Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-2001 City Council Agenda Packet (2) AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL April 18, 200 KEEP ONE YEAR OPEN SESSION- 4:35 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM- 13777 FRUIT'~'~,~; ~¢'~2NUE COMMISSION INTERVIEWS 4:30 p.m. 4:40 p.m. 4:50 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 5:10 p.m. 5:30 p.m. 5:50 p.m. Eric A. Brachner Aj ax, Narain Carol)m Galvin Barry Ford Chuck Page Arthur B. Hamel Mike Garakam Public Safety Commission Public Safety Commission Public Safety Commission Public Safety Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission CALL MEETING TO ORDER- 6:10 P.M. .~NNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:10 P.M. Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case). Conference With Labor Negotiator: Agency designated rePresentative: Dave Aanderson, City Manager Employee organization: Saratoga Employees Association REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ' REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 13, 2001) COMMUNICATIONS FROM CO~'IMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the pubIic will be allowed to address the CiO' Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such item::. However, the Council ma3' instruct staff accordingl), regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Communications from Boards and Commissions None Written Communications None Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. CEREMONIAL ITEMS IA. Proclamation - Declaring the week of April 22-28, 2001 "National Volunteer Appreciation Week" Recommended action: Read proclamation. lB. Commendation - Lou de Give Recommended action: Read commendation. lC. Commendation-Anne Campbell Recommended action: Read commendation. CONSENT C.~LENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted in one motion, unless removed b)' the ~ayor or a Council member. An), member of the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the :~Iavor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 2A. Approve Council Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting - April 4, 2001 Recommended action: Approve minutes. 2B. Review of Check Register Recommended action: Approve check register. 2 .April 24, 2001 May 2, 2001 May 8,2001 May 16, 2001 June 6.2001 June 20, 2001 July 4, 2001 July 18, 2001 August 1, 2001 AugustlS, 2001 SCHEDLrLED CITY COUNCIL .MEETINGS Adjourned Meeting"Joint Session Public Safety Commission, Sheriff, & Fire Districts Adult Care Center 19655 Allendale avenue Saratoga, California Regular Meeting'Council Chambers 13777 Fmitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Adjourned Meeting/Joint Session Youth Commission, Chamber of Commerce, SBDC Adult Care Center 19655 Allendale avenue Saratoga, California Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fmiwale Avenue Saratoga, California Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fmitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fmitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Regular Meeting/Cancelled Legal Holidav Regular Meeting;Council Chambers 13777 Fmitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Regular Meeting/Cancelled Summer Recess Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fmitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the pubHc may comment on an), item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a -total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance are subject to Council's approval at the Council meeting) Petition of Annexation: 19770 Glen Una Drive, Lands of Escherv~Eschem'oeder. APN: 510-26-047 Recommended action: Approve petition of annexation and adopt resolution. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Presentation on GASB 34 Recommended action: Informational only. CiO Regulation of Fire District Operations Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Resolution Endorsing AB 613 Introduced by Assembly Member Cohn Recommended action: Adopt resolution. Authorization to City Manager to execute amended contract with Greg Ing& Associates for Azule Park Conceptual Plan Recommended action: Authorize execution of agreement. Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District - Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report and Adoption of Resolution of Intent for FY2001/02. RecOmmended Action: Adopt resolution. Authorization to CiD' Manager to execute agreement with County of Santa Clara for FY 2000-2001 - Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program Recommended action: Authorize execution of agreement. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Government Agency Assoc. of Bay Area Gov't.(ABAG) Chamber of Commerce Board Count; Cities Assn. Leg. Task Force County HCD Policy Committee Emergency Planning Council Hakone Foundation Liaison KS.AR Community. Access TV Board Libra~' Joint Powers Authori~, Board No. Cent. Flood Cont. Zone Adv. Committee Peninsula Div., League of Calif. Cities Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Santa Clara Count, Cities Assn. SASCC Liaison Saratoga Business Development Council Sister City Liaison West Valley Solid Waste J-PA Valley Transportation Authority PAC West Valley Sanitation District Silicon Valley Animal Control JPA CITY COUNCIL ITEMS OTHER CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Representative Alternate Mehaffey Baker Waltonsmith Streit Streit Bogosian Baker Waltonsmith Baker Waltonsmith Mehaffey/Streit Baker Mehaffey Bogosian Streit Bogosian Waltonsmith Mehaffey Streit Streit Baker Mehaffey Baker Waltonsmith B ogo si an Mehaffey Waltonsmith Waltonsmith Mehaffey Streit Baker Waltonsmith Mehaffey Baker Mehaffey Bogosian Dr compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the CiO' Clerk at (408j 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Cio-' to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibilin, to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title .tI~ 4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2001 ORIGINATINGr'B~PT,: C'~,..' Manager AGENDA ITEM: CITY M.~NAGER: DEPT HE.M): SUBJECT: Commission Interviews RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council conduct interviews. REPORT SUM~LARY: The following people have been scheduled for interviews: 4:30 p.m. Eric A. Bracher 4:40 p.m. Ajay Norain 4:50 p.m. Carolyn Galvin 5:00 p.m. Barry Ford 5:10 p.m. Chuck Page 5:30 p.m. .Arthur Hamel 5:50 p.m. Mike Garakani Public Safety Commission Public Safety Commission Public Safety Commission Public Safety Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission There is one vacancy to be filled on the Public Safety Commission to fill the unexpired term of Thomas Edel. Ihe term of this vacancy will expire on April 1, 2004. There are two vacancies to be filled on the Planning Commission to fill expired terms of Chuck Page, and Margaret Patrick. The terms will expire on April 1, 2005. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Appointments will not be made to the Planning Commission and the Public Safety Commission. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Adopt resolutions and administer Oath of C'ffice at the May 2, 2000 City Council Meeting. .4DVERTISING, NOTICING .a~ND PUBLIC CONTACT: A "Notice of Vacancy" for the Planning: Commission and Public SafeW Commission was published in the Saratoga News on 03/28/01. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Applications of the above named applicants. 2 of 3 February 7, 2001 Dr. Cynthia Barry Commissioner Saratoga Planning Commission Re: Ong residence 19051 Austin Way Dear Chairman / Commissiomer, About 3 years ago my wife and I purchased the property located at 19061 Austin way and since then we lived in it with our three children. This property is located East Side of Ong's residence at 19051 Austin way. Presently a picket fence separates both properties and we have the view of trees #4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 25 in Ong's residence (please see attached drawing for the location of the trees). These trees cover the existing building. One of the main factors of purchasing our property in Austin way was the feeling of being in a secluded area with the many trees around us. After reviewing the Ong residence design, it appears that ail of the trees that are currently blocking the view of the existing house (trees # 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) are to be cut down to accommodate the new house. Our view that was once of beautiful and healthy trees, is now going to be replaced by a 3 car garage with driveway coming as close as six feet to our picket fence and an office building which is perpendicular to the garage. This is not the view we wish to see from our dining area and the yard. Aside from the view of the garage and office building, there is no guarantee that there will not be cars, RV, or boat parked in front of the Ong residence garage. There is also no guarantee that the house will not be sold sometimes in near future and what the new owner might park there. In June, 2000 the Community Planning dept. of Saratoga requested examination of the new building site at 19051 Austin Way by Mr. Barrie D. Coate consulting arborist. The report (# 06-00-144, dated June 15, 2000) indicates that the two significant trees # 5 and 7 (18" and 10" Oak trees) are heaithy and worth preserving. An addendum report dated July 12, 2000, by the same consulting arborist indicates that trees # 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11 are "exceptional specimen and must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used" (please see the attached reports). However the current plan shows they are to be removed. On January 11, 2001 following the Planning Commissions Hearing (Jan. 10, 2001), I stopped by City Planning Dept. to taik to Mr. Mark Connolly about my concerns. I have aiso tried to meet Mr. Raymond Nasmeh (Mr. Ong's representative) to go over my concerns with him. However, Mr. Nesmeh scheduled no meeting and I was mainly working with the assistant planner Mr. Mark Connolly. I have followed this issue up with Mark by severai emails, phone cails, and stopping at the Saratoga Planning Dept. (please see attached emails). On January 17, 2001 I proposed and submitted four copies of plans with minor modification to Mr. Connolly of which the first three plans would save six trees # 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and facing the house in the East direction. The fourth plan would save the 18" Oak tree #5 that to some degree blocks the view of the house as well (please see attached proposed plans). 1 On January 29, 2001 I received a call from Mr. Connolly and he told me that the design has been modified to reflect my #2 plan proposal and requested that I go to Planning Dept. for review of the redesign. But when I reviewed the new plan, I did not see any changes. This was communicated to Mr. Connolly as well as other City Planners. We respectfully request the Planning Commission's consideration on the following options: 1) Redesign of the house such that the exceptional and fine specimens reported by the arborist is preserved (report# 06-00-144, dated July 12, 2000). 2) The attached proposed Plan #2 will preserve 6 exceptional and the two fine specimen trees. No modification was done to the existing design, the house was only rotated 45° from its current position (entrance of the house will be towards the East). 3) The proposed plan #5 will only require removal of two main trees (#22. 12" pine and #24, 13" live oak). All the exceptional and fine specimens will be saved. No modification was done to the existing footprint, the house was rotated 90° (entrance of the house will be towards the NE). 4) Since a lot of vegetation is going to be removed, a plan of landscaping should be 'approved to match the natural look of surrounding prior to final approval. At the previous hearing commissioner Dr. Cynthia Barry proposed continuance based on lack of arborist report for tress #1 -11 (please see attached report ~fl36-00-144, dated July l2, 2000). I would like to understand why is an arborist report require only to have it ignored. The natural beauty of Saratoga could only be preserved by saving and maintaining its exceptional and fine specimen trees. The proposed plans #2 and 5 do not require redesign of the existing plan, just relocation on the lot. Both plans not only preserve trees #5.6,7,8.9,10, and 11. they also provide less view encroachment from our site. Thank you and Best Regards, Mike Garakani Pouran Asadipour 19061 Austin Way Saratoga. CA 95070 2 n o & ;'7 ~.-:? :'~,-- ----:-.i i. -{' Z-!. - / - c~: ..:.= ...... .-- .... -. ...~ ._.~: , >--'. .... ~; - 'L--. ::' ~ ' 1'~ [,[ .....-' ':-,'~ · :-': ---~:- "--? ./ ,--:- :-.-~ -...[~.". b :::,,'i , -.-~: - : ', :' .... ~ -,~/j-'.v,Vx~}Z~,'.." -' ~- ' . ~..,;~ ' ~. - :. =:.~ : '~ ,:_--t'.'.' · , -' - ' - ' f:~' ..~, , ~ - ..,...,..... ., :, . .. % ~ ,~:-.,-.--~. .,,.~/ :~.'~. ,.- ~... ~ ~;~ ,. '-~--.~ ~J~ : "-: ~ ~'. ~ " ~' --. --c- . . ..."~' ' - .~. .~- . . ..-C..... i['--- ' "'. '[ :- i' ":":. . ..' ,~s-'-'--~"-~-,_.,:_. ~ .}(: ?.(.;=.g .:,'. - ~. ~. ~ I ~ . ::~-t. .-','-,-',- x ¢';/ .x, - , ,/ · ......-..?. /. 02-07-01 Tom & Judy Keeble 19041 Austin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Mark Connelly Re: Ong residence 19051 Austin Way. Dear Mark, At the Jan. 10th Planning Commission meeting, regarding the Ong residence, I voiced no objections to the existing plan. After walking and measuring the site with my neighbor Mike Garakani, he had some concerns about the proximity of the garage and driveway to his property. Also, we were both concerned about the loss of trees which offer shielding to his property. He has submitted several alternatives plans to you and I would like to encourage you to consider his proposals #2 or #5 Either of these relocations would preserve trees #5, #6, &#7 which are listed on the arborists report as" Exceptional specimens" and "MUST BE RETAINED AT ANY COST AND WHATEVER PROCEDURES ARE NEEDED TO RETAIN THEM esTHEIR CURRENT CONDITION MUST BE USED". In addition #'s 9 &10 would be erved which are listed as "Fine specimens" (See attached). The report that included the above mentioned trees was not available for review at the meeting of the 10th as was noted by one of the commissioners. This was one reason for the continuence. The arborist report is required by the City presumably to save trees which would otherwise be removed or damaged by construction. What is the purpose of hiring an arborist for his knowledge and expertise if his recommendations are going to being ignored? Neither of the two plans we support would require any redesign of the existing drawings, just relocation on the lot and would save the trees mentioned in the aborist's report. Either one of his plans would also provide less view encroachment from our site. The reason we moved to and enjoy are home is due to the mature trees and natural landscaping of the area. respectfully request that these options be considered by the Commission. Tom & Judy Keeble ' An/lddendum ToOura ,rtOfJunel$,gooOO'n J'hkOngProperty S: te trees are rated here for relative condition. Exeet~tional Spec/mens [ Fine Spec/mens 1,3,4,5,6,77 11 i 9, 10 Exceptional Specimens must be retained at any cost aad whatever procedures are needed to .retaha them/n the/r current cond/tion must be used. -. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mi'tigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent d~line. Respectf~ly submitted, BDC/sl .~epare~t b.v: Ba~-ie D. Coate An Examinatiou Of T~ ailding Site At 19051 Austin Way. Assignment i was asked by Christian Ratcliffe to examine the proposed residence location at 19051 Austin Way, as relates to tree locations toward the goal of recommending changes in placement of the residence, if necessary, in order to preserve significant trees. -Summary it would certainly be possible to build the building essentially as designed. If one large redwood; two large Douglas firs and one large coast live oak which are adjacent to but outside the footprint of the new proposed building are to be preserved, some changes in building shape will be necessary.. The building plan would affect the health and longevity of eleven trees. Six of those trees #2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are inside the building footprint and of course would be removed. Trees #2, 6, and 8 are too small to be protected by city ordinance. Trees #3 and 10 are immediately adjacent to the building footprint and would be so severely damaged as to be lost if the building is constructed as shown. Trees # 1, 4, and 11 are slightly farther from the building footprint and with some moderate changes in design could no doubt be preserved if pier and beam foundation is used near them and no excavation is done inside the foundation for crawl space. Discussion By use of the proposed building footprint trees #2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, a small southern magnolia, an 18-inch coast live oak, a small twin trunk European olive, a 10-inch coast live oak, a small 5-inch coast live oak'and a twin mink 12-inch and 18- inch coast redwood would be removed. #2, 6, and #8 are small trees. In my opinion, the only ones of these which are significant are the two oaks #5 and #7 which are healthy and worth preserving. Urifortunately, they are fight in the building footprint. Tree ~' ,,.