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 4/26/00 TO PREPARE PUBLIC NOTICE FOR A VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR RETAINING WALL HEIGHT IN ADDITION TO DESIGN REVIEW) CONTINUANCE APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. DR-99-060 (397-17-008) - BARRINGER, 14535 Fruitvale Avenue; Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval tO demolish an existing 2,316 square foot residence and construct a new 5,195 square foot two-story residence with a maximum height of 25 feet. The property is 45,292 square feet and is located within an R-i-40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 3/22/00) APPROVED 4-0. PLANNING CoMMIssION ACTION MINUTES APRIL 12, 2000 PAGE2 V-99-014 (397-26-022) - LAFFOON, 14191 Squirrel Hollow Lane; Request for Variance approval for the addition of 279 square feet to the existing 3,438 square foot residence. Variance approval is necessary to further exceed the maximum allowable floor area for the site, which is 3,200 square feet. The site is 17,206 square feet and is located within an R-l-15,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 3/8/00)' APPROVED 4-0. DR-99-010 & V-99-005 (517-14-078) - TAC~RMINA, Quickert Road; Request for Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new 6,296 square foot two-story residence. Variance approval is required to allow a retaining wall to exceed five feet in height. The property is 3.1 acres (net) and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. CONTINUED 4-0 TO 5/10/00 FOR REDESIGN. DR-99-012 (503-28-123) - PESIC, 21433 Toll Gate Road; Application for Design Review apProval to construct a 5,040 square foot, two-story residence on a vacant lot. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The parcd is 1.15 acres (net) and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. APPROVED 4-0. SM-99-003 (503-15-042) - MARCINKOWSKI, 21143 Chadwick Court; Request for Site Modification approval to construct a circular driveway extension, walkway, steps and a spa. The residence was approved in February 1998 and is currently nearing completion. The property is 2.3 acres (net) and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. APPROVED 4-0. AR-99-039 (393-34-023) - BANISALAM, 13459 Brier Court; Appeal of an Administrative Design Review approval allowing the construction of 661 square feet to the first floor and 328 square feet to the second floor of an existing 2,437 square foot, two-story, single family residence. The site is 12,510 square feet and is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. APPEAL DENIED 4-0. DIRECTOR ITEMS - Circulation and Housing Element Updates - City Council RDA Discussion - Mountain Winery Update - Building Materials Recycling Ordinance PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES APRIL 12, 2000 PAGE3 COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Councfl'minutes for regular meeting of March 15 and adjourned meeting of March 21, 2000 - Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 2000 Correspondence to Chair Bernald from Bob Hansen, resident of Saratoga, concerning the Planning Commission process ADJOURNMENT AT 12:00 A.M. TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, April 26, 2000, Council Chambers/Civic Theatre 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: APRIL 19, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM DEPT. HEAD: ~t~ ~A'" '.4'~_ SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolutions Prohibiting U-Turns on Fruitvale Avenue and Prohibiting Parking on a portion of Saratoga Hills Road RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): 1. Move to adopt Motor Vehicle Resolution prohibiting U-Tums on Fruitvale Avenue at median opening in front of Redwood School. 2. Move to adopt Motor Vehicle Resolution prohibiting Parking along a portion of the northerly side of Saratoga Hills Road. REPORT SUMMARY: 1. Prohibition ofl l-Tnrn~q on Fmitvale Avenue' This is the reinstatement of MV Resolution 231, which expired in November 1999. At its February, 2000 meeting, the Saratoga Public Safety Commission recommended the permanent reinstatement of the prohibition of U-Tums at the median opening in front of Redwood School and the main entrance to West Valley College. This median opening becomes very congested when Redwood school is receiving and releasing students. Vehicles leaving the school weave over to access the median opening to make a U-Turn in a very short distance (200 ft.), while at the same time West Valley students are making their left turn into the College. Once the No U-Turn signs are in place, vehicles leaving Redwood School would still be able to go south on Fruitvale Avenue approximately 1/4 mile to the median opening at Athletics Way to make their U-Turn (see attached map). MV Resolution 231 was written to be effective one year so it could be evaluated at that time for its effectiveness. 2. Prohibition of Parking along Saratoga l-lill.q Road: This is a Saratoga Public Safety Commission Recommendation, which would prohibit parking along the frontages of 20855 and 20865 Saratoga Hills Road (255+/- feet from Pontiac Avenue). The City and Saratoga Fire began receiving complaints regarding a potential public safety issue caused by vehicles being parked on both sides of Saratoga Hills Road shortly after occupation of newly built homes located at the above-mentioned addresses. The parked vehicles cause a narrowing of the roadway in this area prohibiting two-way and emergency vehicle passage, thus necessitating the need for a parking prohibition on one side of the roadway. The property owners in the immediate area have been notified of this recommendation. FISCAl, IMPACT,q: Approximately $500.00 in labor and materials for the City to install the signs at both locations. Funds for this expense would come from the Traffic Control Budget. CONSEOIIENCES OF NOT ACTING ON THE RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: The Resolutions would not be adopted and the intersection on Fruitvale Avenue and the parking situation on Saratoga Hills Road would remain as is. AI,TERNATIVE ACTION~(~q): None in addition to the above. FOI,I,OW liP ACTION~q: The signs will be' installed and the Sheriff's Department will be notified of the new prohibitions. ADVERT[qlNG. NOTICING AND PlIIII,IC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENT~: 1. Map of proposed U-Turn Prohibition. 2. Motor Vehicle Resolution prohibiting U-Tums on Fruitvale Avenue. 3. Motor Vehicle Resolution prohibiting Parking along Saratoga Hills Road. DRAWN BY APPROVED BY :) CITY OF SARATOGA STANDARD DRAWING "PROPOS £O' U-TURN PROtI'I B I T/OH FRUITVIlZ£ IIVENU£., _ SCALE DATE RESOLUTION NO. MV- RESOLUTION PROHIBITING'U-TURNS ON FRUITVALE AVENUE AT MEDIAN OPENING IN FRONT OF REDWOOD SCHOOL The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resoNes as follows:' Section I: BaSed upon an engineering and traffiC· study, the following designated Portions of Fruitvale Avenue in the City of Saratoga shall prohibit the U-Turn movement of vehicles: LocATION 650 feet southerly ofAllendale Avenu~" Southbound DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC AFFECTED 650 feet southerly of Allendale Avenue Northbound This resolution shall become effective at such time as the signs are erected. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular, meeting held on the .19th day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: 'NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. M.V- RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SARATOGA HILLS ROAD' The City Council of the city Of. Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section'I: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the following designated portion of Saratoga Hills Road in the city of Saratoga shall prohibit parking .of vehicles: NAME OF STREET. DESCRIPTION PARKING LIMIT 'Saratoga Hills Road. On the northerly side No Parking ' to'a point which is Anytime 255 +/- feet westerly from Pontiac Avenue. This resolution shall become effective at such time as. the signs and/or markings installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council o'f the City. of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of April, 2000, by the' following vote: AYES:. NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING' DATE: APRIL 19, 1999 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM ¢~- SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1; Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report and Adoption of Resolution of Intention for FY 00-01 Recommended Motion(~): 1. Move to adopt the Resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report for FY 00-01. 2. Move to adopt the Resolution of Intention. Report Summary: Attached are the next two Resolutions to continue the process for renewing the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 for FY 00-01. Briefly, the two Resolutions are: A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report ... Fiscal Year 2000-2001 - This is the Resolution required under the State Streets & Highways Code (S&H) section 22623 which grants preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report for the renewal of the District for FY 00-01. A Resolution of Intention to order the levy and collection of assessments ... Fiscal Year 2000-2001 - This is the Resolution required under S&H 22624 which, among other things, fixes the date and time for the Public Hearing on June 6. There are no significant changes proposed for any of the Zones within the District in FY 00-01. These Resolutions should be adopted by separate vote at your meeting to continue the process of renewing the District for another year in the time frame called for in the Budget Preparation Calendar. Fiscal lmpact~: There are no direct fiscal impacts on the City's General Fund fi.om the Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District. All of the costs associated with the District are recovered via the assessments. There are no increases in the parcel assessments, which require a ballot vote. These districts fund higher levels of landscaping and lighting services, in specific zones, than in other areas of the City. Conseauences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Resolutions would not be adopted and the process for renewing the District would not continue. Alternative Action.q: None in addition to the above. Follow lip Aetion.~: The Resolution of Intention will be published. Advertising; Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional at this time. After your meeting~ the Resolution of Intention will be published. Attachments: 1. Resolutions (2). 2. Preliminary Engineers Report RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, on the 1st day of March, 2000, said Council did adopt its Resolution No. 00-013, "A Resolution Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report For Fiscal Year 2000-200 l," for the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA-1, in said City and did refer the proposed improvements to the Engineer of the City and did therein direct said Engineer to prepare and file with the City Clerk of said City a report, in writing, all as therein more particularly described: ' WHEREAS, said.City Engineer prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report in writing as called for in said Resolution No. 00-013 and under and pursuant to said Act, which report has been presented to this Council for consideration; WHEREAS, said Council has duly considered said report and each and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient, and that neither said report, nor any part thereof should be modified in any respect; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and the proposed new improvements to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof, contained in said report, be, and they are hereby preliminarily approved. 2. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total-costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report, be, and each of them are hereby preliminarily approved. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution No. 00-013 and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said district as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the' County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which the report .applies, each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as Contained in said report, ~be, and it hereby is preliminarily approved. 4. That the proposed assessment of the total amount of the estimated costs and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said assessment district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements including the maintenance or servicing or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto, as contained in said report, be, and they are hereby preliminari.ly approved. ., 5. That said report shall stand as the Engineer's Report for the purpose of all subsequent proceedings to be had pursuant to said Resolution No. 00-013. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 19th day of April, 2000 by the following vote of the members thereof: AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor city Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS PuRSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 CITY.OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA- FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, CalifOrnia, as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 00-013, "A Resolution Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2000-2001," for City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA-1, adopted on March 1, 2000, by the City Council of said City, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act. of 1972, the Engineer of said City has prepared and filed with the Clerk of this City the written rePort called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 00-013, which said report has been submitted and preliminarily approved by this Council in accordance with said Act; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1. In its opinion the public interest and convenience require: and it is the intention of this Council to order the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Y~ar 2000-2001 pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by reference incorporated l~erein.' 2. The cost and expenses of said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are t6 be made chargeable upon the assessment district designated as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA-1," the exterior boundaries of which are the composite and consolidated areas as more particularly described on a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said City, to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in the district and of any zone thereof and the general location of said district. 3. Said Engineer's Report prepared by the Engineer of said City, preliminarily approved by this Council, and on file with the City Clerk of this City is hereby referred to for a full and detailed description of the improvements and the boundaries of.the assessment district and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the district. 4. Notice is hereby given that Wednesday, the 7th day of June, 2000,.at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, be and the same are hereby appointed and fixed as the time and place for a heating by this Council on the question of the levy and collection of the proposed assessment for the construction or installation of said improvements, including the maintenance and serviclng, or both, thereof, and when and where it will consider all oral statements and all written protests made or filed by any interested person at or before the conclusion of said heating, against said improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and any zone therein, the proposed': diagram or the proposed assessment, to the Engineer's estimate of the cost thereof, and When andwhere it will consider and finally act upon the Engineer's report, and tabulate the ballots. : 5. The Clerk of said City be, and hereby is, directed to give notice of said hearing by causing a copy of this Resolution to be published once in the Saratoga News, a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and by conspicuously posting a copy thereof upon the official' bulletin board customarily used by the City of Saratoga for the pOsting of notices, said posting and publication to be had and completed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing specified herein. 6. The Office of the City Engineer be, and hereby is designated as the office to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein, and may be contacted during the regular office hours at the City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, SaratOga, California 95070, or by calling (408) 868-1241. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 19th of April, 2000, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor Attest: City Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING -DISTRICT LLA- 1 ENGINEER'S REPORT on the ~ Levy of. an Assessment for the 2000-2001 Fiscal Year April 2000 JOHN H. HEINDEL - CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER ENGINEER OF WORK T~LE OF CONTENT~ Assessment & Cost Summary Rules for Spreading Assessment Description of Improvements Cost Detail Assessment Roll Assessment Diagram Certificates Paqes 1-3 4-5 6-8 9-13 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1 AS S ES~MENT for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 WHEREAS, on March 1, 2000, the City Council of the City. of Saratoga, California,' pursuant ~. to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, adopted its Resolution No. 00-013 describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report for Fiscal year 2000-2001, more' particularly therein described, and WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 00-013 directed the Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications for the proposed improvements, an estimate of costs, a diagram of the assessment district, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements upon all assessable lots or parcels of land within the assessment district, to which Resolution reference is hereby made for further particulars, NOW, THEREFORE, I, John H. Heindel, by virtue of the power vested in me under said Act and the order of the City Council of said City of Saratoga, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of said improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by the assessment district for the Fiscal Year 2000-2001: ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE SUMMARY* ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS Wages & benefits Attorney Assessment engineer Advertising MISCELLANEOUS OVERHEAD New parcel charges $ 8,645 5OO 6,340 812 $ 16,297 -0- MAINTENANCE COSTS Wages & benefits Contract services Repair services Maintenance services Irrigation water Electric power Equipment charge. $19,672 1,900 2,640 56,512 17,115 39,490 '0- 137,329 Subtotal Indirect cost allocation Total Costs previous year carryover Estimated property tax revenue Net cost Carryover not recovered' Carryover not reimbursed Assessment $153,626 20,754 $174,380 (77,454) (73,750.) $ 23,176 (2,149) 81,177 $102,204 Zone No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7A 7B 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 Totals SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT BY ZONE* As Preliminarily Approve~ Total Per Parcel 1,200 $ 41.38 4,013 47.22 3,124 17.76 -0- 0.00 -0- 0.00' 2,957 46.20 -0- 0.00 -0- 0.00 5,986 124.70 2,588 287.56 4,580 18.32 2,253 250.34 5,219 127.30 1,786 32.48 8,505 42.52 15,737 18.24 -0- N/A -0- 0.00 28,555 303.78 3,673 118.48 6,400 400.00 3,030 49.68 2,598 49.96 As Confirmed Total Per Parcel $102,204 *See Cost Detail herein for breakdown -2- And I do hereby assess and apportion said portion of the estimated cost of the improvements, including the maintenance ~and servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental thereto, upon the several lots or parcels of land liable therefor and benefited thereby, and hereinafter numbered to correspond with the numbers upon the attached diagram, upon each, severally and respectively, in proportion to the. benefits to be received by such property, respectively, from ~the construction and installation of the improvements, and from the maintenance and servicing thereof, and more particularly set forth in the~Assessment Roll hereto attached and by this reference made a part hereof. As required by said Act, a diagram is hereto attached showing the assessment district, and also the boundaries and dimensions of the respective lots or parcels of land within said assessment district, .as the same existed at the time of the passage of said Resolution No. 00-013. The diagram and assessment numbers appearing-in the Assessment Roll herein under the column.~headed "A.P.N." are the diagram numbers appearing on said diagram, to which reference is hereby made for a more particular description of said property. I hereby place in the Assessment Roi1, opposite the number of each lot or parcel of land assessed, the amount assessed thereon.~ Each lot or parcel of land is described in said Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the assessor's maps of ~the County of Santa Clara for the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 and includes all of such parcel. '~ Respectfully submitted, Dated: , 2000 John H. Heindel, RCE 13319 Engineer of Work -3- RULES FOR SPREADING ASSESSMENT The amounts to be assessed against the assessable lots or parcels of land to pay the estimated cost of the improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental thereto, shall be based upon the estimated benefits to be derived by the various lots or parcels of land within the assessment district. The assessment for administrative costs shall be spread equally to all of the lots or parcels of land located in the assessment district. The assessment for cost of improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof, in Zones i through 7B, 9 through 12, 15 through 17, 22, 25 through 29, and 31, as described in Resolution No. 00- , shall be spread equally to all of the lots or parcels of land located within each said respective zone of the assessment district.. .The assessment for cost of improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof, in Zone 24, as described in Resolution No. 00- , shall be spread as follows: Costs related to street lights and street trees shall be spread to all the lots or parcels of land located within said zone, proportional to usable parcel area. Costs related to the Village parking District (VPD) parking lots shall be spread to all the lots or parcels of land in commercial use located within said zone, proportional to the number of parking spaces existing in the VPD parking lots that are assigned to each parcel within said zone, rounded to the nearest one tenth (0.1) of a parking space. Spaces shall be assigned by adding the total number of spaces in the 'VPD parking lots and the total private spaces existing on assessable parcels, distributing this sum proportionally by weighted building area, and deducting the number of private spaces, if any, from the resulting number for each parcel. Weighted building area shall be defined as actual building area multiplied by a factor dependent on parcel use, as follows: Retail = 1.0; offiCe/service = 0.5; restaurant = 2.0. Zones 0, 8, 13, 14, 18 through 21, 23, and 30 have been either detached or merged with other zones. A portion of Zone 4 was redesignated Zone 26 in 1997. Notwithstanding the above, the assessment levied for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 for each parcel in Zones 2, 3, 6, 11, 16, 22, 25, 26, and 29 shall not exceed the amount indicated in Table 1 attached hereto, and the. assessment levied for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 for each parcel in Zones 1, 9, 12, 17, 27, 28, 'and 31 shall not.exceed the amount indicated in Table 2 attached hereto. In subsequent years, the maximum assessment for each parcel shall be the amount calculated by multiplying its maximum assessment for the previous year by 1.05. TABLE~I MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 MAXIMUM ZONE ASSESSMENT 2 -$ 52.50 3 $ 63.00 6 $ 78.75 11 $ 52.50 16 $ 94.50 22 $ 52.50 25 $341.25 26 $498.75 29 $100.00 TABLE 2 MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 MAXIMUM ZONE ASSESSMENT 1 $ 75.00 9 $180.00 12 $275.00 17 $ 60.00 27 $150.00 28 $4OO.OO 31 $ 70.00 -5- DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT~ The design, construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities, and public lighting facilities for the lighting of any public places, including traffic signals, ornamental standards, luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances, including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements; and the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. This work specially benefits the parcels assessed therefor since 1) the work is adjacent to the neighborhoods within which said parcels are located, and results in a) helping to identify, distinguish and enhance these neighborhoods, including the entrances thereto; b) helping to improve the quality of life in these neighborhoods by reducing the potential for graffiti, eliminating dust and litter, providing sound attenuation, eliminating the potential for blight, and providing added security and safety through lighting and an added City presence; and 2) in the absence of this assessment district, the work and improvements would not be otherwise accomplished by the City. Benefits Provided within Each Zone: Zone 1 Zone 2 (Manor Drive Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Manor Drive median and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage along Tract 3822. (Fredericksburg Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Cox Avenue frontage of Tracts 3777, 4041 and 4042. Zone 3 (Greenbriar Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Seagull Way entrance to Tracts 4628, 4725 and 4726, and of the common areas along Goleta Avenue and Guava Court. -6- Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 zOne 7 Zone 9 Zone 10 Zone 11 Zone 12 Zone 15 Zone 16 Zone 17 Zone 22 (Quito Lightihg District) - Provides for streetlighting and landscape maintenance in the E1 Quito Park residential neighborhood: Tracts 669, 708, 748, 6785, 7833, and 8700. (Azule Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in the Azule Crossing residential neighborhoods: Tracts 184, 485, .787, 1111, and 1800. (Sarahills Lighting .District) - streetlighting in the Sarahills neighborhood: Tracts 3392 and 3439. Provides for residential (Village Residential Lighting District) -.Provides for streetlighting in four separate residential neighborhoods-surrounding Saratoga Village. Includes all or a portion of Cunningham Acres~ La Paloma Terrace, Mary Springer #1 and #2, McCartysville, Saratoga Park, Williams, and Tracts 270, 336, 416, 2399, 2502, 4477, 5350, 5377, 5503, 5676, 6419, and 6731. (McCartysville Landscape District) - Provides for Landscape maintenance along the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tract 5944. (Tricia Woods Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tract 7495. (Maintenance and water shared with Zone 27). (Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Via Monte entrances to all or a portion of Tracts 2694, 2835, 3036, and 4344. (Leutar Court Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Leutar Court frontage in Tract 6996. (Bonnet Way Landscape District) - provides for'monthly landscape maintenance along Bonnet Way: Tract 5462. (Beauchamps Landscape District) - Provides for landscaping and lighting of the Prospect Road entrance to the Beauchamps subdivision: Tract 7763. (Sunland Park Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Quito Road frontage of Tracts 976 and 977. (Prides Crossing Landscape District) - Provides for periodic landscape maintenance along Prospect Road -7- Zone 24 Zone 25 Zone 26 Zone 27 Zone 28 Zone 29- Zone 31 between the Route 85. overcrossing and Titus Avenue, and along Cox Avenue between the' Route --85 'overcrossing andSaratoga Creek. Includes all properties bordered .~by Route 85, Prospect R6ad and Saratoga Creek with the exception of the Brookview 'neighbOrhood (Tracts 1493, 1644, 1695', 1727, 1938, and1996). (Village Commercial LandscaPe and Lighting District) -. Provides for routine maintenance of Village Parking Districts 1-4 and'Big Basin Way landscaping and street lighting.- (Saratoga Legends Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage of, and pedestrian pathways within, Tract 8896. (Bellgrove Landscape and Lighting. District) - Provides for common area landscape maintenance .and lighting associated with Tract 8700. (Cunningham 'Place/Glasgow Court Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga-. Sunnyvale' Road frontage of Tracts 6199 and .7928. (Maintenance and water shared with Zone 10). (Kerwin Ranch Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Fruitvale Avenue and Saratoga Avenue frontages of Tracts 8559 and 8560. (Tollgate Landscape and Lighting District) - Provides for maintenance of the common area landscape and lighting' .improvements along Tollgate Road at the entrance to Tracts 3946.'-and 5001. ' (Horseshoe Drive Landscape and Lighting District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga- Los Gatos ROad frontage of Tract 247. Zone Number Administration Misc. Overhead ~Operations Wages Contracts Repairs Maintenance Water Electric Equipment $ COST DETAIL 1 2 3 127 -$~ 374~ $ 775 134 $ 393 $ 814 157 70 226 ~,740 2,892 2,220 630 275 775' $ 2,661 $ 3,630 $ 4,035 4 2,885 10,000 $10,000 5 471 2,000 $ 2,000 Subtotal $ 2,788 $ 4,004 $ 4,810 $12,885 Indirect costs 421 521 729 1,675 Total Costs $ 3,209 $ 4,525 $ 5,539 $14,560 Carryover (279) (167) (115) (25,755) Property Tax (1,730) (345) (2,300) (20,400) $ 2,471 321 $ 2,792 (14,901) (8,200) Net cost C'over not recov. C'over not reimb. Net assess.. · $ 1,200 $ 4,013 $ 3,124 $ 1,'200 $ 4,013 $ 3,124 $(31,595) $(20,309) 31,595 20,309 $ -0- $ -0- No. of Parcels Assmt/Pcl. 29 85 176 $ 41.38 $ 47.22 $'17.76 693 113 $-o.oo $ o.oo -9- Zone Number Administration Misc. Overhead Operations Wages Contracts Repairs Maintenance Water Electric Equipment $ 267 COST DETAIL 7A 7B 10 . $ 1,965. $ 1,212 $ 211 $ 39 $ $ $ $ $ 5,800 $ 5,800 $ 222 175 2,352 2 , 100 42 545 735 2,400 $ 2,400 -0- $ 4,849 $ 1,322 Subtotal Indirect costs Total .Costs Carryover Property Tax $ 2,667 346 $ 3,013 (56) $ 7,765 1,010 $ 8,775 (11,171) (21,166) $ 1,212 157 $ 1,369 (1,509) $ 5,060 720 $ 5,780 206 $ 1,361 188 $ 1,549 2,103 Net cost C'over not recov. c'over not reimb. Net assess. $ 2,957 $(23,562) $ 23,562 $ 2,957 $ -0- (14o) 140 $ -0- $ 5,986 $ 5,986 $ 3,652 (1,064) $ 2,588 NO. of Parcels Assmt/Pcl. 64 $ 46.20 472 0.00 291 $ 0.00 48 $124.70 9 $287.56 -10- Zone Number Administration Misc. Overhead Operations Wages Contracts Repairs Maintenance Water Electric Equipment 11 $ 1,100 $ $ 1,156 960 1,125 gOST DETAIL 12 $ 39 $ $ $ 15 181 42 $ 190 153 960 2,724 300 600 16 $ 242 $ $ 254 900 125 17 $ 880 $ 925 342 3,720 1,250 $ 3,241 $ 1,302 '$ 3,667 $ 1,279 $ 6,237 · Subtotal $ 4,341 $ 1,341 $ 3,848 $ 1,521 $ 7,117 Indirect costs 580 220 532 208 1,055 Total Costs $ 4,921 $ 1,561 $ 4,380 $ 1,729 $ 8,172 Carryover (341) 692 1,924 57 333 Property Tax $ 2,253 $ 6,304 (1,o85) $ 1,786 $ 1,786 55 $ 32.48 $ 4,580 $ 4,580 $ 2,253 $ 5,219 250 9 41 $ 18.32 $250.34 $127.30 Net cost C'over not recov.) C'°ver not reimb. Net assess. No. of Parcels Assmt/Pcl. $ 8,505 $ 8,505 200 $ 42.52 COST DETAIL Zone Number 22 24 25 26 27 Administration Misc. Overhead $ 3,798 $ 546. $ 66 $ 414 $ 137 $ $ $ $ $ 3,990 $10,267 $ 69 $ 435 475 567 4,980 4,000 21,192 1,050 2,025 3,800' 65 18,500 600 $ 143 82 1,879 550 Operations. Wages Contracts Repairs Maintenance Water Electric Equipment $10,560 $34,792 $ 69 $26,594 $ 2,654 Subtotal Indirect costs Total Costs Carryover Property Tax $14,358 $35,338' $ 135 .$27,008 $ 2,791 1,867 4,870 18 3,511 400 $16,225 $40,208 $ 153 $30,519 $ 3,191 (488) (24,293) (3,539) (1,964) 482 (18,100) Net cost C'over not recov. C'over not reimb. $15,737 $(2,185) $(3/386) $28,55.5 $ 3,673 2,185 3,386 Net assess. $15,737 $ -0- .$ -0- $28,555 $ 3,673 No. of Parcels Assmt/Pcl. 86'3 124 15 $ 18.24 $ N/A $ 0.00 94 31 $303.78 $118.48 -12- Zone Number Administration Misc. Overhead Operations Wages Contracts.~ Repairs Maintenance Water Electric Equipment Subtotal Indirect costs Total Costs Carryover Property Tax Net cost C'over not recov. C'over not reimb. $ .$ 28 70 74 393 3,648 1,250 'COST DETAIL 29 31' . $ 269 $ 229' $ 282 $ 240 1,500 400 1,020 780 650 $ 5,365 $ 2,802 $ 2,070 $ 5,435 $ 3,071 $ 2,299 707 399 299 $ 6,142 258 $ 6,400 $ 3,470 (440) $ 2,598 $ 3,030 ,. $ 2,598 Net assess. $ 6,400 $ 3,030 $ 2,598 No. of Parcels Assmt/Pcl. 16 61 52 $400.00 $ 49.68 $ 49.96 -13- I,. Carol Ann Butler, the Interim City Clerk of the City of Saratoga, hereby certify that the foregoing assessments, in the amounts set forth in the column headed "Assessments as Preliminarily Approved", with the diagram thereto attached, was filed with me on , 2000. Carol Ann Butler I, John H. Heindel, the Engineer of~ Work for the City of Saratoga., hereby certify that the foregoing assessments, in the amounts set forth in the column headed "Assessments as Preliminarily Approved", have been recomputed in accordance with the order of the City Council of said City of Saratoga as expressed by Resolution No. 00- , duly adopted by said City Council on , 2000, said recomputed assessments being the amounts set forth in the column headed "Assessments as Finally Confirmed"; provided, however, if the column headed "Assessments as Finally Confirmed" is blank, the figures in the column headed "Assessments as Preliminarily Approved" were confirmed without change. Dated: , 2000 John H. Heindel, RCE 13319 I, Carol Ann Butler, the Interim City Clerk of the City of Saratoga, hereby certify that the foregoing assessments, in the amounts set forth in the Column headed "Assessments as Finally Confirmed" (unless said .column is blank, in which event the amounts in the column headed "Assessments as Preliminarily Approved" apply), with the diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of said City of Saratoga on , 2000. Carol Ann Butler The Assessment and Assessment Diagram were filed in the office of the County Auditor of the County of Santa Clara, California, on , 2000. County.Auditor SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 19, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager AGENDA ITEM ~/~ CITY MANAGER:~~~.