~, a canary island date palm, would have to be removed because of its proximity to new construction but that species is easily transplanted or given away, if&sired, and are probably not of great significance to the area. The trees of most concern in my opinion are coast live oak #I, Douglas firs #4 and I0 and coast redwood # 11, which are so close to proposed construction footprint that they would be badly damaged unless changes are made in building design. Construction distances away from each of those trees' trunks should be 20-feet from the trunk of tree #1, 18-feet from the mmlc of tree #4, 18-feet from the tnmk of tree #10 and 20-feet from the trunk of tree #11. Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist June 15, 2000 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: O RI GINATIN~,~PT~.'~.anager PREPARED~~ CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Proclamation - Aril 22nd - April 28th "National Volunteer Appreciation Week" RECOMMENDED ACTION: Read proclamation. REPORT SUMMARY: N/A FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Proclamation CITY OF SARATOGA PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF APRIL 22 - 28, 2001 "NATIONAL VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION WEEK" WHEREAS, National Volunteer Appreciation Week is celebrated April 22nd through 28th; and WHEREAS, a diverse and dedicated pool of individuals share their precious time, skills, and resources to the City of Saratoga, contributing to the superior quality and cost effectiveness of City programs and services; and WHEREAS, high school students volunteer as required by community service learning curriculums; and WHEREAS, college students perform volunteer work to augment their formal education; and WHEREAS. individuals seeking companionship look to Volunteer Saratoga as a conduit to their neigh~bors; and WH1;,REAS. volunteering provides excellent work place experience to those entering the workforce for the first time or exploring a potential career change; and WHEREAS residents new to the City of Saratoga, State of California, or the United States of America welcome the occasion to learn about our form of government; and I WHEREAS community service builds not only resumes, but character, conservationism, stewardship, integrity, and respect; and WHEREAS Volunteer Saratoga expands horizons of its participants, staff members, the community of Saratoga, and all people; and WHEREAS Volunteer Saratoga is currently seeking interested individuals and groups to Adopt-A-Park, provide office support, work with children's summer camps, tutor middle school students after school, escort trips, clean creeks and parks, assist with mailings, design publications and graphics, build benches and planter boxes; and WHEREAS, Volunteer Saratoga expands horizons of its participants, staff members, the community of Saratoga, and all people; and NOW', THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby proclaim and recognize April 22nd - 28th, 2001 as "NATIONAL VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION WEEK" Witnessed our hand and seal of the City of Saratoga on this 18th day of April 2001. John Mehaffey, Mayor City of Saratoga SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Commendation for Lou de Give RECOMMENDED ACTION: Present Commendation. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is a commendation for Lou de Give. Mr. de Give is retiring from Saratoga Amateur Radio Association and Volunteer Saratoga, which he has been a participant since 1989. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Copy of commendation. CITY OF SARATOGA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMENDING and LOU de GIVE WHEREAS, Lou de Give becmne a volunteer for the City of Saratoga in 1989; WHEREAS, Lou has served in such distinguished roles as the President'and' Treasurer of the Saratoga Amateur Radio Association (SARA); and WHEREAS, Lou has used his technological expertise to insure that various radio equipment and antennas were installed and functioning properly at City Hall, the fire houses and Saratoga schools to provide emergency communications; and WHEREAS, for ten years he ihas assisted with various special events such as Celebrate Saratoga, the Hometown 4th of July, and the "Halloween Caper" which has been dramatically effective in preventing vandalism at schools, churches, and libraries; and WHEREAS, Lou has played a critical part in the Saratoga Emergency Response Plan by participating in disaster drills for the City, schools, and the County; and WHEREAS, Lou has provided loyal and irreplaceable service to the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, In conjunction with the City of Saratoga's celebration of National Volunteer Appreciation Week, April 22nd through April 28th the City Council commends Lou de Give for his service and dedication as a volunteer to the City of Saratoga. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Lou de Give is hereby commended and thanked for his outstanding participation and dedication in the City of Saratoga and to the Saratoga Amateur Radio Association. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 18th day of April 2001. John Mehaffey, Mayor City of Saratoga SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Ci ~ty~Manager PREPARED BY :~' CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Commendation for Anne Campbell RECOMMENDED ACTION: Present Commendation. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is a commendation for 'Anne Campbell. Ms. Campbell is retiring from Volunteer Saratoga, which she has been a participant since 1984. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A- Copy of commendation. CITY OF SARATOGA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMENDING ANNE CAMPBELL WHEREAS, Anne Campbell bet:me a volunteer for the City of Saratoga in June, 1984; and WHEREAS, Anne has volunteered as Assistant to the Mayor, Secretary to the Emergency Preparedness Program, Records Clerk in the Inspection/Building Department, Receptionist in the Community Center, Assistant to the Volunteer Coordinator and Human . Resources for the .City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the work Anne performed was not glamorous or intrinsically exciting, what made Anne such an extraordinary volunteer was that she did this work for the City weekly, without fail for seventeen years; and WHEREAS, Anne adapted to many changes throughout her tenure as a volunteer, transitioning fi.om one Volunteer Coordinator to another, from MAC computers to PCs, fi.om lavish volunteer recognition events to simple but sincere gestures of gratitude; and WHEREAS, Anne credits her volunteer work with giving her life new meaning after the passing of her beloved husband; and WHEREAS, Anne also volunteers at the Saratoga Senior Center and at her church and is a very active member of her WAVE group; and WHEREAS, Anne's colleagues at the City hold Anne in very high esteem. "Since I have known and observed Anne, she has proven herself to be an extremely loyal and conscientious volunteer." "Week after week, she shows up like clockwork, dependable beyond reproach." "She has proven herself to be dedicated far above anyone's expectations. If there is a job that needs to get done, Anne will stay and work side by side with staff, burning the late night oil to make sure her part of the task is completed. Then, she amazingly asks if there is more that needs to get done." "Her ever caring, patient, and willing attitude is responsible for getting projects one to perfection. And, her hard work and dedication have played a vital role in the successful growth and expansion of the volunteer program; and WHEREAS, In conjunction with the City of Saratoga's celebration of National Volunteer Appreciation Week, April 22nd through April 28th the City Council commends Anne Campbell for her service and dedication as a volunteer to the City of Saratoga. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, does herby commend Anne Campbell on her retirement fi.om Volunteer Saratoga. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this the 18th day of April 2001. John Mehaffey, Mayor City of Saratoga SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 21, 2001 ORIGINATI~ger SUBJECT: City Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes as' submitted for the following City Council Meeting: Regular Meeting - April 4, 2001 REPORT SUMMARY: N/A FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOTM UP ACTION: Retain minutes for legislative history. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Minutes/April 4, 2001 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL April 4, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 5:30 p.m. Conference With Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(a)): Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court Doc. No. CV-784560) Conference With Labor Negotiator: Agency designated representative: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: Saratoga Employees Association MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken. Mayor Mehaffey called the' Regular Ci_ty Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Councilmember Baker to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR APRIL 4, 2001 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, .the agenda for the meeting of April 4, 2001 was properly posted on March 30, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people spoke at tonight's meeting: Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittfidge Road, presented the City Council copies of supplemental material relevant to the Saratoga Public Safety Commission's report on "Fire Protection Delivery" written by FACT. David Dolloff, 20685 Seagull Drive, noted that he recently spoke to Richard Taylor, City Attorney, and was told that Saratoga Fire District was a separate entity and the City has no authority over the District. Mr. Dolloffnoted that he asked Mr. Taylor what options the City has in terms of authority, direction, and/or support over the Saratoga Fire District and Mr. Taylor told him that it would take too much of his time, without the direction of the City Council, to research the City's relationship with the Saratoga Fire District. K.B. Walker, 20281 Blauer, requested'that the City Council help FACT in their efforts to merge the Saratoga Fire District with County Fire. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Bogosian noted that public safety is local governments primary responsibility and he supports directing City Attorney Taylor to invest the necessary time to determine what the City of Saratoga can and cannot do in regards to the Saratoga Fire District. Consensus of the City Council to direct City Attorney Taylor to explore ways to legally exert control over the Saratoga Fire District. CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. PROCLAMATION - DECLARING THE WEEK OF APRIL 15 - APRIL 22, 2001 DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE IN MEMORY OF THE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. lB. Mayor Mehaffey read the proclamation. PROCLAMATION - DECLARING THE WEEK OF APRIL 22 - APRIL 28, 2001 ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS WEEK STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Read proclamation. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF: REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 21, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve submitted minutes. Councilmember Baker pulled Item 2A from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Baker noted on page 2, the vote was recorded incorrectly for approval of the City Council minutes of February 7, 2001. The vote should read as follows: "Motion passed 3-0-1-1 with Mehaffey abstaining and Bogosian absent". BAKER/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 4- 0-1 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSTAINING. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES MARCH 28, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. 2D. 2E. 2F. STREIT/BAKER NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. APPROVAL OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL/LIBRARY EXPANSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - MARCH 1, 2001 BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF MARCH 1, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PLANNING COMMISSION STIPEND STA/FF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-021 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Mayor Mehaffey pulled Item 2E from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Mehaffey suggested that the phrase "inordinate amount of time" be replaced with "many hours". Consensus of the City Council to amend wording in the proposed resolution. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PLANNING COMMISSION STIPEND AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ACCEPT NOTICE OF COMPLETION FROM PLAYGROUNDS UNLIMITED - KEVIN MORAN AND GARDINER PARK PLAY AREA IMPROVEMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept notice. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT NOTICE OF COMPLETION FROM PLAYGROUNDS UNLIMITED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) ALLOCATIONS FOR FY 2001-2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: . - Approve allocations as recommended by staff. Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst, present, ed staff report. Analyst Reeve noted that tonight staff is asking Council to conduct the public hearing and approve $180;874.00 .for FY 2001~2002 Community Development Block Grant and Human Services Funds. Analyst Reeve explained that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) makes annual disbursements of Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) funds for eligible projects and activities. Saratoga and other "nOnentitlement"' cities (population under 50,000), receive HCDA funds fi:om the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program through a corporative agreement with the County of Santa Clara, the locally responsible grant recipient. Analyst Reeve noted that as a nonentitlement jurisdiction, the City of Saratoga would receive $165,874.00, plus $15,000.00 to cover program administration expenses, for a tothl of $180,874.00. Analyst Reeve noted that the City of Saratoga has received one human services prOposal and three CDBG proposals. Analyst Reeve briefly explained the proposals: 1. sAscc - submitted a proposal for continued support of the Adult Day Care Center. Staff recommends $36,667.00 available from CDBG Human Services Grant Funds. 2. Project Match - submitted a proposal for $19,500.00 to subsidize rent payments of its senior group home located at the new site of 1552 Johnson Avenue. Staff recommends $19,500.00 to support Project Match. 3. Bridge Housing FOr Cupertino Community Services - submitted a proposal requesting funds to help support the proposed 24-unit affordable housing project. Staff recommends $37, 707.00. 4. ADA Project for Hakone Gardens :- as per the recent agreement with Hakone Foundation, the City will provide $50,000.00 per year for five years, to update ADA requirements at the park. Staff recommends $50,000.00. 5. Funding requirements for County Housing Rehabilitation Assistance - Each City that utilizes the. services of the County's Housing Rehabilitation Specialist is 'required to pay $20,000.00 fi:om its annual CDBG grant allocation to cover these costs. Staff recommends $20,000.00. Mayor Mehaffey opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 p.m. and invited any public comment. ; Jaclyn Fabre, Executive Director/Cupertino Community Services, briefly explained the services CCS provides and asked the Council to support the funding to help support the proposed 24-unit affordable housing complex in Cupertino. Councilmember Baker explained that although he fully supports CCS-and the proposed affordable housing project, this year might be the last year the City of Saratoga allocates CDBG funds to CCS. Councilmember Baker noted that with the recent demands of affordable housing and the recently released ABAG assessment report the City of Saratoga needs to fund projects that would give the City credit towards affordable housing units here in Saratoga, not in Cupertino. Vice Mayor Streit asked Ms. Fabre if the City of Saratoga would get credit for helping Cupertino. Tom Early/Bridge Housing responded that he recently discussed this possibility with ABAG, but unfortunately current RDA and Housing Laws prohibit that concept. Analyst Reeve noted that CCS is extremely helpful and is the only referral the City of Saratoga has to offer, citizens in need. Betty Feldheim, 10185 North Stelling Road, noted that she is the appointed representative to the HCD - Citizen Advisory Committee. Ms. Feldheim noted that the City Council did not allocate any funds to CCS last year and encouraged the Council to please support CCS this year in their efforts to build a 24-unit affordable housing complex. Bob Campbell, Executive Director/Project Match, thanked the City Council for their continued support over the years. Mr. Campbell noted that Project Match has been in collaboration with the City of Saratoga since 1991. Mr. Campbell explained that the owner of the property recently sold the current senior group home on 20218 Blauer Avenue. Mr. Campbell noted that he has negotiated a rental agreement with Community Housing Developers to rent a four-bedroom home located on 1552 Johnson Avenue. Karen Lorenz, Administrative Director/SASCC, thanked the City Council for their continued support over the years. Mayor'Mehaffey closed the Public hearing at 7:53 p.m. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE FY 2001-2002 CDBG AND HUMAN SERVICES FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $180,874.00. MOTION PASSES 5-0. OLD BUSINESS LIBRARY EXPANSION GENERAL BOND OBLIGATION BOND RESOLUTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-022 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $15,000,000.00 AGGREGATED PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2001, AND AUTHORIZING ACTIONS RELATED THERETO Mary Jo Walker, Administrative Services Director, presented staff report. Director Walker reported that tonight the City Council is asked to adoPt a resolution authorizing the issuance of $15,000,000.00 in bonds and authorizing the following documents: 1. Notice of Intention 2. Notice of Sale and Bid Form 3. Continuing Disclosure Certificate 4. Preliminary Official Statement Director Walker explained that the next step would bethe bid opening process, which will take place on April 24, 2001 in San Francisco. At that time proposals will be opened in an effort to hire an underwriter. Director Walker informed the City Council that on March 21 st City Staff and the Mayor made a presentation in from of two bond rating agency. Director Walker reported that the City of Saratoga received AA+ rating from Standard & Poor's and AA1 rating from Moodys. Director Walker noted that these were excellent rating for a city of this size. Director Walker pointed out that only two cities in California have AAA ratings, they are Palo Alto and Santa Monica, being much larger cities than Saratoga. Director Walker noted that Rich Martinez/Sutro & Company, and Brian Quint/Quint and Thimmig, were present tonight to answer any questions that Council might have. Mayor Mehaffey thanks Mary Jo, Brain and Rich for all of their hard work. STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $15,000,000.00 IN GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. o BUS SHELTER FEASIBILITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Bloomquist stated that this was a follow up report from the City Council meeting of March 7, 2001. Analyst Bloomquist noted that staff was directed to identify approximately ! 0 potential sites along with cost data, for bus shelters within the existing network of 79 bus stops. Analyst Bloomquist explained that staff gathered logistic data from ALTRANS and VTA and identified 16 potential bus shelter sites. Councilmember Bogosian asked the cost of the bus shelter in from of Kerful Cleaners. Analyst Bloomquist responded that the shelter in front of Kerful Cleaners was $11,450.00. Mayor Mehaffey asked if that cost included site preparation. Analyst Bloomquist noted that the cost does not include any retaining walls or permit fees. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she fully supports the use of metal shelters instead of the shelters constructed of wood. Councilmember Waltonsmith opposed wood shelters for the following.reasons: No side protection Massive in size · No protection from the wind In an effort to lower the construction costs, Councilmember Waltonsmith encouraged the other Council members to consider the use of advertising on some of the shelters. Vice Mayor Streit noted he could agree to some advertising on the bus shelters. Dave Anderson, City Manager, suggested including bus shelters in the upcoming CIP process. Mayor Mehaffey concurred with City Manager Anderson. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he felt sixteen bus shelters were too many. Vice Mayor Streit concurred with Councilmember Bogosian and suggested that staff rank the bus stops in the order of imPortance and volume of usage. Councilmember Bogosian firmly stated that he would not support any advertising on the bus shelters. Councilmember Baker concurred withCouncilmember Bogosian and does not support any advertising on the bus shelters. Councilmember Baker noted that it is the City Council's obligation to the community to 'maintain Saratoga's image and not let it become a commercial city. - Councilmember Baker supports adding bus shelters to the CIP process. In response to Vice Mayor Streit's suggestion of ranking the importance of the proposed bus shelters, Analyst Bloomquist informed the Council that the bus stops at the following locations were the most heavily used: //2 - On East side of Prospect, cross street is Lyle · #3 - On West side of Saratoga, cross street is Park · #4 - On North side of Saratoga, cross street is Cox · #5 - On North side of Quito, cross street is McCoy · #6 - On South side of Saratoga, cross reference is St. Andrews · #7 - On East side Saratoga, cross' street is SaratogazLos Gatos Mayor Mehaffey thanked Analyst Bloomquist for the report. Consensus of the City Council to add bus shelters to the upcoming CIP process. NEW BUSINESS None coMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Baker noted that there are still two vacancies on the Planning Commission. The filing deadline is April 12, 2001. Councilmember Baker thanked the City Council for approving the resolution establishing a stipend for the Planning Commissioners. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission is extremely busy working on the assignments Council provided to them at the February 27, 2001 Joint Meeting. ViCe Mayor Streit noted that the development of Azule Park has become their number one priority. . Mayor Mehaffey noted that the Finance Commission has been revising the City's Procedures & Policy Manual and preparing for the upcoming budget process. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the Gateway Task Force has not met recently. Director Cherbone commented that proposals to hire a consultant have been received and he would be convening a meeting of the Gateway Task Force early next month. Councilmember Bogosian had nothing to report in regards to the Library Commission and the Public Safety Commission. Councilmember Bogosian reported that the Library Expansion Committee is starting the process to purchase furniture for the temporary library and are looking into the funds that the County Library has set aside for this purpose. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the bond money cannot be used for this purpose. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the Heritage Preservation Commission has been focusing on internal policies and procedures. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted the Youth Commission has recently been planning upcoming events and fund raising activities. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the Commissioners are excited that they have raised $36,000.00. Recent discussions have been focused around providing scholarships to kids who cannot afford to go on the trips. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the Trails Subcommittee has been recently trying to update the Saratoga Trails Map. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the Subcommittee has information on possible grants, but unfortUnately they need someone to write grant proposals. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Baker requested a status update on the request for a septic abatement exemption from Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett. Director Cherbone noted that he has'been in contact with the Bartlett's. Director Cherbone reported that he provided them with names of three contractors for price estimates and recently was informed that they have not contacted the suggested contractors. Director Cherbone noted that he does not know if they qualify for a CDBG grant. Councilmember Bogosian asked the procedure for adding agenda items for the Council Retreat on May 5th. City Manager Anderson responded that he should pass his suggestions on to Mayor Mehaffey. Councilmember Waltonsmith strongly suggested that the City of Saratoga should look into obtaining services of a grant writer. Councilmember Waltonsmith also requested that staff look into projects sponsored by Project Match to see if the City could receive any credit to comply with ABAG's requirements. OTHER Councilmember Baker questioned the status on the proposed meeting with Assemblymember Cohn, West Valley College and the surrounding neighborhood to discuss the issue regarding the stadium. City Manager Anderson responded that he recently spoke to Assemblymember Cohn's local office and the response was she was extremely bus. y and the meeting should be scheduled sometime in late April. Councilmember Waltonsmith questioned the status on the septic .abatement ordinance. City Attorney Taylor responded the second notice went out to noncompliant property owners. City Attorney Taylor noted that staff would be writing a report to Council explaining where the City is inregards to being in compliance with the ordinance. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson reminded Council that tomorrow was the assessment center for the position of Community Development Director. City Manager Anderson noted that the interview panel would be interviewing five applicants. Mayor Mehaffey questioned the status on the recruitment for the position of Assistant City Manager. City Manager Anderson responded that the recruitment is going ve/y well; the City has received several applicants. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: / DEPT HEAD: I SUBJECT: Check Register RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Approve the Check Register. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is the Check Register. FISCAL IMPACTS: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): None ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Check Register Certification. IFund# Fund Name Date Manual Void Total 3130101 Checks Checks AP CHECKS A84660-84788 I GENERAL 149,576.73 100 COPS-SLESF 138.21 110 Traffic Safety 150 Streets & Roads 150,000.23 160 Transit Dev 170 Hillside Repair 180 LLA Districts 4,736.91 250 Dev Services 48,843.52 260 Environmental 7,446.20 270 Housing & Corem 290 Recreation 5,199.03 292 Facility Ops 350.00 293 Theatre Surcharge 300 State Park 310 Park Develpmt 787.60 320 Library Expansion 83,521.88 400 Library Debt 410 Civic Cntr COP 420 Leonard Creek 168.82 700 Quarry Creek 710 Heritage Prsvn 720 Cable TV 730 PD #2 740 PD #3 168.83 800 Deposit Agency 810 Deferred Comp 830 Payroll Agency 990 SPFA ISubtotal 450,937.96 11,815.57 259.00 12,074.57 PAYROLL. CHECKS: B26519-26554 TOTAL Prepared by: IApproved by: Date: !! ::::>i 5ss; :73-I Z 0 o o o o o o o o o o o ~o ~o ~o oo o ~§ ~ ~ z o ~ ~ ~ ...... ??% g f~Z ~0 Oz O~ o~ o>>o zo~o o~o o o~o o o~ oo o ~ o o~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o 0 t_, 0 0 ~ 0 o o ~ o o o S o o o ~ ~. o o o o g ~ o z o - o ~ ~ ~ o -~ o v ~ ~- ~ ~ o ~ o ~ oo o ~ o ~ ~ o g~ (~0 C-O o oooooo ooooo o o ~° ~ ° o o o oo oo oo o oooooo o O~ ~ ..... § o o o ~ ~ o~ z ~ -o ~o ~o ~oooo ~oo 0 Oo *- 0 oo°° §~ ~ §~ OOoo § SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETENG DATE: April 18, 2001 ORIGINATENG DEPT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Heather G. Bradley AGENDA ITEM: ~ CITY MANAGER: ~-~~~-.~--~ DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: A-00-002 & AZO-00-001 - Petition of Annexation; 19770 Glen Una Drive, Lands of Eschen & Eschenroeder (Assessor Parcel Number 510-26-047). RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve the petition of annexation by adopting the attached Resolution. REPORT SUMMARY: By a~eement with the County. of Santa Clara and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) an annexation to the City. is generally required when development is proposed on parcels that are contiguous to the City boundary, and that are located xvithin the City's Urban Service Area (USA). Owners of these contiguous parcels may request a waiver from annexation if they desire to develop under County regulations. The City has usually denied these waiver requests except in cases when urban services are not readily available or where severe geologic conditions may exist. The requested petition relates to a lot with an existing residence that is situated on Glen Una Drive across from the City boundary to the north and adjacent to the boundary on the east. This adjacent parcel was annexed to the City in 1984. This side of Glen Una Drive is pre-zoned Hillside Residential and is located within the City's Urban Service Area. The property has direct access to Glen Una Drive and all required services are existing or available. The proposed residence will be connected to the existing sewer system. The proposed residence is in conformance with the regulations of the Hillside Residential zoning district. The Planning Commission reviewed the annexation request, along with the Design Review application, on November 21, 2000. A copy of the Staff Report, Resolutions and Minutes from the meeting are attached for reference. The Planning Commission did recommend approval to the City. Council of the Annexation and Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The Planning Commission also approved the Design Review application pending approval of the Annexation by the City Council. A-00-002/AZO-00-001- Eschen/Eschenroeder: 19770 Glen Una Drive The project involves demolition of an existing 3,101 square foot residence, 1,068 square foot detached garage and 940 square foot barn, totaling 5,109 square feet. The applicants propose to construct a new two-story residence with a first floor of 5,052 square feet and a second floor of 519 square feet with a 760 square foot detached guesthouse for a total square footage of 6,331 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet and the maximum height o f the proposed guesthouse is 15 feet. The property has direct access to Glen Una Drive, this portion of which is maintained by the City. All required services are available to the property as indicated in the attached Municipal - Pi~an for Services. As discussed, the properly has been pre-zoned Hillside Residential (HR), and once annexed will be subject to the development regulations of the HR zoning district. Stuff has identified the following in support of the annexation: · The City's stricter design standards, size and height limitations, and impervious coverage restrictions will ensure that the new residence and guesthouse are consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. · The property is within the City's Sphere of Influence and already benefits from many ci ,tywide services. · The City would receive property tax revenue to help offset the cost of those services. FI[SCAL hMPACTS: Negligible. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): If the request is not granted, the property' would likely be developed according to the submitted plans. However the applicants could revise their plans to take advantage of less restrictive Counb, standards. ~LTERNATIYE ACTION: None FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Process the necessary applications with Local Agency Formation Commission to finalize the boundary adjustment process. Amend City Base, General Plan and Zoning Maps accordingly. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AN1) PUBLIC CONTACT: A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and published in the Saratoga News. A-00-002/AZO-00-001- Eschen/Eschenroeder: 19770 Glen Una Drive ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution A-00-002/AZO-00-001 2. Petition for Annexation 3. Municipal Plan for Services 4. Planning Commission Resolutions DR-00-041, & A-00-002/AZO-00-001 5. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting November 21, 2000 6. Exhibit "A" Legal Description and Annexation Map Certified by the CounPs' Surveyor 7. Exhibit "B" Report of the Santa Clara County Assessor 8. Exhibit "C" Plans R~soLtrr~os No. A-00-002/AZO-00-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVENG AN ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA OF CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY COMMONLY KNOWN AS: 19770 Glen Una Drive, Lands of Eschenroeder/Eschen, APN 510-26-047 WHEREAS, Eschenroeder/Eschen ("Petitioner") has submitted a petition for ar~exation to the City of Saratoga of certain real property located in the County of Santa Clara, as described in Exhibit "A', attached hereto and made a part hereof, commonly known as 19770 Glen Una Drive, Lands of Eschenroeder/Eschen, APN 510-26-047; and WHEREAS, the City Council is the duly designated conduction authority for proceedings to annex said property, pursuant to Section 56826 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Section 56826 of the Government Code the City council has found and determined as follows: (a) That the petition has been executed by all of the owners of the territory to be annexed; (b) That the territory to be annexed is contiguous to the existing limits of the City of Saratoga and located within the urban service area of the City, as adopted by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission ("the Commission")' (c) That the surveyor for the County' of Santa Clara has determined the boundaries of said property to be definite and certain and in compliance with an), applicable road annexation policies of the Commission; (d) That the proposed annexation will not split lines of assessment of ownership. (e) That the proposed annexation will not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services; (f) That the proposed annexation is consistent ~4th the General Plan as adopted by the City; (g) That no conditions have been imposed by the Commission, or remain to be satisfied by the City, for inclusion of said property in the City's urban service area; (h) That the land use designation of the territory to be annexed as contained in the City's General Plan, has not been changed from the time the City's urban service area was adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, A-00-002/AZO-00-001- Eschen/Eschenroeder: 19770 Glen Una Drive NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves and orders that the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, commonly known as 19770 Glen Una Drive, Esehenroeder/Esehen APN 510-26-047, be and the same hereby is reorganized and annexed to the City. of Saratoga, such annexation to be effective on the date this resolution is adopted; and further WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Zoning District in order to realign the boundary to incorporate the property knoxvn as APN 510-26-047 into the Hillside Zoning District for which it is pre-zoned, per Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on November 21,2000; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby approves an amendment to the Zoning District Boundary by making the following findings: · The proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan and Area Plan Guidelines; and · The Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the existing zoning districts and development in the vicinity. The City Council, as conduction authority, reorganized such propen3' as indicated above without notice or heating, it being found that the territory annexed hereby is inhabited and all of the owners of such territory have been filed a written petition for the City Council to initiate such reorganization. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City. of Saratoga held on the 18 day of April 2001 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mayor Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk A-00-002/AZO-00-001- Eschen/Eschenroeder: 19770 Glen Una Drive 1-0: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA The undersigned, constituting all of the owners of certain real property located in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, commonly known as 19770 Glen Una Drive, Eschenroeder/Eschen, APN 5110-26-047 do hereby represent, request and petition as follows: (a) The petition is submitted pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code. (b) The nature of the proposed change of organization is the annexation of the property described in Exhibit "A" to the City of Saratoga. (c) The territory to be annexed is contiguous to the City of Saratoga and located within the urban service area of the City, as adopted by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission. (d) This petition is required by reason of the policy of the Cotmty of Santa Clara that owners of property within the urban service area of a city who wish to develop such property, must first request annexation to the city and such request must be rejected before the County will process a development proposal. (e) The undersigned collectively hold one hundred percent (100%) of the ownership interest in the territory to be annexed. (g) It is hereby requested that proceeding be taken for annexation of said property pursuant to Section 56826 and Title 5, Division 3 part 4 (commencing with Section 57000) of the Government Code. Dated: Signed: Signed: A-00-002/AZO-00-001- Eschen/Eschenroeder: 19770 Glen Una Drive Municipal Plan for Services - Eschen/Eschenroeder~ 19770 Glen Una Drive Sewer: Water: Fire Protection: Storm Drainage: Street Maintenance: Sheriff: West Valley Sanitation District San Jose Water Company Santa Clara County Fire Department Santa Clara Valley Water District City of Saratoga Santa Clara Count3, APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR~00~041 CITY OF SARATOGA PLAN.~ING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA_ Eschenroeder/Eschen; 19770 Glen Una Drive VqHEttL~,S, the City' of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new two stoD~ residence totaling 6,331 square feet on a 57,939 square foot parcel; and VqHERL~,S, the Planning Commission hdd a dui5' noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity, to be heard and to present evidence; and VV'I-I~P,~_AS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and x~qthin the neighborhood; and (ii) community- xqew sheds, xxqll avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that the location of the proposed residence w4_ll be pamally screened t2rom existing residences by mature vegetation and meets all setback regulations. The natural landscape w4_ll be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimi_-Nng tree and soft removal; grade changes v,.411 be minimized and xx421 be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas and in that grading xx4_ll be minimal and only two ordinance protected trees will be removed and xx4_U be replaced x~qth equal value native trees. The proposed residence in rdation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, xx4_ll minimize the perception of excessive bulk and x¢21 be integrated into the natural emqronment, in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding em4_ronment by uriliTing earth tone colors and materials, keeping the height compatible with other homes in the neighborhood and limiting the size of the proposed second floor to just 519 sq. ft. The residence x~.42l be compatible in terms of bulk and height x~4th (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and v,.qthin the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural emq_ronment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability, of adjacent properties to ut4li7e solar energ3,. File No. A-00-002, L 30~041, AZO-00-001; 19770 Glen Un. rive · The proposed site development or ~ading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the CiB,. The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by_Section 15~45.055. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the CitT of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. 'After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural draxvings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Eschenroeder/Eschen for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby ganted subject to the following conditions: PLANNING The development shall be located and constructed as shov, m on Exhibit "A~, incorporated by reference. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning DMsion staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page: The plans shall indicate that there xx421 be no more than one wood burning fireplace in the mare residence and the wood burning fireplace shall be equipped xx'ith a gas starter ii. Interior ceiling heights shall not exceed 14 feet 6 inches. iii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Re~stered CMl Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall prox~ide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." A final landscaping and irrigation plan designed to screen neighbor's views of the new home, and to include any proposed lighting. Ihe lighting plan shall also be designed to protect neighbors fi:om unnecessary glare. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Penmt v~qth the exception of trees number 10 and 11 as indicated in the CitT Arborist report. File No. A-00-002, L 30-041, AZO-00-001; 19770 Glen Un, :ive No fence or wall shall exceed six feet m height and no fence or wall located within any required fi:ont yard shall exceed three feet in height. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water xx-421 be retained on- site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanator3' note shall be prm'ided on the plan. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class uA" prepared or butt-up roofing. 8. ,Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the garage. Subject to the Fire Department's-approval, automatic sprinklers shall either be installed throughout the residence OR, the or, met/applicant shall provide one public fire hydrant at a iocation to be determined by the Fire Department and San Jose YVater Company 10. Installations of.required fire sen'ice and fire hydrant shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of ~raming or deliver3, of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance ma5, be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, and accepted Il. Required driveway installations shall be. constructed and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of construction. Bulk combustible materials shall not be delivered to the site until installations are complete. Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. 12. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on ail new and existing buildings I such a position as to be plainly visible and legible ~rom the street or road ~rontmg the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. 13. Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per Cit3, of Saratoga Standards. CITY ARBoRIsT [4. ~ requirements of the Cit3, Arborist's Report dated September 11, 2000 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be revised to indicate the follm~ng: File No. A-00-002, L ,)0-041, AZO-00-001; 19770 Glen Um ~'ive 15. 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) fr. chain link tree protective fencing as shox~m on the Arborist's map, with a note 'to remain in 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 driplme of any ordinance protected trees on the site. All trenching for proposed imgation and utilities shall be shown on the plans. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Commurdty Devdopment Director, security in an amount of $19,067 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 and during construction: Tree protective fencing shall be installed and inspected by staff prior to issuance of a demolition permit. No trenching for irrigation or other purpose shall be permitted beneath the canopies of any protected trees and all other recommendations of the City Arborist report must be followed. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: California native replacement trees equal to $5,727 (one 48'-box and one 24'-box, and one 15-gallon trees) shall be planted as compensation for damage to trees ~ 10 and ~11, and shall inspected by Planning staff. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verif3? compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be rdease& .amy 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 Arborisc No imgation or associated trenching shall encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees unless approved by the City .&borist. File No. A-00-002, L. ,10-041, AZO-00-001; 19770 Glen Un, zive CITY ATTORNEY 16. Applicant agrees to hold City' harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City, or held to be the liability, of Cit3' in connection with Cit3,'s defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 17. Noncompliance vdth an), of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the CitT could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval 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 Saratbga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPIED by the City, of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of Califorma, this 21st day of November 2000 by the follm~g roll call vote: - Ax*s: NOES: ._~BSENT: P~BSTAIN: ATTEST: ~[ary, Pl~ag Commission RESOLD'I-ION A-00-002/AZO-00-001 A RESOLLrrlON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING .adN ANLNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY COMMONLY IGqO\,~ .~-' AS: - 19770 Glen Una Drive, Lands of Eschenroeder/Eschen, APN 510-26-047 XVHElmqS, Eschenroeder/Eschen ("Petitioner") has submitted a petition for annexation to the City of Saratoga of certain real propert3,- located m the Count5,' of Santa Clara, as described m Exhibit ~A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, commonly knoxx-n as 19770 Glen Una Drive, Lands of Eschenroeder/Eschen, APN 510-26-047; and' VV'HERF_qS, in accordance with the provisions of Section 56826 of the Government Code the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 21, 2000 and determined as follows: That the petition has been executed by all of the owners of the temtory to be alTrlexed; That the territon,? to be annexed is contiguous to the ex~stmg limits of the Cit3' of Saratoga and located xvithm the urban sera-ice area of the City. as adopted by the Santa Clara Count3,- Local :Agency Formation Commission ("the Commission")' That the surx'eyor for the Count3,' of Santa Clara has determined the boundaries of said properS' to be definite and certain and in compliance with any applicable road annexation policies of the Commission: That the proposed annexation wSll not split lines of assessment of oxxmership. That the proposed annexation xxSll not create islands or areas m which it would be difficult to prox'ide municipal sen-ices; That the proposed annexation is consistent with the General Plan as adopted by the City; That no conditions have been imposed by the Commission. or remain to be satisfied by the CitT, for inclusion of said propertT in the Cit3,'s urban sen'ice area; That the land use designation of the temtor3,- to be annexed as contained in the CitT's General Plan. has not been changed Dom the time the CitT's urban ser~-ice area was adopted by the Commission; and File No. A-00-002, L. ,)0-041, AZO-00-001; 19770 Glen Urn. _,cive WH~&,xs, the proposed annexation is exempt from the requirements of the California Em~onmental Quality Act. Now THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the CiD' of Saratoga hereby recommends to the CiD, Council that the propen3' described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, commonly lmoxxm as 19770 Glen Una Drive, Eschenroeder/Eschen APN 510-26- 047, be and the same hereby is reorganized and recommended for annexation to the CiD' of Saratoga CiD? Council; and further VqHE_~a,S, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Zoning District in order to realign the boundary to incorporate the property knoxxm as APN 510-26-047 into the Hillside Zoning District for which it is pre-zoned, per Exhibit uA"; and WHEtmqS, the Planning Commission hdd a public hearing on the proposed amendment on November 21, 2000; Now, THEREFORE, nE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the CiD, of Saratoga recommends approval of the amendment to the Zoning District boundary to the CiD' Council by making the follov,4mg findings: The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the CiD,'s General Plan and :&ea Plan Guidelines; and. The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the existing zoning districts and development in the vicinit-¥. PASSED AND ADOPTED by ~he CiD, of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, il-tis 21st day of November 2000 by the follox~4_ng roll call vote: A~T_S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: C~ai~, lqa~air~g ~n ATTEST: f..~e~alT, 131~gComImssion Saratoga Planning Commiss.~., Minutes of November 21', 2000 Page 6 Added that his clients have shown their plans to their surrounding neighbors and have received letters of support from their neighbors. · Declared that this project will result in an improvement from the street view. · Asked that the Commission grant a Variance. Director Walgren clarified that the Variance is required to allow the front portion demolition and reconstruction with a reduced setback. There is a setback requirement of 30 feet. The current setback is 27 feet. The proposed setback is 15 feet. Added that circumstances in this case warrant the granting of this Variance. Motion: Upon motion of Commisioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6 was closed. (4-0-3; Commissioners Barry, Kurasch and Roupe were absent) Commissioner Patrick advised that she would prefer the use of wood siding. Commissioner Bernald concurred with Commissioner Patrick. She added that she found this to be an exciting design that fits the site nicely and represents a good change from what is there. Added that this is a rural setting and the use of wood siding softens the structure. Commissioner Jackman agreed that this project represents good design and fits the area. Additionally, she commended the fact that the applicants are 700 square feet below the allowable square footage. Added that she can support the project and likes the design. Chair Page agreed that the project is appropriate and of great design. Concurred that the wood siding adds to it. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Commission approved DR-00-033. (4-0-3; Commissioners Barb,, Kurasch and Roupe were absent) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the Commission approved V-00-015. (4-0-3; Commissioners Barry, Kurasch and Roupe were absent) Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 7 A-00-002/AZO-00-001 & DR-00-041 (510-26-047) - ESCHEN/ESCHENROEDER~ 19770 Glen Una Drive: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 3,101 square foot residence, 1,068 square foot garage and 940 square foot barn, totaling 5,109 square feet, and construct a new two- stoD, residence with a first floor of 5,052 square feet and a second floor of 519 square feet, totaling 5,571 square feet. A 760 square foot detached guesthouse is also proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet and the maximum height of the proposed guesthouse is 15 feet. Because the parcel is currently located in Santa Clara County, contiguous to the City of Saratoga Saratoga Planning Commiss.~.~ Minutes of November 21, 2000 Page' 7 boundar3,, Annexation approval is also required as well as a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to bring the property into the Cid' and the R-I-40,000 zoning district. The property is 57,939 square feet net. Direc':or Walgren presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that this application includes the demolition of an existing 3,100 square foot single-story residence and 1,068 square foot garage and 940 square foot barn. The proposed new structure will in:lude a 5,052 square foot first story and 519 square foot second story, for a total of 5,571 sqUare fe st with a 760 square foot detached guesthouse with a maximum height of 15 feet. : · This project meets all minimum zoning requirements, is architectural compatible with the rural and well-established part of Saratoga in which it is proposed 'to be located. Many homes in this area are included on the Historic Inventor3,. · Staff recommends a Desigla Review approval. · Advised that this properly is not located in Saratoga but rather in Santa Clara County. However, it is contiguous to Saratoga. The Ciw has a right to seek annexation and the decision on whether to do so will be made by Council in December. · Staff recommends that the Commission approve the Design Review', support approval of:ithe Annexation as well as the Pre-Zoning of the property as part of the Hillside Residential zoning district. Comrnissioner Patrick asked if the maximum lot coverage for impervious surfaces includes the pool location. : Director Walgren deferred the response to the applicant but stated that the pool area should be counted in that figure. Commissioner Jackman also questions future plans for a sports court on this property. Chairrnan Page opened Public Hearing No. 7 at 8:20 p.m. Ms. Mary Eshen, 19770 Glen Una Drive, Saratoga: · Advised that she is the owner of the subject property and grew up in Saratoga in .the Prospect/Miller area. Added that she still has family and siblings in Saratoga and the surrounding area. Added that they have two young boys, ages 3 and 5, and that she and her husband wanted to leave the hectic pace for a more rural setting. · Smd that they want to build a family home to serve as a gathering place for their children and their friends. · Added that until just recently they had believed that their zoning xvas R-1 ;40,000 which allows 35 percent impen'ious surface. They learned that they are within a Hillside District just last week.' With that change in zoning, they may not be able to do the sports court they had originally proposed but may be able to use grass instead, if necessary. · Smd that there has been confusion over the zoning and the potential annexation of the site. · Agreed .that they are at the impervious coverage limit and that they will live with whatever restrictions are imposed. · Infbrmed that originally, they had not planned to build their own home. However, they found a beautiful site with huge trees including oaks and redwoods. Arborist Barrie Coates has evaluated the trees on the property and determined that three trees are in jeopardy. Added that they moved Saratoga Planning Commiss._., Minutes of November 21, 2000 Page 8 the location of their guesthouse in order to save trees. Said that they like the trees and want to save them. The trees will serve as a screen for their home. Said that the desig-n of their home is almost completely one story. It uses a wing shape and has lots of angles to it. That provides architectural interest so that the house is not just a box. Added that they did not want eveD, thing flat either. The 500 square foot second floor will be used as an office. The architectural style is Mediterranean and includes a slate roof. A balcony with a wrought iron rail will be located on the second floor. Said that they believe they have found a look to fit in within the neighborhood. Mr. Chris Spaulding, Architect: · Said that he was available for any questions. Commissioner Patrick asked if Mr. Spaulding believed this to be a Mediterranean style of architecture. Mr. Chris Spaulding replied that it could be considered as such but that he found it to be more of a blend between French and Mediterranean with some elements of both styles. Chair Page pointed out a letter received which outlines concems about the final landscape plan and questioning whether there will be a hedge on the Glen Una side. Ms. Mar).' Eschen replied that there is currently an oleander hedge right now. While they envision some sort of barrier, the material is undetermined right nov,'. Added that they would be happy to work with that neighbor. Mr. Tom Carson, 15542 Glen Una Drive, Saratoga: · Said that he found this proposal to be a great desigr~. · Said that his concern is with the lawn plax, field and whether lighting was proposed. would be happy as long as it is not a tennis court with lighting. Added that he Chair Page advised that the City has rules about lighting. Mr. Bill Segal, 15651 Canon Drive, Los Gatos: · Advised that he is a neighbor to the east. · Added that he likes the design just fine but has concerns about the 26-foot high second story office since he has a pool in his yard. · Asked for placement of a temporary screen so that he can see the impact of that 26-foot height on views and privacy. Mr. Chris Spaulding, upon looking at the location map, pointed out that Mr. Segal's property is not contiguous to the site. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 7 at 8:37 p.m. (4-0-3; Commissioners Bar~', Kurasch and Roupe were absent) Commissioner Bernald stated that .Mr. Segal has no privacy issues since his property is not contiguous to this one. Stated that she liked the design, that it was exciting. Said that it is very nice to welcome SaraDga Planning Commiss._., Minutes of November 21, 2000 Page 9 ~ neighbors to Saratoga. Added that this project meets all requirements needed in order to recommend approval. Commissioner Jackman said that this represents good design and fits into the neighborhood well and will become a nice family gathering spot. Comr.aissioner Patrick concurred and said it was clear that the owners have made new friends with their neighbors this evening. Welcomed these new property owners to the neighborhood. Chair Page said that this represents good design that he can support. Motic.n: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission approved A-00-002. (4-0-3; Commissioners Bar~', Kurasch and Roupe were absent) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the Commission recommended approval of AZO-00-001. (4-0-3; Commissioners Bar~', Kurasch and Roupe were absent) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the Commission approved DR-00-041. (4-0-3; Commissioners Barry, Kurasch and Roupe were absent) Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. Added that Council will consider the issue c,f.~mnexation of this property. Director Walden advised that Council would consider that issue in January, 2001. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 8 DR-00-040 (397-35-005) - PHA_N, 19396 Crisp Avenue: Request Design Review approval to demolish an existing 3,356 square foot residence and construct a new 5,838 square foot residence in its place. The maximum height proposed is approximately 26 feet. The parcel is approximately 48,350 square feet located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Director Walden presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that this is application includes the demolition of an existing 3,356 square foot structure and the construction of a new 5,800 square foot, ~'o-story. The parcel is one acre and is accessed by a long private access road. The property is not visible fi.om public views. · The proposal meets zoning requirements and is compatible with surrounding homes, which are a mix of single and two-story residences of mixed architectural styles. · Added that this project will not result in view or privacy impacts. · The project was advertised and there were no concerns raised by surrounding property owmers. · Staff recommends approval. Chairrnan Page opened Public Hearing No. 8 at 8:42 p.m. Exhibit "A" County of Santa Clara Lands of Eschen/Eschenroeder Environmental Resources Agency Inspection/Land Development Engineering and Surveying County Government Center. Easl V~'ing 70 ~x'est Hedding Slreet. 7th Floor San Jose. California 951 I O Bldg. lnspec ~408} 299-2351 Land Devel. 299-2871 FAX 279-8537 March 19, 2001 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 FruiB,'ale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 The attached map and description dated March 16, 2001 of territory proposed to be annexed to the City of Saratoga entitled LANDS OF ESCHEN/ESCHENROEDER 19770 GLEN UNA DRIVE is in accordance with Government Code Section 56757. The boundaries of said territory are definite and certain. The proposal is in compliance with the Local Agency Formation Commission's road annexation policies. Very truly yours, MARTIN D. MARCOTT County Surveyor Enclosures C: LAFCO Executive Director (w/attachment) Heather Bradley Eschen/Eschenroeder Board of Supervisors: Donald E Gage. Blanca Alvarado. Pete McHugh. James T. Beali Jr.. Liz Kniss County Executive: Richard XVittenberg ~ March 16, 2001 EXHIBIT "A' Description to. accompany annexation of the territory known as Lands ofEschen / Eschenroeder 19770 Glen Una Drive to the City of Saratoga - All of that certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, being described as follows:. BEGINNING at the Northwest comer of that certain 1.079 acre Parcel of Land shown upon that certain record of Survey filed in Book 58 of Maps, Page 47, Santa Clara County Records, said pint being in the centerline of Glen Una Drive (40.00 feet in width), said point also being in the City Limits Line of the City of Saratoga, as incorporated in doCUment titled "Glen Una 1983-3", dated Oct. 12, 1983; thence along said City Limit Line, North 00050'00'' East 20.00 feet to the North side of Glen Una Drive (40.00 feet in width), said point also being in the City Limits Line of the City of Saratoga as established by original incorporation; thence along the said North line of Glen Una Drive, as shown on that certain record of survey filed in Book 21 of Maps, Page 47, Santa Clara County Records and the said Original City Limits Line, the following six courses and distances: North 89°48'00" East, 13.51 feet, North 88 °22'00" East, 193.28 feet, North 70029'30'' East 88.20 feet, North 61 °33'00" East 134.49 feet, North 84050'00'' East 173.55 feet, and North 47° 10'00" East 29.55 feet; thence leaving said North line of Glen Una Drive and Original City Limits Line, South 42 o 50'00" East 40.00 feet to the South line of said Glen Una Drive (40.00 feet in width); thence along said South line of Glen Una Drive the following six courses and distances: South 47°10'00" West 47.37 feet, North 75 °13'00" West 7.48 feet, South 84° 50'00" West 168.61 feet, South 61 °33°00" West 129.37 feet, South 70o29'30'' West 97.62 feet and South 82°22'00" West 43.81 feet to the East line of said 1.079 acre Parcel; thence along said East line, Scuth 00o50'00'' West 256.62 feet to the Southeast comer of said 1.079 acre Parcel, said point being the Northeast comer of Parcel B, as said Parcel is shown on that certain map recorded in Book 128 of Maps at Page 12; thence along the East line of said Parcel B, South 00050'00'' West 84.03 feet; thence South 89023'40'' West along the South line of said Parcel B, 170.90 feet to the Southwest comer of said Parcel B; thence along the West line of said Parcel B, North 00° 50'00" East 84.00 feet to the said existing City Limits Line of the City of Saratoga, as incorporated in document titled "Glen Una 1983-3"; thence along said existing City Limits Line, North 00050'00'' East 273.95 feet to the said point of beginning, and containing 1.93 acres of land, more or less. iSl~p-p~i~----EXN-E ................................. Exhibit "B" Lands of Escher~t Eschenroeder . County of Santa Clara Office of the County Assessor County Government Center, East Wing 5th Floor 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110-1771 FAX (408) 298-9446 Lawrence E. Stone, Assessor Report of the Assessor Proposed Designation: LANDS OF ESCHENIESCHENROEDER-19770 GLEN UNA DR Type: Annexation ! Detachment ! Reorganization / Special DTstrict City or District: Review of Proposal Acreage and Location: Assessor's Parcel Numbers: SARATOGA 1.97 ACRES +/- ON GLEN UNA DRIVE 510-26-047 Conformity to Lines of Assessment: X Boundaries of proposed change conform to lines of assessment or ownership. Boundaries of proposed change f~,,i to conform to lines of assessment or ownership as noted on the attached map. Boundaries of the following district(s) are split as noted on the attached map. Special Districts within proposed annexation, detachmant or territory proposed to be reorganized are: By: Pauline Coleman Mapper II (408) 299-4231 ext. 1261 Date: 312/01 Fees 'for this report are attached. TRA:_ 060- 008 '-;;: -' ';--.. - '. - - [111] SARATOGA UNION ELEM. SCHOOL - ' ' [137] LOS GATOS UNION JT(43,44) HIGH SCHOOL`. ' "':" - ' . [203] WESTVALLEY JT(43.44) COMM.-COLLEGE "' '; [206] SARATOGA CEMETERy -- : - : :: ~ [208] GAUD _/~._.U?E.-C. YOTE RESOURCE CONSV. :-~ :%~ ~-~-~ :. [215] BAY AR.FA JT(1,7,21,28,41,43,38,48,49,57) AIR QUALITY MGM [252] MID-PENINSULA REGIONAL JT(41,43,44) OPEN SPACE [3.06] WEST V,&L~EY SANITATION _ [3221 SANTA C_ .L, NRA VALLEY COUNTY WATER ..... [323] SANTA._ CI.ARA:VALLEY ZONE NC-1 COUN'FY WATER [335] SANTA CLARA COUNTY IMPORTATION WATER-MISC. ' [371] CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION-. [376] SAI~'? C .LARA.VALLEY-ZONE W-4 COU..NT~: WATER ~'" [3T'F_] ~ .N, 0: .0!:..LI. BRARY. BENEFiT ASSE.SS~M,.E, .NJ'' C?. UNTY . [378] AREA NO. 01 (UBRARY, SER ,VI.CE$). COUNTY'.SERViCE . -Total Disbfcfs this TRA." 15 ~ ~:: ' ~ "-- ---- ..... ' ' "- December 15, 2000 EXHIJ~IT "A" Description to accompany annexation of the territory.' known as to the City of Saratoga All of that certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, being described as follows: BEGLNNhNG at a point in the Northerly line of Glen Una Drive, 40.00 feet wide (running Easterly and Westerly), also being the City. Limits Line of the City of Saratoga as established by original incorporation, distant thereon North 89° 48' East 55.84 feet from the point of intersection of said Northerly line with the centerline of Pepper Lane, formerly Chemin Des Dames, 40.00 feet wide (running Northerly and Southerly); thence leaving the Northerly line of Glen Una Drive South 0° 50' West 40.01 feet along the City Limits Line of the City of Saratoga, as incorporated in document titled "Glen Una 1983-3", dated Oct. 12, 1983 to the Northwesterly comer of Parcel One, being a portion of Lots 17 & 18, as shown upon Map No. 2 of the W.S. Clayton, J.R. Chace, F. Shillingsburg and J.P. Dorrance Subdivision of part Of the Glen Una Ranch, which said map was filed for record on February 9, 1921 in Book "P" of Maps, at pages 53 and 54, Santa Clara County Records; thence South 0° 50' West 253.95 feet along the Westerly line of Parcel 1 and said City Limits line to the Southwesterly comer of Parcel 1, said point being the Northwesterly comer of Parcel 2, being all of that Parcel "B" as shown upon the map recorded in Book 128, Page 12, Santa Clara County Records, which said map was filed for record on December 7, 1960; thence leaving said City Limits Line South 0° 50' West 84.00 feet along the Westerly line of said Parcel 2; thence North 89" 23' 40" East 170.90 feet along the Southerly line of Parcel 2; thence North 0° 50' East 84.03 feet along the Easterly line of Parcel 2 to the Southwesterly comer of Parcel 1; thence North 0° 50' East 256.62 feet to the Southerly line of Glen Una Drive, 40.00 feet wide (running Easterly and Westerly), said point being the Northeasterly comer of Parcel 1; thence along said Southerly line of Glen Una Drive North 88° 22' East 43.81 feet; North 70° 29"30" East 97.62; North 61° 33' East 129.37 feet; North 84° 50' East 168.61 feet and South 75° 13' East 7.48 feet to the Westerly line of Canon Drive, 40.00 feet wide (running Northerly and Southerly); thence North 47° 10' East 47.37 feet to the intersection of the Southerly line of Glen Una Drive and the Easterly line of Canon Drive; thence North 42° 50' West 40.00 feet to the Northerly line of Glen Una drive and the City Limits line of the City of Saratoga as established by original incorporation; thence along said Northerly line of Glen Una Drive and the City Limits line of the City of Saratoga South 47° 10' West 29.55 feet; South 84° 50' West 173.55 feet; South 61° 33' West 134.49 feet; South 70° 29' 30" West 88.20 f~et; South 88° 22' West 193.28 feet and South 89° 48' West 13.51 feet to the said Point of Beginning of this description. ! CITY LIMIT LINE i:~i !'