~~-' PREPARED BY: City Clerk SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 198 - AMENDMENT TO APPEAL PROCEDURES ORDINANCE. RECOMMENDED MOTION: REPORT SUMMARY: FISCAL IMPACT: ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON MOTION: FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: That Council adopt the ordinance. The attached ordinance was introduced at the Council Meeting of April 5, 2000 and carried with Mayor Bogosian being absent from the vote. None Posting of the Council agenda. The City Code would remain internally inconsistent. Furthermore, it would remain unclear as to whether or not certain administrative decisions could be appealed to the City Council. Publish title of ordinance in Saratoga News ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance ORDINANCE 00- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODE CONCERNING PROCEDURES ]FOR APPEALS OF ADMINISTRA~ DECISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES OKDAJN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The Pla~nlng Commission of the City of Saratoga has recommended that the Zoning Regulations set forth in the Saratoga City Code be amended to provide that the decisions of the Planning Commission concerning appeals of administrative decisions pursuant to the Zoning Regulations be final and to further provide that only discretionary administrative determinations or decisions be subject to appeal. B. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and public comments and testimony at a duly noticed public hearing. C. This ordi,a-ce is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sect/on 15378, subdivision Co). In the event that this ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in section 15061, subdivision Co) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it may have a si~ificant effect on the environment. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish policy concerning City appeal procedures; the ordinance would make no change to the City policies concerning permissible land uses. Section 2. Code Amendments The Saratoga City Code is hereby amended as set forth below. In this section, text to be inserted into the City Code is indicated in bold italic type while text to be stricken is presented in s~ik-et~-~,gh type; text in standard type currently appears in the City Code. Section 15-090.010 (Appeals from adminiswative decisions) is amended as follows: (a) Right to appeal Aa appeal may be taken to the Planning Commission by the applicant or any interested parson from the hole or any portion of an administrative determination or decision made by aa official of the City pursuant to any of the provisions of this Chapter. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be finai and not subject to further appeal 1 Ordinance No. 00- (b) No appeal from ministerial acts. No right of appeal to the Pla.. Commission shall exist when the decision or action is ministerial u.. does not involve the exercise of administrative discretion or personal · judgmentpursuant to any oftheprovisions of this Chapter. Section 15-90.020 (Appeals from decisions'of Planning Commission) is amended as follows: ~- An appeal may be taken W the City Council by the applicant or any interested person'from the whole or any portion of a decision made by the Planning commission pursuant to any offlae provisions of this Chapter' except that a decision of the Planning Commission with respect to an appeal of an administrative determination or decision made by an official of the City may not be appealed to the City. CoUncil. Section 3. Severance Clause. The City CoUncil declares that each section, sub-section, paragrapl~, sub-paragraPh, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-sec~n, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and pMase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, send, ace, clause or pMase of this ordiaanee is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this orcllnanee irr~speaive of the portion held invalid, and fiarther declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 4. Publication. This Ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof ~ha]l be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days afl er its adoption / / / / / / / / / /. 2 Ordinance No. 00- u.)/uo, uu uu:37 ~, SlillTE ,. I~IHALY The foregoing Ordinance was intrOduced and read at the regular meeting of the Clx Council of the City of Sm'atoga held on the day of ,2000, and adoptex:l by following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY P:~SARATOGAW, ESOL~06.doe ~ce No. 00- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 19, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney AGENDA ITEM ¢~ CITY MANAGER: [X~' &~_~..__~ ~._~ ~--- PREPARED BY: City Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution Denying Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on DR- 99-051 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution denying appeal of Planning Commission decision on DR-99-051 (14261 Springer Road). REPORT: This item is a follow up to the City Council's April 5, 2000 consideration of the Qian/Yang appeal of a condition imposed by the Planning Commission on DR-99-051 (14261 Springer Road). The condition being appealed requires the use of wood siding on all elevations of the proposed structure. The City Council by a vote of 3-1 (Mayor Bogosian absent) directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the appeal. The attached resolution would deny the 'appeal and allow the Planning Commission decision to remain in effect. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENT: Resolution Denying an Appeal from the Decision of the Planning Commission; Applicant/Appellant Qian; 14261 Springer Avenue; DR-99-051 P:\SARATOGAhMAT 1XRST096.DOC RESOLUTION NO. 00- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION; APPLICANT/APPELLANT QIAN; 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE; DR-99-051 WHEREAS, Paul Qian and Suying Yang, the applicants, have applied for Design Review approval for the construction of'a new 2,787 square foot, two-story residence on a 7,492 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, on February 9th, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on said application at which all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and following the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission voted to grant Design Review approval subject to various conditions; and WHEREAS, the applicants have appealed to the City Council of the City of Saratoga a condition imposed by the Design Review approval of the Planning Commission requiring that wood siding be used on each entire elevation of the proposed development; and WHEREAS, on April 5th, 2000 the City council conducted a de novo public hearing on the appeal, at which time any person interested in the matter was given the full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relating to the application, and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support of and in opposition to the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, as follows: After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the appeal from the Planning Commission is denied and the action of the Planning Commission is affirmed, based on the following finding: The condition requiting wood siding to be used on each entire elevation is necessary to ensure that the proposed development will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and be integrated into the natural environment and be compatible with existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district, and otherwise comply with the requirements of the Saratoga City Code. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of April, 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk P:\sARAToGA\RESOLUTI\RST007.DOC 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO MEETING DATE: April 19, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development AGENDA ITEM MANAGER- CITY . SUBJECT: DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court- applicant/Lui, appellants/Kwong, Park, Sze Appeal of Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 sq. ft. single-family residence on a 2.75-acre parcel. Please refer to the previously distributed Planning Commission staff reports of October 13 and December 8, 1999 and the attached City Council memorandum and meeting minutes of February 2, 2000 for further details. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Design Review application. REPORT SUMMARY: The Planning Commission first reviewed this application on October 13, 1999. Staff's decision to schedule the application for a preliminary Commission review at that time prior to receiving a final geologic clearance from the City Geologist was based on the unique nature of the home design. If the Commission was not supportive of the contemporary design, there was no need to expend additional time and money to complete the review process. The Planning Commissioners visited the site, reviewed the plans, took testimony and ultimately supported the applicant to proceed. The proposal was rescheduled for final consideration for the meeting of December 8, 1999, where it was approved following review of plan revisions made to satisfy the previously stated concerns of the Commissioners. Neighbors Joseph Park, Robert Sze, and Jon Kwong appealed the approval and the City Council heard the appeal at their meeting of February 2, 2000. At that meeting the Council expressed concerns with the inaccuracies of the building footprint field stakes, the proximity of the structure to the property line shared with the Kwongs' and the overall height and placement of the building. The Council moved to continue the hearing to March 15 to allow the applicant and neighbors an opportunity to resolve their conflicts and give the applicant time to make revisions to the plans to address the neighbors' issues. The applicants were unable to meet the deadlines for the March 15 meeting and requested a continuance to the April 19 meeting. Appeal of DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court The applicant has since met on several occasions with the neighbors and staff and has subsequently revised the original plans by slightly elongating the building, increasing the setback from the Kwongs' property line from 20 to 30 feet for the second floor and 20 feet to 25.5 feet for the first floor, moving the footprint of the building 20 feet to the north, modifying the second floor balcony by reducing its usable size and relocating the swimming pool to the rear (south side) of the residence. The size of the house increased from the original proposal of 6,500 to 6,619 sq. ft., but the overall site coverage went down from 13,805 to 13,557 sq. ft. These plan changes appear to be responsive to the direction given by the City Council and the modifications requested by the neighbors, and staff is therefore recommending that the appeal be denied and the application approved. It should further be noted that the applicant has not been successful in obtaining the Kwongs' permission to extend the landslide repair onto his property. A site visit is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon at 3:00 p.m. Any Council members wanting to attend should meet at the Community Development Department. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's approval, the project will be denied as presented. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The City Attorney will prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting memorializing the decision of the City Council on this matter. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff memorandum of February 2, 2000 2. City Council meeting minutes of February 2, 2000. 3. Original Plans, Exhibit A 4. Revised Plans, Exhibit C ' i SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO MEETING DATE: February 2, ~ :go/g> ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER:( DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: DR-97-061; 14805 Masson Court Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 sq. ft. single-famih, residence on a 2.75 acre property. Please refer to the attached staff report from October 1~, 1999 and Memorandum from December 8, 1999 for further details. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Design Review application. REPORT SUMMARY: The Planning Commission first reviewed this application on October 13, 1999. The Public Hearing was opened .for specific discussion of the project's architecture, and continued indefinitely at staff's request. This allowed the Commission an opportunity to discuss the unique design of the residence, give the applicant time to make any requested revisions and address potential impacts of the landslide repair to a large Oak tree. Staff's intent was to allow the applicant to learn if there would be a consensus in support of the architectural style before expending time and money on further plan changes, geology and arborist review. At that meeting the Commission did direct the applicant to make changes which included; eliminating a secondary driveway and reducing impervious coverage, providing a more complete landscape plan, providing fencing around the proposed pool, preparing a landslide mitigation plan to be reviewed by the City Arborist, and providing information on the effects of the proposed copper roof material on the environment. No neighbors spoke at the initial Public Hearing. The Planning Commission voted 4-1 in favor of the architectural style (Commissioner Kurasch opposed and Commissioner Jaekman absent). The applicants responded to all of the Commission's requests by making the necessary changes, providing a landscape mitigation plan, which the City Arborist reviewed, and providing information on the copper roof material. At the meeting ofDecember 8, 1999 the Commission took further comments from the applicant and heard from several neighbors. Mr. Park of Masson Court expressed concerns with the Appeal of DR-97-061; 14805 ! ,on Court location of the driveway, in that it appeared that it crossed his property, that the building was too tall and that a copper roof would be incompatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Kwong of Saratoga Heights Court expressed concerns with the landslide repair and continued soil erosion. and privacy impacts. Mrs. Sze of Masson Court expressed concerns that the building was too tall and too close to the street, that the proposed architecture would not be compatible with the neighborhood, and that the structure would block her views. After a lengthy discussion about the landslide repair and compatibility of the design with the neighborhood the Commission did approve the proposal 4-3 (Commissioners Ban3,. jackman and Kurasch opposed) with a condition that another roof material be used other than copper, or that copper be studied further and this matterrevieWed again by the Commission. Response to Letter of Appeal The appellants have listed 15 concerns in their letter of appeal. In the following discussion staff will attempt to respond to the issues raised. ~ On the issue of architectural compatibility, it is evident that there is a mixture of architectural styles in the surrounding neighborhood and that the proposed residence is compatible in terms of size and mass and does fit with the si:e and surrounding environment. On the issue of setbacks, this is a unique lot in that it is long and narrow and runs parallel to the street. As evidenced on the Subdivision Tract Map 6665 (exhibit "B" of letter fi.om applicant's architect of January 24, 2000) the building pad was shown and approved in the same location as the proposed residence. Due to the orientation of this lot the side setbacks are considered to be those along Masson Court and adjacent to Mr. Kwong's property. The front and rear Property lines are.those which are adjacent to Pierce Road and the adjacent property on Vintage Lane. On the issues of the City's Residential Design Handbook, staffhas determined that the proposed residence is consistent and does not conflict with the following Policies and Techniques as the appellants have indicated. The residence is proposed on a relatively level pad and does not conflict with Policy 1, Technique 2 of the handbook. The design uses a varied height roof plan and does not conflict with Policy 1, TechniqUe 4. The architectural style of the proposed residence, while not mimicking others in the neighborhood, will be 'consistent in terms of proportion, size, mass and height and would not conflict with Policy 1, Technique 52 The design of the residence uses various rOoflines with one and' two-story elements and various natural materials to break up the. mass of the structure and does not in conflict with PoliCy 1, Technique 6. The residence is proposed on the only available building site which is a fairly level pad and does fit in with the sun'ounding environment by using a variety of natural materials such as Appeal of DR-97=061; 14F lasson Court unpainted wood, stone, glass and metal. The residence will be located along similar topographic lines as other residence in the neighborhood therefore it would be difficult to build any structure on this lot that would not interfere with.views, however the privacy of the closest neighbor, Mr. Kwong has been addressed by limiting areas of the second floor windows on the elevation facing Mr. Kwong. The residence does not conflict with Policy 3. Technique 1 or Technique 2, or Policy 4, Technique 1. · The residence is located on the only available building.pad, which was selected and graded at the time of subdivision approval. Locating-the residence on another portion of the site would result in a substantially higher mount of grading, as there are no other level areas on site. For other reasons as stated above relative to building height and roof massing the residence does not conflict with Policy 4, Technique 3. The issue of land instability on the property has been a significant concern of City staff and the City's Geotechnical consultant. Addressing the instability concerns to the satisfaction of the City Geologist is the primary reason why this application has been in the review process since November 1997. The City Geologist did ultimately give the project a Geologic and Geotechnical Clearance in September of 1999. This means that the applicant's geologic reports adequately · addressed the landslide problem and means to correct them. Once the project is approved for construction the applicant will begin work to repair and stabilize the landslides and will remain in close contact with the City Geologist to guarantee that the work proceeds to the City's satisfaction. The issue of inaccurate height poles and location of property lines is being worked· out by the applicant's surveyor. The applicant has expressed a willingness to move the driveWay if there is in fact a portion which crosses Mr. Park's property. It should be noted that approximately half of this private road cUts through the applicant's property. In response to neighborhood notification, the City does its best to ensure that every property owner within 500 feet is notified. The City's noticing consultant uses County Assessor records of ownership to send notices and these records are updated approximately every six months. This means that new owners often do not receive notices and owners of multiple properties in the County may receive a notice at another address if they list that property as the location to receive their tax bill. A copy of all property owners who were notified is attached. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. Appeal of DR-97-061; 14805 ~ ion Court CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's approval, the project will be denied as presented. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The City Attorney.' will prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting memorializing the decision of the City. Council on this matter. ,- ATTACHNIENTS: 1. Letter of Appeal from Joseph Park, Robert Sze and Jon Kwong 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices. 3. Property Survey of January 25, 2000 4. Arborist Report Update' of November 8, 1999 · 5. Staff Report of OctOber 13, 1999 (~ncluding attachments) 6. Staff Memorandum of December 8, 1999 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated Oct0ber'l 3,1999 and December 8, 1999. 8. Supplemental Copper Material InfOrmation 9. Letter from Mr. Park dated January.25, 2000 10. Resolution DR-97-061 : 11. Plans, Exhibit "A" ; 12. Revised Site and Grading Plans, E~aibit "B" 13. Packet from Applicant's Architect dated January 24, 2000 14. Packet from Mr. Park dated January 27, 2000 Please Note-A site visit is scheduled for Tuesday, February i, at 3:00 p.m. for interested Council~ members. The meeting will convene at City HaH in the Community. Development Department. City Council Minutes B. February 2, 2000 Appeal of Planning Commission approval of application DR 97-061 (14085 Masson Court, APN 503-72-014, Appellant: Kwong, Park & Sze; Applicant: Lin). Design Review approval to construct a new 6,461 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75-acre lot. Approved by Planning Commission on December 8, 1999. (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 19, 2000) Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the application. Director Walgren presented the staff report and armounced that Commissioner Page is present this evening for any questions of the Council. In response to Council, Commissioner Page provided background of the review of the project and some of its key issues including the looping driveway, copper roof, design, privacy and grading specifications. Discussion ensued. Mayor Bogosian announced he visited the site and spoke to the appellants in person and by telephone on this matter. He opened the public heating at 9:33 p.m. Nonchi Wang, Architect representing the applicant, provided background and illustration of the project with architectural renderings and models. Highlights of his presentation included: · Architectural compatibility · Complied with the City's Design Guidelines. · Front and side yard definition has been addressed · High quality view of the surroundings In response to Mayor Bogosian, Mr. Wang replied that shifting the structure down the hill toward the valley would require cutting the slope drastically; and added that the landslide will be repaired to the fullest extent. Mayor Bogosian invited the appellants to speak. Joseph Park, 14800 Masson Court, appellant, commented that the concems by the appellants included neighborhood compatibility, setback and height standards, and a gross violation of one's own property rights, pointing out that the latter issue involves his property only. The design as illustrated in the staff report includes a second driveway, which extends 18' beyond their easement into my property. This was verified by the property map dated January 25 obtained through the Planning office. This violation was overlooked in the design review process. Subsequently, it was recognized by the applicants and their architect, who responded that they would make revisions. However, to this date, he has not seen the revisions. Mabel Sze} 14780 Masson Court, appellant, reiterated their concerns about the front and rear setback violations, architectural compatibility and noise, which has aggravated all of the other issues. The location of the proposed structure, as illustrated in the photos she submitted, will encroach on the neighbor's property, obstruct their view and invade their privacy. She also Page 9 of 10 City Council Minutes February 2, 2000 commented that consideration should be made to use the landslide area, after it has been repaired, as part of the building pad as it was originally intended. She expiressed the desire to work these issues out with the applicant and his architect. John Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, commented regarding the inaccurate information r~ceived about the survey markers On the property. He reiterated concerns of architectural compatibility, property line encroachment, setbacks and the landslide. There is i~nsufficient, conflicting information in the files on the setbacks and location of the proposed house. There has been no dialogue between the applicants and the neighbors and no attempt to resolve any of the concems addressed by the neighbors. He reiterated he does not wish for the applicant's landslide repair to encroach into his property and said that this project does not comply with City code. He further demonstrated some of his issues using the architectural model and maps. Questions and responses were exchanged between the Council and the appellants regarding setbacks and the landslide. Director Walgren referred to the geology map attached in the packet for the several slumps and landslides occurring to thenorth of this property. He confirmed that the landslide repair would cross a small degree onto Mr. Kwong's property; however, staff has assured Mr. Kwong that the conditions of the approval will state that the applicants cannot repair the landslide beyond their own property without the consent of Mr. Kwong. Furthermore, he clarified the discrepancies and inaccuracies alluded to by Mr. Kwong about the City files was due to the many revisions made throughout the process. -Architect Wang clarified the discrepancies of the survey pole and driveway location. Discussion continued. In response to Councilmember Waltonsmith, Director Walgren replied that the landslide can be repaired without encroaching on another person's property and can be built to support a house pad. There being no more discussion, Mayor Bogosian asked the applicant and the appellants for their closing comments. Architect Wang commented that the negative feedback from the neighbors was based on their un, derstanding of how the setbacks were determined. Director Walgren has explained how they were determined when the subdivision was approved and that's what the applicants work with. He reiterated that the project complies with the Zoning codes. Although he respects the opinions and concerns of the neighbors, he feels that a lot of effort was put int° the proposed design to address the privacy issues. He also explained the need for the front driveway. He expressed their desire to work with the neighbors to resolve their issues. Mr. Kwong commented he would like.to see a survey marker placed on the property line to eliminate any confusion when the landslide is repaired. To summarize, he reiterated the conflicting and ambiguous information available to the neighbors, which has resulted to this heating. He added that the architect has been unwilling to work with the neighbors and asked the Page 10 of 10 City Council Minutes February2,2000 Council to overturn the Planning Commission decision to approve this project. Mayor Bogosian closed the public heating at 10:21' p.m. and asked the pleasure of the Council. Councilmember Baker expressed concern about the accurate location of the proposed hoUse, he supports its design, and recommended continuing the public hearing until its exact location is clear. He also expressed concern about building a pool or parking pad in the severely eroded area and felt this should be a concern of both the applicant and the adjacent property owner to find it in their best interest to work together to repair this erosion. Councilmember Streit concurred with Councilmember Baker regarding staking its exact location and has no problem with the setbacks or the design. He would not support moving the house down in the valley. Councilmember Waltonsmith commented the modem design is good but felt the proposed home could be redesigned to make it more rectangular and could be moved around to go down into the repaired slide area. She commented about good neighbor practices and the importance of working with neighbors' concerns. She expressed concern about the'ambiguity of the location of the poles and is not prepared to accept it as it is currently proposed. She recommended the .neighbors and applicant work together to resolve the design shape issues, the position on the issues, and the landslide repair issues. Vice Mayor Mehaffey concurred with his colleagues and is disturbed that the poles have not been fixed and should be ~i cause for continuance or denial. He has no problems with the architecture, the biggest problem is that if the house should face as proposed, consideration should be made to meet the setbacks. He concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith to elongate it to bring it further from Mr. Kwong's property. He would like to see some concessions made to the issue that it is fronting on Masson Court and backing towards Mr. Kwong's property. Mayor Bogosian recognized the issues of architecture and style and privacy and views. Contrary to the Planning Commission.'s concept of what constitutes this neighborhood, he feels that the neighborhood consists of the homes clustered up in that area from the Saratoga Heights Court over to Masson Court. These lots were plotted to preserve an open space easement and a free flow of the hillsides. He concurs with Councilmember Waltonsmith and Vice Mayor Mehaffey to see a redesign of the proposed house to address the setback, encroachment and height issues. He would like to see the neighbors work together to resolve the matter and recommended moving the proposed house to the pool area. He cannot support the project as presented. In response to Mayor Bogosian, Director Walgren replied that the Council could continue the public hearing to allow time-for the neighbors to work out their concerns, or act on this application and give the applicants direction as articulated this evening to submit a new application before the Planning Commission. The process would be expedited; it would not have to redo all the investigations. However it may take a few months before the revised plans are submitted. With Council permiSsion, Bill Liu, property owner and applicant, expressed desire to work with the neighbo.rs to resolve the matter. When he talked to Mr. Kwong about repairing the landslide Page 11 oflO City CounciJ Minutes February 2, 2000 even beyond his property line, Mr. Kwong refused. He does not understand why and is concerned about the further erOsion of the landslide. He also demonstrated the topographical issues of moving the proposed house as expressed earlier and possibly violating the City's Design Guidelines. He expressed he is willing to change the design and reiterated his desire to repair the landslide before it gets worse. BAKER/STREIT MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 15, 2000 TO ALLOW ALL PARTIES CONCERNED TO WORK TOGETHER TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ADDRESSED TONIGHT AND SUBMIT. REVISED PLANS AND CORRECT POLES FOR THE NEW DESIGN. MOTION PASSED 5-0. At this time, Mayor Bogosian moved back to item 6A, which was deferred earlier. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Agreement with Santa Clara Valley to extend Control and Sheltering Services from July 1, 20{ June 30, 2001. Rec, Animal the Cities Authorize the City Manager to Agreement between the Humane Cupertino, Campbell, Monte Amendment to the of Santa Clara Valley and and the Town of Los Gatos. Paula Reeve, the Discussion ensued. In response to Vice Mayor regarding insurance provisions and him. replied he will review the plan BAKER/STREIT MOVED TO AUTH( AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMAL HUMANE SOCIETY. MOTION THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY'S At this time, Mayor Bogosian rec request t~speak which he received on an item not on the agenda. /. .~ Chris Hawks, 20390 Bl~er~h. ve, commented regarding co~tinuing concerns about the Argonaut Shopping Center includi~ noise (from pressure washer on s~Xq,ewalks and congregation of young people around the cof~e shop), bright lights, regular ska. teb.oarl~,ng on the premises, the landscape hedge .an~ldhe_ map. illustrating the stores coming into tl~ center and urged Council's assistance in re~l~qng these issues. ~ Discussion ensued. ~ Director Walgren responded to the concerns expressed. He clarified that sidewalk cleaning is a requirement of the project to be conducted after business, hours but certainly not in the late hours. He was not aware about the bright lights and noted he would look into it. The landscape hedge is Page 12 ofl0 ~FROM amphibian Arc design sl:udio pHONE ND. : 323 2~ 8883 Apr'. 04 2000 06:33PM Pi T To: Heather Bradley From= Nonchi Wang Fax= 408-868-1280 Page.. 1 page P~J~ 408-868-1230 ilate: 04-04-00 ~ Uu Residence, 14805 Masson Ct. CC: · Comme~ts= The following items am design changes we have rna0e as a respmmse to the City Council's recommendation and to neighbors' input: 1. The east side setback of the two- story portion has been increased from 20'-0" to 30'.-Ct'. The set b~_ck of the one-story port, on remains to be 25'-5% 2. The plaeernent of the er~re building footprint has been moved northward by 20'-0". 3. The rail on the west side deck above the garage has I~een moved back and reconfigured to reduce the usable area of the deck to one quarter of its originaJ size. The usable ama is concentrated to the south side. as suggested by Mrs. Sze. 4. Due to the change of balding placement on site, The swimming pool has been moved from th~ front yard to the back yard. Because of the redesign of the building and site plan, there are following changes in square footage Old New 1. Driveway coverage 2. Patio 3. Pool coverage 4. Building area 5,621.03 S.F. 2,055.00 S.F. 1.413.50 S.F. 4,71622 S.F. 5,455.67 S.F. 2,255.93 S.F. 1,040.17 S F. 4,865.24 S.F. 5. Total site coverage 13,805,81 S.F. 13,5570.01 S.F. April 12, 2000 TO: City Council City of Saratoga FROM: Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Park 14800 Masson Court Mr. & Mrs. Robert Sze 14780 Masson Court Mr. & Mrs. Jon Kwong 14581 Saratoga Heights Court On February 2, 2000, we appealed the 12-8-1999 Planning Commission's decision Re. DR-97-061 (503-72-014) 14805 Masson Court, on the following grounds. Neighborhood compatibility. Encroachment. Setback violations. Violations of Residential Design Handbook Policies. Vilolations detrimental to the preservation of the Open Space easement. The required clustering of hillside homes that results in a very compact, self- contained neighborhood mandates that additional house be compatible with the neighborhood. The neighborhood found that the proposed structure on 14805 Masson Court is incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of its site setback, its bulkiness, and its departure from the policies given in the Residential Design Handbook of the City of Saratoga regarding view blockage and privacy issues. In February, 2000, Mr. Liu of 14805 Masson Court twice met with the neighbors in meetings attended by Mr. Walgren. In these two meetings, the neighbors' concerns and the above issues were very specifically conveyed to Mr. Liu. Mr. Liu then chose not to meet with the neighbors again until after his plans have been revised and submitted to the City April 3, 2000. The neighbors did not receive information on the revised plans until the plans were made publicly available following April 3. On April 12, Mr. Liu met with the neighbors at Mr. Walgren's office. The purpose of this meeting was informational. Mr. Liu informed the neighbors of the changes in revised plans and that these changes represent the extends of his willingness to comply with the issues raised in the Feb 2 City Council meeting. The neighbors conveyed to Mr. Liu that the revised plans did not deviate from the old plans as much as it was claimed to have, and did not resolve those issues raised in the Feb 2 Council Meeting, and in some instances