--'"--'"1 ........................................................  ::.~, qN¥-I ~lqdd':ld soo'5o'¢c"wL s¢o'5o'oo"w ~ L,1 25,3.95' /'q ~ I--] iz -D · jrq IXO ~r~ ---- NOO'50'OO"E :. ---- __ NOO'50'OO"E 84.03' 256.62'__ ,,~m L__~~' __. ~..-- [] m SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: .~a.~,vl ~ ~'{j/~,~,./(.~/]~ DEPT HEAD: flY~f.'m/'L4 / SUBJECT: Presentation on GASB 34 RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Accept report. REPORT SUMMARYi The Ci~' is in the process of implementing Governmental Accounting Standards Board Pronouncement No. 34 (GASB34). To provide the City Council with a broad perspective of the requirements of GASB 34 and an overview of the implementation process, Nazzi Raissian, a partner with the City's audit firm of Caporicci, Cropper and Larson, will make a brief presentation on this issue. FISCAL IMPACTS: None at this time. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): None. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Direct staff to continue working on the implementation of GASB 34. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: None C: ~ l'ly Documents~CouncilRpt2. DOC 2 of 2 SARa, TOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 18, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: CiD? Attorney SUBJECT: City Regulation of Fire District Operations RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: STAFF REPORT: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. At its meeting of April 4, 2001 the City Council requested a report from this office concerning the Cit-y's ability to regulate or control the provision of fire protection sen'ices within the CID'. We conclude that the CiD' may not regulate the Fire Protection Districts which Sel've the CiD' of Saratoga. The City, may adopt fire protection policies and urge the Districts to operate in a manner that is consistent with those policies. In lieu of regulating or seeking to influence the Districts, the City may seek to assume responsibility for providing fire protection sen'ices within the City by petitioning the Santa Clara Count3: Local Agency Formation Commission to reorganize the two districts in a manner that would allow the Cit3, to assume responsibility for providing fire protection sen-ices. Background Fire protection sen:ices within the City of Saratoga are currently provided by two fire districts. The Santa Clara County Fire District serves portions of Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga. It is governed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The Saratoga Fire District serves approximately 12 square miles encompassing one-half of the City and sections of the unincorporated areas to the south. The Saratoga Fire District is governed by a three member of directors elected by district residents. Both districts are organized under the Fire Protection District Law of 1987. Both Districts were established before Saratoga was incorporated in 1956. While many cities assume the responsibilities of pre-existing fire districts upon incorporation, Saratoga formed itself as a "minimum services city" and therefore left the responsibility fi>r fire protection and various other public services (i.e., sewer and water) with the districts that had been providing those services prior to incorporation. In response to requests from the community, the City through its Public Safety Commission has been investigating the provision of fire protection services in the City. In connection with this inquiw, the CID-)' Council requested a report on the CiD:'s attthority to regulate the provision of fire protection services in the City. The remainder of this report discusses this issue. Regulatory Authority The CiD' derives its regulatory authority from Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution which gives each ciD' the power to "make and enforce within its lirnits all such local, police, sanitary, and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws. This power does not extend, however, to the State of California or its agents. In 1956 the California Supreme Court held that the State "is not subject to local regulations unless the Constitution says it is or the Legislature has consented to such regulation." (Hall v. CiO' of Taft (1956) 47 Cal.2d 177, 183 [302 P.2d 574].) In this case, the two fire protection districts sen:ing city residents are considered agents of the state because they are operating pursuant to state authorization under the Fire Protection District Law of 1987. Nothing in that law consents to local regulation of the manner in which a district provides fire protection services. The legislature has provided limited consent to local government zoning and building code regulations. State agents such as school districts and the fire districts must comply with local building and zoning codes unless the district determines, by a 4/5 vote of its governing board, that it wishes to override the local zoning ordinance. The Ci ~,'s zoning powers, however, extend only to land use matters and not to issues such as standards of sendce for fire protection. Accordingly, this limited consent to local regulation is not sufficient to form the basis of regulations governing service standards. Policv Guidance The City may seek to influence the manner in which service is provided in a number of ways. For example, the CiD: may adopt policy statements, direct City staff to consult with District officials regarding issues affecting the City, or offer financial ass istance to assist in the acquisition of equipment to enhance services provided in the City. If the City Council determines that certain fire protection practices and procedures are warranted in the City, it could adopt a resolution establishing a City policy to that effect. Although the resolution would not be binding on the fire Districts, the Council could direct staff to pursue a cooperative planning process with the Districts to identify any additional measures that may be needed to implement the policy. If the City wished to make the policy binding on the Districts, it could request that the Districts adopt the policy, perhaps through a memorandum of agreement with the CIG'. A variant of this approach would involve a formal contract between the City and a fire District whereby the CiD' provides specified funds or services in exchange for the District's agreement to abide by specified performance standards. The specific manner in which any such cooperative program would be implemented would depend on the City's particular policy objectives and the willin~o-ness of each District to cooperate with the CID'. In addition, it is important to note that the City is free to use its land use and other governmental powers to adopt policies and ordinances to enhance fire prevention and control in the City. The City has already taken steps in this direction such as requiring all roofing materials to be fire retardant, administering the fire hazard nuisance abatement program, and requiring early warning fire alarm systems in new construction. The CiD' can also promote fire protection through the manner in which designs street improvements and other public works and requires the installation of fire hydrants. These measures do not involve regulation or control of the fire districts but have been developed cooperatively with the districts over the years to enhance fire protection in the CID'. There may be additional such measures that could be explored together with the Districts. Assumption of Control A third approach to regulating or controlling the provision of fire sen'ices within the CiD' would be for the CiD· to assume responsibility for providing fire protection services within the City. This would involve filing a resolution with the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requesting a reorganization of the two existing fire protection districts in a manner that leaves the City with responsibility for and control of fire protection within the City. This approach requires the approval of LAFCO. The specific form of the reorganization would need to be determined based on further study. One possibility could be establishing a City fire department and adjusting the boundaries of the two Districts to exclude Saratoga so that the City- managed fire department would have exclusive jurisdiction within the City. Another possibility could be to adjust the boundaries of the two districts such that the Saratoga Fire District sen'es the City and the County Fire District serves the unincorporated area 3 previously sen:ed by Saratoga Fire District; this would allow LAFCO to make the City, Council the governing board of the Saratoga Fire District by redesignating the Saratoga F:.re District as a subsidiary district of the City. These examples are given as illustrations only; they may or may not be operationally or financially feasible. Moreover, other forms of reorganization are also possible. The form of the reorganization requested will depend largely on the City's specific objectives and on a detailed study of the fiscal consequences of the various reorganization options that could achieve those objectives. In order to proceed with a reorganization, the City would file an application fcr the reorganization with the LAFCO. That application would include a "Plan for Services" demonstrating how the City would provide the fire protection services currently provided by the two districts. LAFCO would evaluate that plan and any alternative plans submitted by the Districts or the public through a formal heating process. The specific manner in which the application would be reviewed would depend on the specific form of the reorganization requested and the position of the Districts with respect to the application. FI[SCAL IMPACTS: The fiscal impacts would vaD' widely depending on the course of action selected. Because the Ci~' does not currently provide fire sen, ices, any increased. involvement in the area of fire protection will incur costs beyond those that the City has incurred in the past. Adopting non-binding fire protection policies will require staff time ar:d may require hiring experts qualified to advise the City regarding various policy options. Pursuing a reorganization would require retaining a consultant to advise the Cit3." on alternative organizational options and the fiscal consequences of those options. Staff has not investigated the likely costs of such services at this time. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice for this meeting. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Staff will take no further action with respect to regulating or controlling the provision of fire services in the City. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Implement Council directives. ATTACHMENTS: None. 4 SARa. TOGA CITY COI~.~NCIL EXECUTI'~ SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 18, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Ciq? Manager AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: PREPA~R~ED BY: Ciq' Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution Endorsing AB 613 Introduced by Assembly Member Cohn RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Adopt the attached resolution urging adoption of Assembly Bill 613 requiring community college districts to abide by use permit conditions that they propose when those conditions are adopted by a city or county without objection from the district. STAFF REPORT: Summary Assembly Member Cohn has introduced Assembly Bill 613 which would require community college districts to abide by use permit conditions that were originally proposed by those districts. The legislation directly affects the City of Saratoga because it would require the West Valley-Mission Community College District to comply with the provisions of the City's use permit in which the District agreed that no stadium would be permitted at the West Valley campus. The attached resolution urges adoption of the bill. Back~ound The West Valley-Mission Community College District operates two campuses. Because the West Valley campus site is (and was at the time it was proposed) in the midst of a number of established neighborhoods, the potential for noise, traffic, and light and glare impacts from a stadium were a concern to the community from the outset. After considerable public controversy when the campus was first proposed, the District modified the campus proposal to exclude an outdoor sports stadium. This limitation was reflected in the use permit granted by the City in 1967. As the campus was developed in the 1970s, a large bowl was excavated as ifa stadium were to be constructed. Investigation by the surrounding neighbors and the City revealed two sets of construction plans, one of which showed a major stadium. I_itigation ensued withjudgrnent being entered against the District. In 1976 the District requested a use permit amendment to allow development of a stadium. The amendment was denied. In 1977, the Saratoga electorate qualified an initiative measure prohibiting stadiums in all zoning districts. The measure was adopted by a unanimous vote of the Saratoga City Council in lieu of being submitted to the voters. In 1979, the District, the neighbors and the City engaged in negotiations concerning use of the various athletic facilities on campus. These negotiations resulted in a proposal by the District to add the following condition to its use permit: The District will not develop any new outdoor intercollegiate sports facilities with permanent sound system or permanent seating or permanent lights on the Saratoga campus. No sports stadium will be built on the campus. No existing outdoor facility or area of the campus xvill be modified to include lights, sound, seats or other accommodations for intercollegiate sports or other spectator events. Tine District also agreed to be bound by this amendment regardless of any further changes tc the use permit. The permit stated: Should any or all of the other provisions of this use permit (other than condition #7) be declared null, void, or invalid, then this section (condition #7) shall remain as a separate binding agreement between the City of Saratoga and West Valley Joint Community College District with regard to the use of the land on which the Saratoga campus is located. These provisions xvere adopted by the City without objection by the District. In 1996, the District claimed that Government Code section 53094 authorized the District to disregard the City's use permit (including the provisions proposed by the District in 1979). The City challenged this decision and the matter is currently under review by the Court of Appeal. Discussion Government Code section 53094 authorizes community college districts mtd other school districts to exempt themselves from local zoning ordinances under certain circumstances. A district board of directors may exempt a proposed use from local zoning if two-thirds or more of the District Board votes in favor of the exemption. In addition, the exemption may not be applied to any non-classroom facility and the 2 exemption must not be arbitrary or capricious. The District has taken the position that Government Code section 53094 allows a district to propose a project in a community, agree to various permit conditions to mitigate impacts, and to then exempt itself from those conditions. This does not appear to have been an intended consequence of the legislation. AB 613 would correct this situation. The bill would provide that a communi~' college district may not exempt a proposed use if that use would conflict with a use permit condition proposed by the district and adopted by the local government without objection by the district. The bill would apply retroactively and would also make various technical corrections to section 53094. Because the current West Valley College use permit condition prohibiting a stadium ~vas proposed by the District and was not opposed by the District prior to the City's adoption of the condition, the legislation would require the District to abide by the use permit condition or apply to the City for an amendment to the use permit. FISCAL IMPACTS: None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice for this meeting. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): No expression of support would be adopted. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Staff will transmit the resolution to Assembly Member Cohn and other members of the Legislature. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution endorsing AB 613. 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA ENDORSING ASSEMBLY BILL 613 WHEREAS, residents of Saratoga have for many years expressed concern that a stadium facility at the West Valley campus of the West Valley-Mission Community College District ("District") would have serious adverse consequences to the community; WHEREAS, at the time the campus was proposed in late 1960s, the District agreed that - nc, stadium would be developed as part of the campus and agreed to issuance of a use permit for the campus subject to the condition that no stadium would be developed; WHEREAS, the District confirmed its agreement with this condition in 1979 by proposing an amendment to its use permit clarifying the stadium limitation and agreeing that the limitation would continue to apply even in the event that the use permit itself ceased to apply; WHEREAS, the City approved the amendment proposed by the District without opposition by the District; WHEREAS, the District has claimed that it is not obligated to comply with the stadium limitation or any other provision of the use permit by virtue of Government Code section 52.094; WHEREAS, the Legislature could not have intended to authorize community college districts to renege on agreements made with local governments; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 613, introduced by Assembly Member Cohn and attached hereto as Exhibit A, would amend Government Code section 53094 to require community college districts to abide by agreements made with local governments during Page 1 of 2 Resolution No. the land use planning process. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby endorses Assembly Bill 613 and urges the legislature of the State of California to adopt the measure in order to remedy the inequitable manner in which Government Code section 53094 is being applied; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby directs the City Manager to cause a copy of this resolution to be provided to Assembly Member Cohn and such other members of the Legislature as the City Manager deems prudent to promote passage of the bill. PASSED AND .aDOPTED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, State of California, this 18th day of April, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN': ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk Attachments Attachment A: Assembly Bill 613 Resolution No. Page 2 of 2 CALIFOILNIA LEGISLATURE--2001-02 KEGLrLAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 613 Introduced by Assembly Member Cohn February 22, 2001 .MI act to amend Section 53094 of the Government Code, relating to zoning. LEGISL.afflVE COL.~SEUS DIGEST AB 613, as introduced, Colin. Zoning: community, college district. E~:isting law authorizes the governing board of a school district, by vote of two-thirds of its members, to render a ciD' or count3' zoning ordir:ance inapplicable to a proposed use of property by the school district except when the proposed use of the property by the school district is for nonclassroom facilities. This bill would also except from the authoriB, of the governing board of a school district to take that action, a proposed use by a communi~' college district that would conflict with a use permit condition proposed by the district and adopted by the cit3, or count), without objection from the district. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 53094 of the Government Code is 2 amended to read: 3 53094. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 4 article except Section 53097, the governing board of a school 5 district, by vote of two-thirds of its members, max, render a cit3, or 99 AB 613 2 1 count' zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of 2 property by 3'ac~u, the school district except when either (1) the 3 proposed use of the property- by 3uch the school district is for 4 nonclassroom facilities, including, but not limited to, warehouses, 5 administrative buildings, automotive storage and repair buildings 6 or (2) the use is proposed by a communiO., college district, and 7 would conflict with a use permit condition proposed by the 8 communiO: college district and adopted by the ciO, or counO, 9 without objection from the communi~, college district. The board 10 shall, within 10 days, notify the city. or count): concerned of ..... 11 that action. 12 th) If 3ucC, the governing board has taken 3uch that action, the 13 city or county may commence an action in the superior court of the 14 county whose zoning ordinance is involved or in which is situated 15 the city whose zoning ordinance is involved, seeking a review of 16 3uch the action of the goveming board of the school district to 17 determine whether it was arbitraD' and capricious. The city. or 18 county shall cause a copy of the complaint to be sen:ed on the 19 board. If the court determines that 3ach the action of the governing 20 board was arbitraw and capricious, it shall declare ~ the action to 21 be of no force and effect, and the zoning ordinance in question 22 shall1~.. .... "erxx~'o'~x~l:~*L'l~ appb, to the use of the property, by o~,,..~ the 23 school district. 24 SEC. 2. It is the intent of the Legislature that the provisions 25 of this act be given retroactive effect. Therefore, any action taken 26 prior to January 1, 2002, by a community, college district to render 27 a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use 28 of property is hereby declared to be void and of no force or effect 29 if the proposed use would conflict with a use permit condition 30 proposed by the community college district and adopted by the city 31 or county without objection from the community college district. O 99 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HE.M): SUBJECT: Proposal for preparation of a conceptual plan for Azule Park. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Approve proposal from Greg G. Ing& Associates in the amount of S 19,800 for preparation of a conceptual plan for Azule Park and authorize the City Manager to execute same. REPORT SUMMARY: At the Ciw Council and Parks and Recreation Commission joint meeting on March 27, Council directed staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission to move forward with preparation of a conceptual plan for improving the undeveloped Azule site into a neighborhood park. In order to move ahead on the project as expeditiously as possible, staffand the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that Greg lng. & Associates, who are currently the City's landscape architects for the Con~ess Springs Park Improvement Project, prepare a conceptual plan for .42ule Park. This will save approximately t'`'`:o months in the process, which ,,',:ill allow sufficient time to develop a project scope and a cost estimate so the Azule Park Improvement Project can be considered in the upcoming Capital Improvement Plan. Additionally, there is support from the .42ule Park Neighborhood Committee for moving forward with the project as stated above. If the proposal is approved, the timeline for development of the conceptual plan '`','ill be as follows: · April 18 - Ci~' Council approves proposal to develop conceptual plan. · May 7 - Parks & Recreation Commission reviews and approves Azule neighborhood survey letter. · Week of May 7 -Sun, ey letter is mailed to Azule neighborhood. · May 31 - Sun'ey letter due from Azule nei?~hborhood. · June 4 - Azule neighborhood meeting to discuss conceptual plan with landscape architect and Parks and Recreation Commission. · July 2 - ~ul~ Park draf~ conceptual plan reviewed with Azule neighborhood and Parks and Recreation Commission. · August 6 - Azule Park final conceptual plan reviewed with Azule neighborhood and Parks and Recreation Commission. · August 15 - Final conceptual plan reviewed by the City Council for approval. It is therefore recommended that Council approve the proposal from Greg G. Ing& Associates for preparation of a conceptual plan for Azule Park and authorize the City Manager to execute same. FISC.kL IMPACTS: Funding for this work is programmed in the adopted budget in C.I.P. No. 9704 (Park Development) -Account No. 4010 (Contract Sen, ices). CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The proposal would not be approved and the conceptual plan for Azule Park would not go fom'ard at this time. .~I.TERNATIVE ACTION(S): Nc ne in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): The architect will be ~ven approval to move fbnvard with the above-recommended actions and staff will proceed with the public meeting process. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposal for Conceptual Design plan for Azule Park. 2of2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ' PREPARED By: ~ ~~'~,_ AGENDA ITEM: ~_~ CITY I~AGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1; Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report and Adoption of Resolution of Intention for FY 01-02 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Move to adopt the Resolution granting preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report for FY 01- 02. 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 01-02. Briefly, the two Resolutions are: A Resolution of PreliminaD- Approval of Engineer's Report ... Fiscal Year 2001-2002 - This is the Resolution required under the State Streets & Highways Code (S&H) section 22623 which ~antspreliminary approval of the En~neer's Report for the renewal of the District for FY 01-02. A Resolution of Intention to order the le'Q' and collection of assessments ... Fiscal Year 2001-2002 - 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 01-02. 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 fi'ame called for in the Budget Preparation Calendar. FISCAL IMPACTS: All of the costs associated with the District are recovered '~4a the assessments except for indirect costs. In FY 00-01 the City Council capped indirect costs at $10,000, which is approximately 50% of full recovery of these costs. There are no increases in the parcel assessments, which would require an assessment district election. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECO~£MENDED ACTION(S): ~ e Resolutions would not be adopted and the process for renewing the District would not co~.~tinue. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): Nc ne in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): 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 En~dneers Report RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION OF PRELLMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGENrEER'S REPORT CITY OF SARATOGA. LAN-DSCAPING AND LIGHTLNG ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 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 21 st day of February, 2001, said Council did adopt its Resolution No. 01-014, "A Resolution Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of En~neer's Report For Fiscal Year 2001-2002," for the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA-1, in said City. and did refer the proposed improvements to the En~neer of the City and did therein direct said Engineer to prepare and file with the City Clerk of said City a report, in ,~xiting, all as therein more particularly described: WHEREAS, said City En~neer prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report in writing as called for in said Resolution No. 01-014 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 pan 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 En~neer'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. 3. That the diagram showing the e:/terior boundaries of the assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution No. 01-014 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 sexwicing or both, thereof, anti of the expenses incidental thereto, as contained in said report, be, and they are hereby preliminarily 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. 01-014. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 18th day of April, 2001 by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: NOES: ?d3SENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mayor City of Saratoga Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCA.PLNG AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA- FISCAJ_, YEAR 2001-2002 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 01-014, "A Resolution Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2001-2002," for City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA-1, adopted on February 21,2001, 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 v, witten report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 01-014, 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 Year 2001-2002 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 herein. 2. The cost and expenses of said improvements, including the maintenance or sen'icing, or both, thereof, are to 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 6th day of June, 2001, at the hour of i 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 hearing by this Council on - the question of the lex3, and collection of the proposed assessment for the construction or installation of said improvements, including the maintenance and servicing, 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 hearing, 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 and where 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 ca'asing 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 18th day of April, 2001, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: NOES: .~3SENT: ABSTAIN: At~:est: John Mehaffey, Mayor City of Saratoga Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 2 Exhibit The design, ~.onstruction or install~on, including the maimenancc or servicing, or both: thereof;:olrlandsc~ping, including rfc-es, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, sta?,,~vy, fountains and other ornamental structures and farili~ies, and public-lighting f~icilities for the lighting oF.any public places, including traffic signals,....on!am.' ~ntal ~,,~ndards, luminaizes, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes. vault, conduits, pipes, wires,~onduams, ~o]s, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers. insulators, contacts, switches, cspacitozs, meters~ communication circuits, appliances. attachments and appurtenances, . including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereo~' pzoviding'f~r the life, growth, he~l~ and beaun, of landscapin~ including'culthration, irii~'atimi, ~ stn-ayin. ' g, fertilizing and treating for dise~e or injury;, the minor-al of tzimming~, rubbish, debris and ozher solid ~ste; electric curm~, m' energy, ~as or other ~uminal~g agent for any public lighting f~cillties or for the-lighting or operation of any other improvements; and the operation of any fmmtahts or. the maintmmlce of-any other imp~enu. CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA- 1 ENGINEER'S REPORT on the Levy of an Assessment for the 2001-2002 Fiscal Year April 2001 JOHN H. HEINDEL - CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER ENGINEER OF WORK TABLE OF CONTENTS Assessment & Cost Summary Rules for Spreading Assessment Description of Improvements Cost Detail Assessment Roll Assessment Diagram Certificates Pages 1-3 4-5 6-8 9-13 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA- 1 ASSESSMENT for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 WHEREAS, on February 21, 2001, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, pursuant to the" pr~visions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, adopted its Resolution No. 01-014 describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report for Fiscal year 2001-2002, more particularly therein described, and WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 01-014 directed th~ 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 2001- 2002: ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE SUW[MARY* ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS Wages & benefits Attorney Assessment engineer Advertising $ 9,112 5OO 7,000 812 $ 17,424 MISCELLANEOUS OVERHEAD New parcel charges -0- MAINTENANCE COSTS Wages & benefits Contract services Repair services Maintenance services Irrigation water Electric power Equipment charge $21,836 1,900 -0- 57,473 20,316 35,287 -0- 136,812 Subtotal $154,236 Indirect cost allocation 10,000 Previous year carryover Estimated property tax revenue Carryover not recovered Carryover not reimbursed Total Costs $164,236 (110,700) (89,404) Net cost $ (35,868) 137,057 Assessment $101,189 Zone No. SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT BY ZONF,* As Preliminarily Approved Total ' Per Parcel 1 $ 602 $ 20.76 2 3,889 45.76 3. 2,361 13.42 4 -0- 0.00 5 -0- 0.00 6 2,558 39.96 7A -0- 0.00 7B -0- 0.00 9 4,012 83.58 10 898 99.78 11 4,919 19.68 12 1,431 159.00 15 4,050 98.78 16 1,932 35.12 17 7,788 38.94 22 18,165 21.04 24 -0- N/A 25 -0- 0.00 26 34,722 369.38 27 2,363 76.22 28 4,817 301.06 29 3,851 63.14 31 2,831 54.44 Totals As Confirmed Total Per Parcel $ $ $101,189 *See Cost Detail herein for breakdown -2- And I do hereby assess and apportion said portion of the estimated cost of the improvements, including t?.e maintenance and servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental thereto, upon the Icts or parcels of land liable therefor and benefited thereby, and hereinafter numbered to correspe 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 fi.om 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. 