aggravated the problem. In the two February meetings with the neighbors, Mr. Liu inquired about the desired distance to relocate the southern end of the building northward (toward the valley). Mr. Walgren suggested 25 feet. The neighbors expressed a range from 30 to 50 feet. And for the rear setback, the neighbors expressed an increase to 40 feet for a one story and 50 feet for two story. Rear Setback (away from 14581 Saratoga Heights) Request by Neighbors By Drawing South West comer 40 - 50 feet 30 feet North West comer 40 - 50 feet -25 feet BUILDING RELOCATED LESS THAN CLAIMED In the transmittal letter to the City. Mr. Liu indicated that in the revised plans, the "placement of the entire building footprint has been moved northward by 20 feet". In reality, as the enclosed transparency shows, the south-west end of the building (Masson Court side) has moved northward (toward the valley) by about 13 feet (actually as staked about 9 feet), and the south-east end of the building (Saratoga Heights side) has moved northward by about 8 feet (actually as staked about 5 feet). HEIGHT POLE AND PLANS DISCREPANCY Relocation of Pre,posed Building Northward (toward the valley) Distance Request by Claimed by By By Height Neighbors Appliccant Drawing Pole/Rebar South West comer 30 - 50 feet 20 feet 13 feet -9 feet South East comer 30 - 50 feet 20 feet 8 feet 5 feet This discrepancy points out a major deficiency and inaccuracy in the 14605 Masson Court site plans. This site plans have twice produced height poles that are inaccurate and inconsistent. This problem can be resolved by refereneing the proposed structure to multiple surveyor's markers on the front and back boundaries; as promised by applicant in February but never performed. RELOCATION OF SWIMMING POOL DETRIMENTAL TO PRESERVING OPEN SPACE EASEMENT During the height poles construction on April 11, the second southern-most west comer height pole has been omitted and replaced by a re-bar to give the illusion that the building has relocated more than it actually has. Whereas in fact the building, with the balcony, extends more than 25 feet into the open space area above and beyond what the height poles and re-bars show. This point of fact is crucial-because as it stands the proposed structure with the building, balcony, and putting green imposes a severe restriction of access to the open space area to the neighbors, the horse trails, and wildlife. In the revised plans, Mr. Liu relocated the swimming pool to the south side of the building. The relocation of the · swimming pool on the south side, along with the required fencing, the balcony and the putting green will effectively close off the access to the open space area from Masson Court for the neighbors, the public, and wild life. At the present, Masson Court represents a major corridor for wild life to access the open space area from the Santa Cruz mountains via Pierce Road. The pool (Mr. Liu and his architect indicated that soils will be imported to bring the elevation of the pool up to the elevation of the building pad) and its required fencing would further obstruct the neighbors' view to the open space area. The 53 acres of open space area are intended and preserved for the enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood, the public (via horse trails), and wild life. By careful consideration of these needs, Mr. Liu could still build a beautiful house while accommodating these needs by making a genuine effort to relocate the house northward (toward the valley). In summary, the applicant has made a small effort towards but fallen far short of resolving those issues raised in the February 2 Council meeting. We believe that a genuine and substantive effort on the applicant's part could resolve those issues and we respectfully request the revised plans dated April 3, 2000 not be approved. Thank you for your consideration and taking the time to listen to our concems. Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Park Mr. & Mrs. Robert Sze Mr. & Mrs. Jon Kwong SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: MEETING DATE: April 19, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: SUBJECT: DR-99-064; 20550 Lomita Avenue - applicant/Saunders, appellant/Purvis Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Design Review application to demolish an existing 2,930 square foot single-story residence and construct a new 4,258 square foot two-story residence on a 20,047 net square foot lot located in an R-I-40,000 zoning district RECOMMENDED ACTION: Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Design Review application. REPORT SUMMARY: The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their meeting of March 8, 2000. At that meeting the Commission heard from the applicant's architect, who described the process he and his clients went through to develop the proposal. Mr. Purvis, one of the applicant's north side neighbors, expressed his concerns over the impact of the proposed second story to his views of the mountains and concerns regarding trees on the property. Another of the applicant's neighbors also expressed concern with the hours of construction. Staffhad suggested additional conditions to address most of the neighbors concerns including: 1) planting replacement trees in the same location of the Black Acacia which was recommended for removal by the City Arbqrist, 2) having the applicant's contractor provide written notice to the neighbors to let them know when each phase of the construction process would occur, and 3) having the City Arborist meet the applicant's arborist on site to discuss the nature of decay and recommendations for maintaining tree # 3, adjacent to the Purvis' rear fence. The applicants agreed to the additional conditions and the Commission voted 4-0 to approve the application (Commissioner Barry, Roupe and Chairwoman Bernald absent) with the conditions suggested by staff and an additional condition that construction be limited to a Monday through Friday schedule. Please refer to the attached staff report, meeting minutes and plans for further project details. Appeal of DR-99-064:20550 Lomita Avenue Page 2 Response to Letter of Appeal The appellant has listed the following concems in his appeal application: 1. A procedural error in the Notice of Hearing, 2. Procedural errors during the Public Hearing, 3. Inconsistent application of the height limitations in Saratoga Design Reviews, 4. Incomplete consideration of the environmental impacts of approved demolition and construction, 5. Insufficient analysis of the impact of approved construction on neighbor's views. The first item was due to a typographical error in the notice, which indicated a total floor area of 4,068 sq. ft. where 4,258 sq. ft. was actually proposed. This was discussed at the meeting and considered to not be a substantive error that effected the legal requirement of the notification. In fact, the appellant was able to review the correct plans in the City's project file prior to the meeting. It should also be noted that project data often changes between the time the notice is published and the agenda is distributed due to design changes that may occur within that three- week window - it is not uncommon for floor area figures to change slightly, in this case 190 sq. ft. A substantive error in noticing would be to cite an incorrect address number or APN or describe an addition as single story versus a two-story, for example. Regarding the second item staff is unaware of any procedural errors that occurred during the public hearing. In response to item 3, the height limit for residences in Saratoga is 26 feet, which is applied consistently to all Design Review applications. In response to item 4, staff and the applicant took great care to ensure that the existing trees on site were thoroughly evaluated and that the analysis was fully incorporated into the Resolution of approval. The applicants hired their own arborist to prepare a report before they developed their plans to ensure that the needs of the trees on, and surrounding the property, were considered. Staff further included as a condition of approval that the City Arborist meet the applicant's arborist on site to discuss the proper mitigation for a tree that hangs over the appellant's property and is suffering from old pruning wounds. In response to the last item, staff has determined that, with the existing large trees that screen the property and the limited square footage of the second story, the impacts to the neighbor's views will be minimal. The structure has been designed to take advantage of the exiting footprint and driveway, which minimize the impacts to existing mature trees on the site. This preserves the existing privacy screen that the property enjoys and keeps the residence from imposing on the privacy of the neighboring properties. Appeal of DR-99-064:20550 Lomita Avenue Page 3 · A site visit is scheduled for 3:00 p.m. Tuesday afternoon April 18, 2000 - please meet at the Community Development Department if you would like to attend. FISCAL IMPACTS: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED ACTION: If the City. Council reverses the Planning Commission's approval, the project will be denied as presented. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: None. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The City Attorney will prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting memorializing the decision of the City Council on this matter. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Appeal application from John Purvis 2. Staff report of March 8, 2000 3. Planning Commission minutes dated March 8, 2000. 4. Plans, Exhibit A City of Saratoga APPEAL APPLICATION (THIS TWO-PART APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, ~13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15). CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION) ApPellant Name Address .,.- 0 ~? ~,--_. '~ /~.~,, r~, -T R Telephone /To ~ '- ~.~ 7 - 5-7 ~r 9, _ Fax Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant). Project File Number and Address Decision Being Appealed Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attachedi: *A~Uef~t's Signature ~ ITEM 2 REPO'RT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff planner: Date: APN: DR-99-064; 20550 Lomita Avenue SAUNDERS Heather Bradley, Associate Planner ~ March 8, 2000 517-12-022 Department Head: North 20550 Lomita Avenue 000001 CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12/30/99 02/15/00 01/23/00 01/24/00 02/17/00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,930 square foot single story residence and construct a new 4,258 square foot two-story residence on a 20,047 net square foot lot. The site is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR-99-064. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR-99-064. 3. Arborist Report dated January 26, 2000 4. Plans, Exhibit"A" 00000: File No. DR-99~064; 20550 Lomita Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-I-40,000 'GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential ;'Very Low Density MEASURE G: Not Applicable " PARCEL SIZE: 20,047 net sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9.5% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 250 cu. yds. Max. Depth:' 3 fc Fill: 150 cu. yds'. Max. Depth: 5 ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Exterior in beige painted stucco, with stone facing and a darker beige wood siding on the second floor. Roof is shake style composition tile roof. A color and material board will be available at the Public Hearing. Lot Coverage: 30% Proposal Code Requirement/ Allowance 35% Setbacks: Size of Structure: Height: Front: 53 ft. 30 ft. Rear: 50/60 ft. 50/60 ft. Right Side: 13 ft. 13 ft. Left Side: 13 ft. 13 ft. First floor: 3,019 sqi ft. Second floor: 612 sq. ft. Garage: 627 .qq, ft. TOTAL: · 4,258 sq. fz 25 ft. 4,518 sq. ft. 26fr. 000008 File No. DR~99-064; 20550 Lomita Avenue PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicants are requesting Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,930 square foot single story residence and construct a new 4,258 square foot two-story residence on a 20,047 net sqUare foot lot. The site is located in an R-I-40,00'0 zoning district. Design Review The residence is a contemporary design with elements of the prairie architectural st3,1e. Exterior materials include stone, stucco and wood siding. The proposed second story is relatively small and should not impact the privacy of neighbors. There is only one small window on the front elevation and two windows on the rear elevation that would face the Madronia Cemetery. The residence is also similar in height to other two-story residences in the neighborhood. Grading The proposed grading quantities are minimal and are limited to the driveway and building footprint. Geo£ectlm'CM Review No geotechmcal review was necessary for this application. Trees~Landscaping There are 11 trees on this property and another 11 trees on neighboring properties which could potentially be impacted by construction activity. Of those trees 3 are Coast Live Oaks, 7 are Coast Redwoods, 6 are Holly Oaks, 2 are Black Acacias, 2 are Plums, and there is 1 California Black Oak and 1 Deodar Cedar. No trees are proposed for removal, however the Arborist has recommended removal of one of the Black Acacia trees for safety reasons. All of the trees listed will be protected during the construction process with chainlink fencei The Arborist's recommendations have been incorporated as conditions of approval in the attached Resolution. Fireplaces The residence has one fireplace and one chimney. Conclusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to each of the .policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The project further satisfies all other zoning requirements in terms Of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. 000004 File No. DR-99~064; 20550 Lomita Avenue STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR-99-064. O0000 i RESOLUTION NO. DR-99-064 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Saunders: 20550 Lomita Avenue WHERF__AS, the City of Saratoga planning Commission has received an application for Design Rex~iew approval to cOnstruct a new 4,258 square foot two-storT residence on a 20,047 net sq. ft. lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Pubhc Hearing at which timc all. interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHERF__AS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on · adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residence meets or exceeds minimum setback requirements and is similar in height to other 'residences in the neighborhood. 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 no ordinance protected trees will be removed, and the. amount of grading is. limited to the small amount necessary to accommodate the structure's foundation and driveway. The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the structure's second story is relatively small and the design utilizes natural materials that minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the natural environment. The residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) . existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same Zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the hght and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to'uriliTe solar energy, in that the height, mass and bulk of the residence is comparable to surrounding residences in the neighborhood. File NO. D£-99-064; 20550 Lomita Avenue · The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the Cit-3,. The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable desig-n policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby,resolve as follmvs: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drax~qngs, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Saunders for Desi~ Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PLANNING The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading perrmts, the following shall be submitted, to Plarmmg Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorpora 'ting this Resolution as a separate plan page. Four (4) set of engineered grading and drainage plans reflecting the City Arbonst's recommendations, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. Co The plans shall indicate that there will be no more than one wood burning fireplace in the main residence and the wood burning fireplace shall be equipped with a gas starter. The site plan shall be revised to indicated, that replacement trees for the Black Acacia, recommended for removal by the Arborist, will be planted in the same location so as to provide screening of the second story for the side neighbor. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds five feet. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. .' 4. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. File No. DR~99-064; 20550 Lonfita Avenue No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit, other than the Black Acacia labeled tree fJ4. The apphcants or their contractor shall provide advance notice in vmtmg to the adjacent neighbors indicating when each phase of Construction will begin and when it is anticipated to end (i.e. installation of tree protective fen,cing, demohtion, grading, construction etc.). The applicant shall provide Planning Staff with the name and phone number of the project manager or contact person in the event that concerns arise during the construction process. CITY ARBORIST o All requirements of the City A.rborist's Report dated January 26, 2000 shall be met. Thig includes, but is not limited to: ao Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be revised to indicate the following: ..The' Arborist Report shall be attached, as a separate plan page, to the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plan. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing as shoTM on the Arbonst's map, with a note "to remain m place throughout construction." A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dnplme of any ordinance protected trees on the site. iV. All trenching for proposed imgation and utilities shall be shown on the plans. Vo Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in an amount of $15,933 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist and Planning staff to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. b. Prior to iSsuance of Building or Grading Permits: i. Tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff. The applicant's shall hire an ISA certified arborist to perform an analysis of the healthy wood to decayed wood at each significant cavity site on the File No. DR-99-064; 20550 Lomita Avenue main scaffolding structure of tree ~3. The results and recommendations of this analysis must be reviewed and approved by the Cit3,' Arbonst and performed prior to the issuance of permits. The CitT Arborist shall meet the applicants arborist for an on site consultation prior to the commencement of work. No trenching for irrigation & other purpose shall be permitted beneath the canopies of any protected trees. ix,. All other recommendations of the City Arbotist report must be followed. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify comphance xvith tree protective measures.. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arbotist and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released. Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the canopy of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with the 'Planting Under Old Oaks" guidelines prepared by the City Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching shall encroach into the driplmes of any existing oak trees unless approved by the City Arborist. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-60 City of Saratoga. 16. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation' relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed throughout the residence and garage. All driveways shall have a minimum 14 ft. width plus 1 ft. shoulders. All driveway curves shall have an inside radius of 21 feet. A mm around shall be provided per the Fire District's standards ~¢ith a.minimum outside radius of 33 feet. Parking shall be provided on site for twO emergency vehicles per the Fire District's · standards. File No. DR-99~064; 20550 LOmita Avenue PUBLIC WORKS 17. The applicant must obtain an encroachment permit from the Department for construction of the new driveway approach. CITY ATTORNEY Public Works 18. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 19. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City's defense of its actions 'in any Proceeding brought in any State or Federal court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 20. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a x~iolation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to 'the violation, liquidated damages of $250' shall be payable to this City per each da5, of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. File No. DR-99-064; 20550 Lomita Avenue PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8th day of March 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, patrick and Vice-Chairman Page NOES: None ABSENT: Commss±oners Barry, Roupe and Chair Bernald ABSTAIN: None C~air, PlanningC~rd i~ - ' ATTEST: BARILtE D. CO AND ASSOC~.TES Horticultural Consultants (,~-08) 353-1052. 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT TI-IE SAUNDERS PROPERTY 20550 LOMITA SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Heather Bradley City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench ConsulfingArborist January 26,' 2000 Received: January 17, 2000 Due: February 15, 2000 Job # 01-00-015 000012 Tree Survey and Preserva; 20~50 Lomita, Saratoga Recommendations at The Property of Sau: s Assignment At the request of Heather Bradley, Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing house, existingcarport, and existing retaining exterior walls and to construct a new residence in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and smmaa~ of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted .within acceptable horticultural practices to prevent significant decline. The plans reviewed for this report are the Site Plan, Floor Plans prepared by Allen Nikitin, Architect, sheets 1-5, dated 12-30-99, and the Conceptual Grading Plan prepared by Allied Engineering Company, sheet 1 Drawing #9945, dated 12-29-99. A total of twenty-two trees would be exposed to some level of risk by proposed construction. Tree #3 requires further investigation. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the expected damage. A bond equal to 10% of the value of the retained trees is suggested. Observations There are eleven trees on this site and eleven trees on adjacent properties that are risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Any tree transplanting recommended here must be done during dormant seasons in November- February or August - September. All trees that will be affected by proposed construction and meet requirements of the city ordinance have been included. Typically, the root systems of trees extend outside their canopies by as much 50% of the total canopy diameters. If the canopy reaches into the construction area, the root system in all likelihood does as well and, therefore, has been included. The twenty-two trees axe classified as follows: Trees # 1,'2, 10 Tree # 3 Trees #4, 20 Trees #5-8, 11-13 Tree #9 Trees #14-19 Trees #21, 22 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) California black 'oak (Quercus kelloggii) Blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Holly Oak (Quercus ilex) Plum (Prunus cerasifera) Prepared by: Miehael L. Bench ' Janua~j 26, 2000 OOOO 13 Tree Survey and Preserva 20550 Lomita, Saratoga Recommendations at The Property of Sau The health and structure of each specimen on a scale of I to 5 (Excellent-Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. Because the combinations of these ratings are difficult to interpret, the overall condition of each of these specimens is rated as follows: Exceptional '. Fine specimens Fair specimens Marginal specimens " specimens 1, 14, 16, 18. 5,6,7,8, 2,3,4,9, 17 ~ 10, 15, 21, 22 · 1=1, 12, 13, 19, 20 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigation's recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Trees located on adjacent properties must be treated as Exceptional regardless of their condition. Trees # 1 and 2 were Observed through the.wooden fence on the property boundary. The trunk diameter measurements are estimated because. I did not want to get permission to enter the neighbor's property. The report by James McClenahan, dated 9-23-99, confirms the accuracy of my estimations. Tree #1 is in exceptional condition, particularly for its size and age. Tree 02 isdeclining and its vascular system appears to be compromised, but the cause could not be determined by this cUrSory observation. However, the root systems of these two trees are no doubt intertwined and are likely grafted. Despite the fact that the canopy tree 02 leans toward the north and will not be affected by construction, the root system in all likelihood extends well onto this property. Both trees # 1 and 2 are at risk of significant if not severe, root damage by the demolition of the existing retaining walls and the construction (including grading) of the proposed new retaining walls. A paved sport court is seen between the existing retaining wall and the wood fence on the north property boundary. If this sport court is to be removed, it must be done by hand in order to preserve the absorbing roots that no doubt exist in this area near trees # 1 and 2 and possibly #3. A 3-inch layer of mulch must be spread immediately following removal of the paving, and the mulched area must be kept thoroughly moist for 3 months. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench January 26, 2000 000014 Tree Survey and Preserva 20550 Lomita, Saratop Recommendations at The Property of Sau 3 Tree #3, is a large California black oak that appears to be in fairly good health, but has only fair structure. The health is judged by the dense layer of leaf litter, indicating a reasonably dense canopy. This is confirmed by the density of small diameter branching on the scaffolding limbs. The branch tip growth is vigorous and well distributed over the entire canopy. This is another indication of good health. There are several large pruning.wounds, some of which have internal decay. Without an aerial inspection, I cannot determine the extent.of decay or whether or not the decay is active. An analysis of the healthy wood compared to the decayed wood at each cavity would be needed to evaluate the wood strength.. However, it appears that the healthy wood may well exceed the volume of decayed wood at most sites, and it appears that the weaknesses may be addressed by the installation of one or more additional cables, presuming the existing cables are sound. The existing cables should be inspected and replaced if necessary. It appears that tree #3 may be well worth retaining, pending the results of the suggested analysis. Retaining walls were constructed several years ago very close to the trunk of tree #3 and extensive root curing has occurred as a result. However, roots do regenerate over time, although they may not be as extensive as they had been previously. It is possible that there are significant new roots under the existing carport. This would require the removal of a section of the existing concrete (a 6x6 foot-square section should be adequate) followed by an excavation with an air spade. Demolition of the existing retaining walls and construction of new retaining walls as proposed would require a severe cut into the root structure of tree #3, which would likely be rendered unstable. The plan proposes one or more grading "swales" across the root zones near the trunks of trees #1, 2, and 3. Even a cut to a depth of 2-3 inches would cause severe damage because the overwhelming majority of absorbing roots exist in the top 10-12 inches of soil. An alternative drainage plan must be designed. Tree//4 a Blackwood acacia, has been topped at about 15 feet above grade. This species (Acacia melanoxylon) is notorious for. limb drop when left unpruned or after topping. Since "topping" has occurred, the risks are much greater. Frequent severe priming for the life of the tree is a management solution that would greatly reduce this risk. However, removal is the best option worth considering in this case. Trees #9,. 1 l, 12, 13, and 20 have all been topped for line clearing. Their structures are now poor as a result of this pruning and are highly susceptible to branch breakage, especially as thc branches mature. This risk can be reduced by frequent pruning (every 3- 5 years) to reduce the end-weight. However, this is not a one-time solution. This pruning must continue for the life of the trees. Removal would be better. The southeast comer of the,new house is proposed within approximately 8 feet of tree #9, a Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), a species that is highly sensitive to root damage. Prepared'by: Michael L Bench January 26, 2000 000015 Tree Survey and Preserva 20550 Lomita, Sar~oga Recommendations' at The Proper~j of Sau ~ 4 Surface grading is proposed within 1 foot of the trunk as welL,Any excavation'(for the foundation) or grading (even to a depth of only 2 inches) in the root zone ora' sPecimen &this size must be a minimum of 14 feet from the think, if the tree is to survive without decline. The expected result of proposed construction would be significant if not severe decline. The tree's life span would likely be greatly reduced without mitigation. Trees # 10-13 would suffer Significant root damage by propoSed surface grading for drainage. Significant decline would be expected over a Period of 3-5 years. The root damage from this procedure to tree #14 would be fairly minor. An alternative to this grading must be considered The comer of the quest.parking area is proposed less than 2 feet from the trunk of tree # 13, a coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). Root cutting at this distance would be severe. However, there would be an additional problem. This species has a woody structure called a lignotuber, just at andbelow the surface, which grows at a fasterrate as the trunk and is typically about twice the diameter of the trunk. It can easily lift a two · story residential building. Thus, the integrity of the parking space as proposed could not be maintained. Trees # 15 and 16 are at risk of damage to absorbing roots during removal of the existing driveway and construction of the new driveway. If absorbing roots which lie directly under the existing paving dry out following removal of the existing driveway surface they will die and the trees will decline. If soil is removed when the existing paving is removed, absorbing roots would be severed, and again the trees would decline. The plan does not indicate any changes in grade adjacent to these trees, although scraping the surface is a common procedure for installing pavers as proposed The existing grade must not be altered within 10 feet of the trunks of these trees. Trees # 15-22 are at risk of soil compaction, because construction vehicles frequently do not stay on the paved roadway. Tree #2.1, has branches that extend over the driveway and are at risk of breakage by construction equipment. All trees on site are at risk of damage by one or more of the following: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. 2. The dumping of construction materials,-especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffics'including foot traffic under the Canopies. : 4. Demolition of the existing buildings, driveway, and pathways. 5. The excavations for foundation or for other conslmction. 6. The trenching for new utilities or for landscaPe imgation. 7. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 8. The driving orparking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. Prepared by: Mi~aei L. Bench January 26, 2000 600016 Tree Survey and Preserva 20550 Lomitn, Saratoga Recommendations at The Property of Sa~ 5 A fine JaPanese Maple (AcerPalmatum) is seen in the backyard raised planter bed that is well worth i-etaining. Howeva', it does not meet the size requirement of the city ordinance for protection. They are easily tranSplanted. Because of the locations of the trees, it will not be possible to trench across either side of the house to provide a connection for landscape irrigation after the foundation for new house is constructed. Reconnne~a~o~ The following mitigation suggestionS are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of Survival without decline. If/my changes to these plans occur during conStruction, the following may require alteration. 1. I suggest that the cavities of tree/t3 beanalyzed by a qualified ISA certified arborist that includes an analysis of the healthy wood to decayed wood at each significant site on the main scaffolding structure. 2. If tree #3 is retained, I suggest that the retaining walls adjacent to this tree be retained, and if desired, the design include only adding surface materials to match the portion of the wall identified on the map as section "A" that could be replaced. 3. Became the branching structure of tree #1 'will only allow minor pruning for construction accesS. It may be feasible to conStruct supports to lift some of the branches to allow greater access under the canopy, but only where the existing driveway is located. 4. Any pmmng must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1998. The window ofoppommity to prune tree #21, assuming this pmmng is acceptable with the neighbor, is closing rapidly and will not be feasible after bud break, typically by mid-March. 5. I suggest that the drainage plan be redesigned so that all drainage be provided inside the area noted on the map as the drainage/md utility comdor. All underground utilities, l/md,scape irrigation, or drainage must be located inside this area. 6. I suggest that a backyard irrigation point of connection be constructed prior to foundation construction: 7. The guest parking area must be redesigned so that the edge of the paving be a minimum of 6 feet from tree #13. Even at this distance, the integrity of the driveway will be compromised after a few years (estimated 10-15 years). 8. I suggest that temporary conStruction fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached plan. Fencing must be chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven I g-inches (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of/my other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. 9. There must be no grading, trenching,, or surface scraping beneath the canopy perimeter of retained trees, unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. Prepared bY: Michael L, Bench January 26, 2000 0000 .? Tree Survey and Preserva 20550 Lomita, Saratoga Reeommendtfions at The Property of Sau ~ 6 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Supplemental'irrigation must be provided'to retained Trees # 1-16 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks throughout the construction period. I'suggest that a full 3-inch layer of coarse wood chips be spread over the entire root zone exposed to construct activity for trees #1, 2, 3, and #9-16. Spreading of the chips must be made by hand. I suggest that the edging fOr the paver within 10 feet of trees #13-16 be a type that does not require trenching such as the type called "Snap Edge" disthbuted by Pacific Interlock Pavingstone, (408) 257-3645. If tree #9 is retained, a working space must be provided where construction will occur beneath the canopy. This requires a platform buffer, which consists of 4 full inches of' coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due its compressibility) be spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered bY 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. This platform is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. The platform must cover the entire exposed root zone area adjacent to construction. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of flees. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root collars of retained trees. If this occurs, the soil must be excavated by hand to the original grade and may require a retaimng wall (dried laid stones, such as cobbles or rip rap'set without a footing) to prevem further soil encroachment. No lawn may be used under the canopies of trees #1, 2, or 3. The canopies are noted on the plan. If the root zone of any of these 3 oak trees will be landscaped, I suggest that they be planted only with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained froTM the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the thinks of trees. It is strongly suggested that spray imgation not be allowed to strike beneath the canopies of oak trees. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease. If the sport court is to be removed; immediately following the demolition (the same day) the newly exposed soil directly beneath must protected by 3-inches of coarse wood chips to prevent desiccation of the surface roots. Spread wood chips by hand and thoroughly wet down the area. Foreign materials or equipmem must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried in any of the planter beds on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition. If tree #3 must be removed'as a result of retaining wall construction, its value is $23,285, which is equivalent to one 72-inch boxed, one-52 inch boxed, and one 36-inch boxed Prepared by: Michael L lk~eh January 26, 2000 OOOO lS Tree Survey and PreserVa: Recommendations at The Property of Sau s 7 20SS0 Lomita, Saratoga native specimens. These Would reqmre a crane, which may not be feasible on this driveway. Access from an adjoining property appears to be the only option. Also, large specimen trees are not usually available on short notice. Trees of this size usually must be secured 1-2 years in advance. If tree #4 will be replaced; its value is $826, which is equivalent to two 24-inch boxed native specimens. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agnfblia Valley oak- Quercus lobata Tan oak- Lithocarpus dens~orus Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum · California buckeye - Aesculus californica COast Redwood - Sequoia sempervirens Tree # 16 is not protected by the city ordinance, lts value is not included in the request for bond protection. This tree has been included in this report text bemuse it is part of a row (# 15-19) of trees that are at risk. The combined value of the retained trees (#1-3, 5-22) is $159,338. I suggest a bond equal to 10% of the total value of the trees to assure protection. Respectfully , D. Coate, Principal BDC/sl Enclosures: Tree Data Accumulation Charts Map Prepared by: Michael L. Bench January 26, 2000 000019 0000;80 ' ~o I /,~ ; ,., ~- ~ o ; ,..,,,,,,,,-.,..,,0,,,,,, ~ 'i i ~ 'i . ~ NOIJ-~IOJ-~3~! NMO~IO ' ~3NINY3'I:D NMO~Ig a u "J U II , X, X X i X (;-~,) N.L1V'dH ~ ,- ,... J' ~ , . ,-... X ~,~ ~ , , ~ n u ff O000~J CITY'OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: PLACE: TYPE: ' Wednesday, March 8, 2000 - 7:3'0 p.m. Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Vice Chairman Page ca/led'the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLk CALL Present: Absent: Staff: Commissioners Jackmanl Kurasch, Pamck and Vice Chairman Page Commissioners Barry, Roupe and Chairwoman Bemald Director Walgren IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2000, BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENrTS. PASSED 2-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN PAGE ABSTAINED. COMMISSIONERS BARRY, ROUPE AND CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD WERE ABSENT.) Page 7, paragraph 3, last sentence, "...compatible versus incompatible on the City's part." Page'18, paragraph 3, 7th sentence, "...percentages of new construction over what is existing construction as it would..." ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ' ' There was no one present who wished to speak. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for tkis meeting was properly posted on March 3, 2000. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Walgren announced that the packet had the following correction: Under Item 2, Saunders pUblic he~ing, the proposed height on page 3 should be 26 ft. rather than 25ft. . MINUTES - February 23, 2000 PLEDGE OF Al l FGIANCE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 2000 PAGE2 CONSENT CAIFNDAR V-99-014 (397-26-022) - LAFFOON,' 14191 Squirrel Hollow Lane; Request for Variance approval for the addition of 279 square feet to the existing 3,438 square foot residence. Variance approval is necessary to further exceed the maximum allowable floor area for the site, which is 3,200 square feet. The site is 17,206 square feet and is located within an R-l-15,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 4/12/00 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT) ~. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, ROUPE, AND CHAIR\;VOMAN BERNALD WERE ABSENT.) PUBLIC HEARINGS o DR-99-064 (517-12-022) - SAUNDERS, 20550 Lomita Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demohsh an existing 2,930 square foot, single story residence and construct a new 4,258 square foot, two story residence. The property is 20,047 square feet (net) and is located within an R-I-40,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting the request is for Design Review to demohsh an existing 2,930 square foot single-story residence and construct a new 4,258 square foot two- story residence on a 20,047 net square foot lot. The site is located in an R-i-40,000 zoning district and meets all minimum zoning standard requirements. Staff recommends approval, subject to conditions in the staff report. Staff met with neighbors on the project who requested additional conditions: (1) replacement trees for the Black Acacia to be placed in the same location: (2) applicant to provide advance notice to the neighbors of the demolition schedule and the name and phone number of a contact person; and (3) arborist to be contracted to evaluate tree/~3 on the property, including review by the City Arborist. Vice Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. Allen Nikitin, Architect, displayed a color drawing of the property. He said the project was unique due to the location of the oak tree. The homeowners wanted a single-story house with a second story for a guest room. The homeowners were concerned about the trees and had an arborist on site. He said the house is within the 26 foot height limit and was close to the footprint of the existing house. Commissioner Patrick asked if there were any objections to the conditions suggested by the neighbors. Rena Saunders, property owner, agreed to the conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 2000 PAGE 3 John Pur~4s, 20602. Lomita Avenue, said his view of the mountains was precious, and the second story xvould cause an unacceptable impairment of his view. He expressed concern with any extension of the building and the increase in footprint of the house. He ,asked the Planning Commission to consider preservation of the tree. He added that he was told by a City planner that his view would not be affected.. 'He felt there was inadequacy in the public hearing notice. He requested that the house not be two stories and that the height be 18 feet. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the public hearing nprice was erroneous. Director Walgren said the public hearing notice indicated the proposed size of the house' was 4,068 square foot, but the actual proposed size is 4,258 square feet. He felt that' the notice was legal and did not represent any problems. Vice Chairman Page asked about the location of the views from Mr. Purvis' house. Mr. Purvis said his view was from four places in his house including the master bedroom and deck, the French doors in the family room, windows facing the property, and from the entire back yard. Tracy Purvis, 20602 Lomita, said the ambiance of the back yard ~vas based on the'vie~vs. Beverly Darlington, 30604 Lomita, said the house would not impact her viexv' of the hills. The proposed house will sit closer to her property. She noted that the house was 13 feet from her property and there was 19 feet on the other side of the house. She expressed concern about construction being allowed seven days a week. Mr. Nikitin said the second story addition was 600 feet which was a small portion of the rest of the house. Regarding the side yard setback, he said the garage would be on the 13 foot side of the house. He did not believe the placement of the second story was unreasonable to the project. Commissioner Kurasch noted that the maximum height allowed was 26 feet and asked about the height of the other part of the house. Mr. Nikitin said the tallest portion of the first story was 23 feet. Vice Chairman Page asked if the second story could be placed on the side of the house closest to the church property. Mr. Nikitin responded that the .area of the house closest to the church property had a vaulted ceiling. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the ceiling height. Mr. Nikitin said the ceiling was 10 feet, but he was willing to go to 9 feet 4 inches. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:25 P.M.) PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, -ROUPE, AND CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD WERE ABSENT) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 MARCHS, 2000 , Commissioner Kurasch said the architect tried to look at ways to accommodate the propert37 owner and the neighbor's view. She did not beheve there was room for redesign except for possibly lowering the roof height. Comrmssioner Jackman said the project was good planning, given the square footage of the lot and the location of the trees. Commissioner Patrick agreed that the plan was ex6ellent for the constrained lot. She would have been more concerned if the two-story addition was larger. She said she would vote in favor of the project. Vice Chairman Page said much work went into creating an appropriate home, with the second story kept to a minimum. He suggested limitf.ng the weekend construction activit3;. Director Walgren noted that larger projects have been limited to constrUction actMty Monday through Friday only. Commissioner Kurasch suggested adding a condition to have pruning or maintenance prescribed for a period of time under the supervision of the arborist. Director Walgren said the trees would be monitored until the project is finaled. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-064 WITH THE THREE CONDITIONS SUGGESTED BY THE NEIGHBORS: REPLACEMENT TREES FOR THE BLACK ACACIA TO BE PLACED IN THE SAME LOCATION; APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ADVANCE NOTICE TO THE NEIGHBORS OF THE DEMOLITION SCHEDULE AND THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF A CONTACT PERSON; AND ARBORIST TO BE CONTRACTED TO EVALUATE TREE/~3 ON THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE CITY ARBORIST. ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE BE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY PER THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, ROUPE AND CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD ABSENT) DR-99-057 and SD-95-007.3 (503-82-001) - FANG/TSENG, 18000 Rodeo Creek Hollow; Request for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 4,206 square foot, single story, single family residence. The site is 17,010 square feet and is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. The applicant is also requesting modification of the approval of the Rodeo Creek Hollow Subdivision (SD-95-007) to change the required exterior side yard setback from 37 feet to 25 feet. Director Walgren presented the staff report noting the applicant is requesting Design Review approval for construction of a new 4,206 square foot, single-story family residence. The applicant is requesting modification of the approval of the Rodeo Creek Hollow Subdivision to change the required exterior side yard setback from 37 feet to 25 feet. The project meets the zoning requirements, and staff recommends approval of the application. MARCH 8, 2000. Vice Chairman page opened the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. Mr. Fang, Designer, said he reed to reduce the mass of the house and reed to minimize the impact' on the oak tree on the neighboring Property. Commissioner Patrick asked if the designer considered wood'sidmg. Mr. Fang said people like stUcco because it is easier to maintain and less expensive than wood siding. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:48 P.M.). PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, ROUPE, AND CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD ABSENT) Commissioner Jackman said the plan was good and suggested a condition, due to the proximity, of' Sunnyvale/Saratoga Road, that no second story be allowed. Commissioner Kurasch agreed that a second story should not be allowed and suggested adding a condition that the arborist review the lan&cape measures. Director Walgren'said a clause could be added to the resolution that would restrict the structure to a single story. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-057 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS THAT NO SECOND STORY BE ALLOWED AND THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOLLOW THE ARBORIST REPORT. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY AND ROUPE AND. CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD ABSENT) DIRECTOR ITEMS Review of draft retreat agenda Director Walgren distributed the draft retreat agenda. COMMISSION ITEMS There were none. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 8, 2000 PAGE6 '* COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council minutes for adjourned meeting of February 8, special meetings of February 11 and February 18, and regular meeting of February 16, 2000 - noted Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 2000 - noted ADJOURNMENT T© NEXT MEETING Vice Chairman Page adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m. to Wednesday, March 22, 2000, Council Chambers/CMc Theatre, 13777 Fruit-vale Avenue, Saratoga, CA MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Ruth Swanson Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: James Walgren Secretary to the Planning Commission SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 19, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney AGENDA ITEM ~ CITY MANAGER:[~._~' '~,_~ PREPARED BY: City Attorney SUBJECT: Extension of Interim Moratorium on Residential Development of Commercially Designated Land RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Extension of Interim Ordinance. REPORT SUMMARY: This item is a follow up to the City Council's March 15, 2000 adoption of Ordinance 196A imposing a moratorium on residential development projects on commercially designated lands. The attached amendment would extend the term of Ordinance 196A from April 30, 2000 to March 15, 2002. The amendment also provides that the moratorium will expire on December 31, 2000 if the moratorium is not approved by the voters at the November, 2000 election. The attached amendment requires a 4/5 vote for City Council approval. STAFF REPORT: On March 15, 2000 the City Council approved Ordinance 196A imposing a moratorium on residential development projects on commercially designated lands. The moratorium was passed as an urgency measure pursuant to Government Code section 65858. That law provides that such ordinances initially may remain in effect for no more than 45 days. After the initial adoption of the ordinance, the law allows the City to extend the moratorium for up to an additional 22 months and 15 days by a 4/5 vote following public notice of the proposed extension. The attached ordinance would amend Ordinance 196A to extend its effective date from April 30, 2000 until March 15, 2002 as permitted by Government Code section 65858. The amendment also provides that Ordinance 196A would expire on December 31, 2000 if the moratorium is not approved at the next municipal election (November 7, 2000). This provision is included to reflect the City Council's interest in ensuring that the moratorium remain in effect for its full term only if approved by the voters. Staff will prepare the materials necessary to place the moratorium measure on the ballot in connection with other election-related actions later this year. The last date to place the moratorium and any other measures on the ball6t is August 11, 2000. A copy of Ordinance 196A is attached for your information. FISCAL IMPACTS: The ordinance would have a negligible fiscal impact. The City could experience a Small decline in application processing fees if applicants choose to defer applications for projects on commercial lands. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A notice of public hearing was published in the Saratoga News and copies of notice were mailed to each commercial property owner.. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The interim urgency ordinance would expire on April 30, 2000. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Staff will prepare the materials necessary to place the moratorium measure on .the ballot in connection with other election-related actions later this year. The last date to place moratorium and any other measures on the ballot is August 11, 2002. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Amendment to Ordinance 196A 2. Ordinance 196A P:\SARATOGAXaMAT 1 xJ~ST085.DOC 2 ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TERM OF ORDINANCE 196A PROHIBITING THE APPROVAL OF SPECIFIED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ON COMMERCIAL L.AND AND DECLARING .THE SAME TO BE AN URGENCY MEASURE TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On March 15, 2000 the City Council of the City of Saratoga by a 4/5 vote adopted Ordinance 196A prohibiting the approval of specified development projects on commercial land and declaring the same to be an urgency measure to take effect immediately; and B. For the reasons set forth in section 1 of Ordinance 196A, the City Council wishes to extend the term of said Ordinance as authorized by Government Code section 65858. C. This ordinance is not a project subject to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, subdivision (b). In the event that this ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in section 15061, subdivision (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment. The purpose of this ordinance is to prohibit on an interim basis, new residential development which may be otherwise permissible under existing policies. The ordinance will not create a change in the environment because it maintains the status quo. Any delay in development approval is only temporary in nature,. and would not indirectly or directly result in a phYsical change to the environment. Section 2. Amendment. Section 3 of Ordinance 196a is hereby amended as set forth below. 'In this section, 1 Ordinance No. text to be inserted into Ordinance 196A is indicated in bold italic type while text to be stricken is presented in ~ type; text in standard type currently appears in the ordinance. Based upon the findings set forth in Section 1, above, this is an interim urgency ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65858, and pursuant to the authority granted to the City of Saratoga in Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution. This ordinance shall therefore take effect until March 15, 2002, provided, however, that this ordinance shall terminate on December 31, 2000 if the regulation adopted by Section 2 of this ordinance is not reaffirmed and readopted by the voters at the next regularly scheduled municipal election; this ordinance will also terminate upon a determination by the City Council supported by substantial evidence that public health, safety, and welfare described in section 1 of this ordinance has been ameliorated by adoption of the General Plan and zoning ordinance amendments described in section 1 of this ordinance., whichever zeroes Section 4. Urgency Measure. Based upon the findings set forth in Section 1 of Ordinance 196A, this is an interim urgency ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65858, and pUrsuant to the authority granted to the City of Saratoga in Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution. This ordinance shall therefore take effect immediately upon adoption. Section 5. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. 2 Ordinance No. The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the __ day of ,2000, and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY P:\SARATOGAhMAT 1 \RST095V 1 .DOC 3 Ordinance No. O~J)INANCE 196 A AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE APPROVAL OF sPECIFIED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ON COMMERCIAL LAND AND DECLARING THE SAME TO BE AN URGENCY MEASURE TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY THE CITY coUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Of the approximately 8000 acres °fland in Saratoga, 128 acres are designated for commercial development. This is less than 1.6 percent of Saratoga's land area. B. Commercial development in Saratoga is essential to meet diverse and growing local needs for goods and services and to ensure that the City's economy continues to thrive. C. The General Plan of the City of Saratoga allows residential development in commercial areas subject to issuance of a conditional use permit. Commercially designated parcels are discouraged but not prohibited from being developed entirely for non-commercial uses. There is no minimum density requirement for residential uses of commercially designated lands. D. Current economic cOnditions in the City have created the potential for increased residential development on lands designated for commercial purposes. E. Premature development of commercially designated lands with non-commercial uses could undermine the City's commercial land use base by precluding future commercial development. F. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the amount and type of new housing that may be necessary in the City pursuant to state housing laws. Preliminary figures indicate that the City could be obligated to provide up to an average of 30 new below market rate units per year. G. The. City of Saratoga plans to update its Housing Element and related provisions in its Land Use and other General Plan elements in accordance with state law and has set a target date of June 30, 2001 for completion of the Update. As part of the update, the City will be evaluating the appropriate role of residential housing development on commercially designated lands in light of the City's broader goals and objectives and the requirements of state law. This study is expected to result in amendments to the City's General Plan and zoning ordinance. 1 Ordinance No. ~ H. Premature residential development of commercially designated lands could limit the range of options available to the City in this planning process, limit the City's ability [6 plan for homing adequate to meet the needs of Saratoga residents all income levels, and result in land uses that are inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning ordinance as amended as a result of the planning process described above. I, New and pending residential development applications requiring authorization by the City with respect to lands designated as "Commercial" in the General Plan may be in conflict with any newly ~reated policy or amendments the City Council eventually adopts. Therefore, approval of such residential development applicatiOns eomtimtes an immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare. / /I. This ordinance is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant ~o CEQA Guidelines section 15378, subdivision (b). In the event that this · ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained. in section 15061, subdivision Cb) (3) of the CEQ,~. Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there i~ no possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment. The purpose of this ordinance is to prohibit on an interim basis, new residential development which may be otherwise permissible under existing policies. The ordinance will not create a change in the environment became it maintains the status quo. Any delay in development approval is only temp~ in nature, and would not indirectly or directly result in a physical change to the environment. Section 2. Regulation. The following regulation is hereby imposed. This regulation shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of the Saratoga City Code or the other ordinances, resolutions, policies, and regulations of the City of Saratoga: ho No application submitted after March 15, 2000 for use permit or tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or building site approval or amendment, to allow for residential we on la~ds designated in the Saratoga General Plan as "Retail Commercial," "Professional Administrative," "Gateway Landscaping," or Planned Development -Mixed" shall be approved. Section 3. Interim Urgency Ordinance. Based upon the findings set forth in Section 1, above, this is an interim urgency ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65858, and pursuant to the authority granted to the City of Saratoga in Article 11, Section ? of the California Constitution. This ordinance shall therefore take effect immediately upon adoption. Unless extended in the manner required by Government Code section 65858 this ordinance shall remain in effect until (1) 45 days from the date of its adoption or (2) the threat to public health, safety, and welfare described in section 1 of 2 Ordinance No. 19 6 A this ordinance has been ameliorated by adoption of the General Plan and zoning ordinance. amendments described in section 1 of this ordinance, whichever comes first. Section 4. Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares that it wouldhave adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the pbrtion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 5. Publication. This Ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a . newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. The foregoing Ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 15thday of March , 2000, and adopted by the following vote: AYES: WALTONSMITH,,BAKER. NOES: STREIT NONE ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 3 Ordinance No. 19 6 A SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE ORIGINATING DEPT Ci.ty Manager AGENDA ITEM ~ CITY MANAGER: ~~ PREPARED BY:Cary Bloomquist SUBJECT: Funding allocation recommendations from the Board of the Saratoga Community Access Cable Television Foundation regarding the dispersal of $95,000.00 in funds from the Settlement and Allocation Agreement between AT&T Cable Services, Saratoga Community Access Cable TV Foundation, and the City of Saratoga. RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Review the funding recommendations from the Board of the Saratoga Community Access Cable Television Foundation for the allocation and dispersal of $95,000.00 in funds. REPORT SUMMARY: At its last regular meeting on April 5, 2000 City Council approved a Resolution to make an amendment to the Franchise Transfer Agreement with TCI of Cleveland, Inc. and TCI Cablevision of California, Inc., dba AT&T Cable Services. The litigation arose from AT&T relocating KSAR from Channel 6 to Channel 15. In an effort to protect the interests of the City, a lawsuit was filed by the City of Saratoga and the Town of Los Gatos against AT&T in an attempt to restore the location of KSAR to Channel 6. A settlement was reached, and KSAR was awarded up to $10,000.00 in advertising services by AT&T as part of the agreement. In addition, $95,000.00 was awarded to the City. It was agreed upon by the parties involved that ifKSAR were moved again prior to the termination of the present franchise agreement, an additional sum of $150,000.00 would be paid to the City. The item before you tonight is a recommendation for the allocation and dispersal of $95,000.00 in settlement funds by the Board of the Saratoga Community Access Cable Television Foundation. Their recommendations are as follows: · Fund immediate, direct costs for such items as the creation of a new logo, printing new letterhead stationery and business cards, repainting the logo on the mobile unit, refilling all broadcast station Ids, revising web pages. Cost Estimate: $11~000.00 · Fund an advertising campaign to address both the immediate issue of channel relocation, and the ongoing need for publicity in our more obscure location. Cap these advertising expenses at no more than $5,000.00 this year and $3,000.00 for each of the remaining eight years of the franchise agreement. Cost Estimate: $29~000.00 Additional funding recommendations by the Saratoga Community Access Cable Television Foundation include: · Complete the selection and installation of equipment and systems in the Senior Center so as to make it acceptable as a "broadcast-ready" site. Cost Estimate: $11~000.00 · Replace the existing video bulletin board system used for KSAR broadcasts. Cost Estimate: $5~000.00 · Upgrade a variety of studio production equipment. Cost Estimate: $9~500.00 · Upgrade a variety of broadcast-related equipment. Cost Estimate: $6,000.00 · RePlace and upgrade a variety of equipment to better outfit the mobile unit. Cost Estimate: $3,000.00 · Maintain fund balances in a capital equipment fund held by the City with expenditures managed by the Board. Total allocation and disbursement recommended: $74~500.00 The City incurred $19,605.90 in legal fees during the litigation with AT&T. When added to the $74,500.00 recommended above, this totals $94,105.90, which nearly utilizes the $95,000.00 in settlement funds. FISCAL IMPACTS: The City has incurred legal expenditures of $19,605.90 in the AT&T(TCI) litigation. This leaves a balance of $75,394.10 for disbursement to mitigate the impact of channel relocation. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The balance of $75,394.10 will remain in the fund balance of the General Fund, and the Foundation will not have the funds to mitigate the effects of the channel changes. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Disbursement of funds as determined by Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Detailed equipment purchase list from KSAR, which breaks down the costs stated in this report. 2. Memo dated March 16, 2000 to the Mayor and Council From the Saratoga Community Access Foundation Board Chair, Tom Moran. Eouipm~nt JPurchas¢ Lis~ Studlo.- $9,500.00 Tripods (3) Microphones Light Kits (3) Installation of dimming board / studio lighting, Risers for studio Studio sets Monitors ATTACHMENT #1 1200.00 500:00 1700.00 3000.00 1000.00 700.00 1400.00 Broadcast'- $6000.00 Engineering Time Base Correctors (3) 1500.00 4500.00 Mobile Truck - $3000.00_ Intercom System for remote track Audio Mixer for Remote Truck Tripod Risers for remote shoots 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00 Bulletin Board System - $5000.00 Computer & software 5000.00 Sentor Center - $11,000.00 PTZ Camera Switcher. Soundman Audio SYstem Quad monitor 6000.00 1000.00 3000.00 1000.00 ATTACHMENT #2 Dear Mayor Bogosian and Members of the Saratoga City Council: As an independent body, the Board of the SaratOga Community Access Cable Television Foundation (hereinafter. the Board) has, with concent% signed the settlement asreement with AT&T and the settlement allocation agreement with the City' oi Saratoga on Friday, February 25, 2000. The allocation agreement, it should be noted, unfortunately omitted significant points specified in earlier drafts, to 1. There is no cap of $20,000/or legal services to be received by the City. 2.. There is no recognition of the expenses that th~ Board must assume to cha,n~e station identification in its many forms. 3. Thereate no~pecihc ptovisions~or allocaling the money received by the City from AT&T, after deducting les-al expenses, for station operations. The Board feels it has a responsibility to serve as the voiCe/or Saratoga, and the vital need to provide community access television to the public. The allocation a~,rcoment, as presented to us, does not protect that fundamental purpose. It is the expectation of this Board, with the assurance and expressed encouragement of its two City representatives, that the Saratoga City Council will recosmize and honor the Board's concerns. The Board makes these recommendations regarding the dispersal of funding to resolve tangible and intans;iblc dama&e.s to Saratosa Community Acccsa Tclcvi~ion: Fund intmediate, direct costs for such items as the creation of a new logo, printing new' letterhead stationery and business cards, repainting the logo on the mobile unit, refilming all broadcast station IDs, revisin& web pa&es cte. Cost estimate: $11,000. Fund an advertising campaign to address both the immediate issue of channel relocation, and the ongoing need/or publicity in our more obscure location. Cap these adv~tisinl~ eXpenses at no more than $S,000 thie year and $3,000 for each of thc rcmainln~ eight years of the franchise agxeement The Board makes these/vrthcr recommendations re&ardin$ the diapcraal of lundin& to impwvc the quality of productions and bmadcastin§ through equipment acquisitions and engineering services: , CompJct~ the selection and in.stallaLion of equipment and ~y~lcl~ h~ fl~c Se/,iu.. C~tter .~ a.~ _to ,make !.t acceptable as a '%roadcast-ready" site. Cost estimate: $11,000. Keplace ~e existin& video bulletin board system used for IC$AR broadcasts. Cost estimate: $5,000. · UpErade a variety of studio production equipment. Cost estimate: $9,500. · Up~rade a variety ot broadcast-related equipment. Cost estimate: $6,000. · Repla~x and upi/rude a variety ut equipment to better outfit the mobile unit. Cost estimate: ~,000. · Maintain tund balances in a capital equipment fund held by the City with expenditures '~ d Tom Mo air Dated: Saratoga Community Access Cable Television Foundation SmTou (oH.u nv Access Trims,oH W~Volley College ]4000 Fruit~deAvm~ Samlog% CA ?5070 408/741-210ff FAX 408/'867-9~07 ~.."~u..~.M .r r.,,. L~,- 11. ........... J .