01-014. 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 Roll, 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 2C01-2002, and includes ali of such parcel. Respectfully submitted. Dated: ~:5~ t':Z._ , 2001 ! -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 1 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. -4- TABLE 1 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 ASSESSN~ENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 MAXIMUM ZONE ASSESSMENT 1 $ 75.O0 9 $180.00 12 $275.00 17 $ 6O.00 27 $150.00 28 $400.00 31 $ 70.00 -5- DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS 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 (Manor Drive Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Manor Drive median and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage along Tract 3822. Zone 2 (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. Zone 4 (Quito Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting and landscape maintenance in the El Quito Park residential neighborhood: Tracts 669, 708, 748, 6785, 7833, and 8700. Zone 5 (Azule Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in the Azule Crossing residential neighborhoods: Tracts 184, 485, 787, 1111, and 1800. Zone 6 (Sarahills Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in the Sarahills residential neighborhood: Tracts 3392 and 3439. Zone 7 (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. -6- Zone 9 (McCartysville Landscape District) - Provides for Landscape maintenance along the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tract 5944. Zone 10 (Tricia Woods Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tract 7495. (Maintenance and water shared with Zone 27). Zone 11 (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. Zone 12 (Leutar Court Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Leutar Court frontage in Tract 6996. Zone 15 (Bonnet Way Landscape District) - Provides for monthly landscape maintenance along Bonnet Way: Tract 5462. Zone 16 (Beauchamps Landscape District) - Provides for landscaping and lighting of the Prospect Road entrance to the Beauchamps subdivision: Tract 7763. Zone 17 Zone 22 (Sunland Park Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Quito Road frontage of T~acts 976 and 977. : (Prides Crossing Landscape District) - Provides for periodic landscape maintenance along Prospect Road between the Route 85 overcrossing and Titus Avenue, and alon Cox Avenue between the Route 85 overcrossing andSaratoga Creek. Includes properties bordered by Route 85, Prospect Road and Saratoga Creek with the exception of the Brookview neighborhood (Tracts 1493, 1644, 1695, 1727, 1938, and 1996)i. Zc:ne 24 (Village Commercial Landscape and Lighting District) Provides for. routine maintenance of Village Parking Districts 1-4 and Big Basin Way landscaping and street lighting. Zone 25 (Saratoga Legends Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage of, and pedestrian pathways within, Tract 8896. Zone 26 (Beilgrove Landscape and Lighting District) - Provides for common area landscape maintenance and lighting associated with Tract 8700. Zone 27 (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). Zone 28 (Kerwin Ranch Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Fruitvale Avenue and Saratoga Avenue frontages of Tracts 8559 and 8560. Zone 29 (Tollgate Landscape and Lighting District) - Provides for maintenance of the common area landscape and lighting improvements along Tollgate Road at the entrance to 3946 and 5001. -7- Zone 31 (Horseshoe Drive Landscape and Lighting District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road frontage of Tract 247. -8- Zone Number Administration 1 $ 133 COST DETAIL 2 $ 390 3 $ 809 4 $ 3,183 Misc. Overhead $ $ $ $ $ $ 163 1,811 291 $ 2,265 $ 2,398 76 $ 2,474 279 (2,151) $ 602 $ 602 29 $ 20.76 Operations Wages Contracts Repairs Maintenance Water Electric Equipment Subtotal Indirect costs Total Costs Carryover Pr>petty Tax Net cost C'over not recov. C'over not reimb. Net assess. $ 478 $ 990 2,963 96 2,220 598 $ 3,537 $ 3,808 $ 3,927 224 $4,151 167 (429) $ 4,617 464 $ 5,O81 115 (2,835) $ 3,889 $ 3,889 9,455 85 $ 45.76 $ 9,455 Nc,. of Parcels Assmt./Pcl. $12,638 1,827 $14,465 (37,937) (26,468) $ 2,361 $(49,940) 49,940 $ 2,361 $ -0- 176 $ 13.42 693 $ -0- $ 519 1,674 $ 1,674 $ 2,193 298 $ 2,491 (25,823) (10,003) $(33,335) 33,335 $ ~o- 113 $ -o- -9- 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. Net assess. No. of Parcels Assmt./Pcl. 6 $ 294 $ COST DETA1L 7A 7B $ 2,173 $ 1,337 $ $ $ $ $ 2,039 $ 2,039 5,643 $ 5,643 $ -0- _9 $ 221 $ $ 270 2,352 1,075 173 $ 3,870 $ 2,333 $ 7,816 $ 1,337 $ 4,091 169 1,247 767 127 $ 2,502 $ 9,063 $ 2,104 $ 4,218 56 (34,062) (307) (206) (25,421) (1,797) 10 $ 41 $ $ .51 $ 2,558 $ 2,558 64 $ 39.96 545 165 58 $ 819 $ 860 24 $ 884 14 $(50,420) $ -0- $ 4,012 $ 898 -0- 50,420 $ -0- $ 473 291 $ -0- $ -0- $ 4,012 48 $ 83.58 $ 898 9 $ 99.78 -10- COST DETAIL Zone Number Administration 11 $ 1,148 12 $ 41 $ 15 188 16 253 17 $ 919 Misc. Overhead $ $ $ $ $ Operations Wages Contracts Repairs Maintenance Water Electric Equipment $ 1,406 960 404 $ 2,770 $ 51 960 375 $ 1,386 $ 231 2,794 668 $ 3,693 $ 309 9O0 382 $ 1,591 $ 1,125 3,720 1,830 $ 6,675 Subtotal Indirect costs Total Costs Carryover Property Tax $ 3,918 659 $ 4,578 341 $ 1,427 24 $ 1,451 (20) $ 3,881 108 $ 3,989 6'1 $ 1,844 145 $ 1,989 (57) $ 7,594 527 $ 8,121 (333) Net cost C'over not recov. C'over not reimb. Net assess. $ 4,919 $ 4,919 $ 1,431 $ 1,431 $ 4,050 $ 4,050 $ 1,932 $ 1,932 $ 7,788 $ 7,788 No. of Parcels Assmt./Pcl. 250 $ 19.68 9 $159.00 41 $ 98.78 55 $ 35.12 2O0 $ 38.94 -11- COST DETAIL Zone Number Administration 22 24 3,964 $ 574 $ 25 69 26 432 27 $ 142 Misc. Overhead $ $ $ $ $ Operations Wages Contracts Repairs Maintenance Water Electric Equipment $ 4,853 5,062 1,411 112 $11,438 $10,397 4,050 4,050 12,303 $ 84 $ 30,800 $ 84 $ 529 21,295 7,085 3,169 $ 32,078 $ 174 1,879 568 $ 2,621 Subtotal Indirect costs Total Costs Carryover Property Tax $15,402 2,275 $17,677 488 $ 31,374 329 $ 31,703 (11,403) (20,300) $ 153 40 $ 193 (3,555) $ 32,510 248 $ 32,758 1,964 $ 2,763 82 $ 2,845 (482) Net cost C'over not recov. C'over not reimb. Net assess. $18,165 $18,165 $ $ -0- S (3,362) 3,362 -0- $ -0- $ 34,722 $ 34,722 $ $ 2,363 2,363 No. of Parcels Assmt./Pcl. 863 $ 21.04 125 15 $ -0- 94 $369.38 31 76.22 -12- Zone Number A:tministration 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. Net assess. Nc. of Parcels Assmt./Pcl. 28 $ 74 $ $ 90 3,747 769 95 $ 4,701 $ 4,775 42 $ 4,817 $ 4,817 $ 4,817 16 $301.06 COST DETAIL 29 $ 280 $ $ 343 1,500 1,020 363 184 $ 3,410 $ 3,690 161 $ 3,851 31 $ 239 $ $ 292 400 1,195 568 $ 2,455 $ 2,694 137 $ 2,831 $ 3,851 $ 3,851 $ 2,831 $ 2,831 61 $ 63.14 52 54.44 -13- I, Cathleen Boyer, the 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 ,2001. Cathleen Boyer I, John H. Heindel, the Engineer of Wbrk 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. 01- , duly adopted by said City Council on 2001, 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 ,2001 John H. Heindel, RCE 13319 I, Cathleen Boyer, the 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 ,2001. Cathleen Boyer The Assessment and Assessment Diagram were filed in the office of the County Auditor of the County of Santa Clara, California, on ,2001. County Auditor SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18. 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Mana~,er AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: FY 2000/2001 Cit?--'/Counb' Communib, Development Block Grant (CDBG) Contract RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to approve the FY 2000/2001 City/Count?-' Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Contract, and Authorize the Ci~' Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. REPORT SUMMARY: This staff report addresses a number of areas to implement the FY 2000/2001 Ci~'/County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) contract including 1) background, 2) designating the Santa Clara Count)..' Housing Rehabilitation Program as administrator of the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP); and 3) the lump sum transfer of revoMng housing rehabilitation loan funds to the Santa Clara County Housing Rehabilitation Program 1. Backeround The City of Saratoga receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds as a member of the Count5.' of Santa Clara Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Joint Powers Authority. The City is required to execute an annual contract with the County of Santa Clara, the locally responsible grant recipient, outlining the obligations and fiscal responsibilities of each part3.-- (Attachment A). Desienating the Santa Clara County Housing Rehabilitation Program as administrator of the Saratoea Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP) The FY 2000/2001 CDBG contract varies little from prior years, other than containing a provision to transfer administration of the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP) to the Santa Clara Count).' Housing Rehabilitation Program (Exhibit 1). This added feature created a delay in the contract preparation process, as the exhibit was revised and approved by legal counsel from the various participating cities and the County. Many of the member cities are also transferring their housing rehabilitation programs in an effort to streamline the administrative process, and utilize the County's already existing and very effective program. The Santa Clara County Housing Rehabilitation Program will provide all Ph_ases of housing rehabilitation t° Saratoga including: application processing, the bid process, loan preparation, construction oversight and loan servicing. 3. Lump Sum Transfer Saratoga w411 make a lump sum transfer of $90,999.41 from its revolving housing rehabilitation loan funds, to the Santa Clara Count5' Housing Rehabilitation Program to be applied towards projects located within the City.. of Saratoga. These funds have been designated from the CDBG Program, specifically for the purpose of housing rehabilitation.projects, since SHARP began in 1975. The primary purpose of the Cit5"s Housing Rehabilitation Program is to provide Zero Interest Partially Deferred Payment and Below Market Rate Interest Loans to eligible homeowners city-wide. SHARP is designed to bring existing substandard dwelling units up to local hoUsing standards. FISCAL IMPACTS: The Ci~' of Saratoga will pay the Count, $20,000 tO-administrate its Housing Rehabilitation Program, and complete four projects per year. Prior to this point, Saratoga was required to pay the County $15,000 per year to receive housing rehabilitation services. Consequently, the $5,000 increase-will provide a tremendous benefit, and cost far less than it currently does for the Cits' to administer its own program. The City of Saratoga will pay the County $2,000 for each additional project beyond the agreed upon number of four. Historically, the CiB' has completed an average of three project.s per year.~... ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A CoNsEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING: The Cits-: will be ineligible to receive CDBG reimbursements for expenses accrued on approved FT 2000/2001 projects already in progress. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Forward four copies of the executed County/City CDBG contract to the Count3' of Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Department. County of Santa Clara ~vironmental Resources Agency ktsing and Community Developmen~ ; 7~5o 'q~;r:h F~rs; .... R;roo, Sklile 265 Sar: Jose. Ca.forn;a 95 i 12 ,408; 44 i -0261 . FAX 44 i -0365 .:'vi E M 0 R A N D U M December 7. 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: HCD City Coordinators Char!es Chew Program Manager CITY.~COL~'TY CONTRACTS FOR FY 2000/01 Enclosed is your City/Count' Contract for FY 2000/01. Please attach Exhibits A - D for each of .'.'our projects (please refer to previously mailed CCR) to vour contract. You may provide a ~.~c,,.~o,m,.tte,.,,- ~ ~4 version of the exhibits as ~on~' ~ as all of the inlbrmation reouired for the e.,chm~ts" ' is erovided. Contracts cmmot be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors uniess we have ail e.,daibits for each project attached. If you have any questions regarding this, please contact me or Judy. .....m~os= complete page 8 and 9 of each of the 4 copies of the contract, and obtain the >,?a~u,,.-;--. :, ~= of both the C:xv Attorney and the Ciw Manager on page 14 of each of the 4 copies of' the contracts. Please return al! copies to us. You will receive your fully executed cop3' after the Board of Sueervisors has pr6cessed them. Our office will attach Exhibit G, Insurance Requirements. They have not changed substantially from las: year. Several requirements that do not apply to our contracts have been eliminated from this ,.x_hmlt. P!ease also note that some of the contracts have a specific attachment regarding the County ta~,,ng over rehabilitation services. If this is an attaclqment to your cities contract please also review this document. Also, p!ease complete Sections C and D of the Declaration of Contractor (Exhibit H). We will need 4 originals, one for each contract. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (408) 4~41-0261 ext. 4179 or Judv at ext. 4 ! 75. ~ FY 2000/01 Files - Cities Contracts grg - Cover memo 12/7100 Board of Supervisors: Donalc: F Gage. Blanca Aivarado. Pe:e McHugh. James T Beail Jr.. S. Joseph $imman County Ext-culive: RicP. ard winenDerg ATTACHMENT A COS-LMU~-ITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COL~'TY/CITY CONTRACT Contract No. SA-01-00 THIS-Cohtract is made and entered into bv and bev.veen the COUNTY OF SANTA CLAIK-k, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter "COU_"_ .'TY"). and the CITY/q'OWN OF SARATOGA (hereinafter "CITY") participating as a mernber of the Count' of Santa Clara COMML.-N"ITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GtL,kNT (hereinafter "CDBG") Joint Powers Agreement. The allocation of funds pursuant to this Contract shall be a grant. COUNTY approved the allocation and disbursement of CDBG funds to CITY on May 9, 2000.' WlTNESSETH WHEREAS, COb:-NTY has received CDBG Entitlement Program funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development(hereinafter HUD) as an entitlement jurisd'..ction pursuant to the provisions of Title 1 of the Housing and Communits' Development =~ct of 1974. as amended; and, WHEREAS, COL'.-NTY has'agreed tO th~ use bv CITY, as a subre.cipient, of a potion of COU?,~TY'S CDBG entitlement }'or a housing program to be operated within COL~'TY and wiiich shall' benefit low and ','er5..' low income households; - NO\V, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows; I. PROG1L4aM COLU4TY agrees to allocate a portion of its CDBG entitlement, and/or program income as . defined in 24 CFR 570 Subpart J, "Grant Administration" (570.504), to the CITY, as a subrecipient of the Count5.' being the sum of FOUR HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FORT'F~ONE DOl.:CARS AND NINETY-FIVE CENTS ' m Dollars (5407,941.9~ ) for the purpose of reimbursing the Citw for costs incurred to implement the housing program (hereinafter "PROGRAM"). A lump sum figure is allocated for this contract and the parties understand and agree that the allocation is distributed by the COU,'NTY through reimbursing the CITY for allowed expenses, and no lump sum distribution of CDBG funds is made at the outset of this contract. 'Reimbursement for Fiscal Year 2000/01 shall not exceed the total sum of the begimfing fiscal year Cash Control Sheet (fiscal year CDBG allocation of funds to CITY, and roll- Over of unexpended CDBG funds from previous years allocations to CITY). CITY is granted authority to also expend funds for eligible CDBG Housing activities from its approved rehabilitation-program revolving loan fund account,- including accrued Program Income. Such autho:rity is based on CITY being 'in compliance vdth all Federal Rules and Regulations governing the CDBG PROGRAM, and the COLrNTY CDBG Reallocation Guidelines. As a condition to this contract CITY shall submit numerous exhibits marked as noted herein. attached to this contract, incorporated by this reference, as though ful!v set forth as follows: Exhibit "A" (Agency Description), Exhibit "B" (Project Work Plan), Exhibit "C" (Proposed Implementation Time Schedule) E.,d-fibit "D" (Budget), E.xhibit "E" (Certifications). Exhibit "F" (Assurances), Exhibit "G" (Insurance), "H" (Contracting Principles Documents), and. if applicable. "I" (Urban CounD' Rehabilitation Sexw'ices) or an equivalent acceptable format for providing this information, for all allocated CITY projects awarded funding during Fiscal Year 2000/01. The approved versions of such submittals shall become a part of this Contract by being attached hereto and bv this reference incorporating such submittals. The purpose of this Contract is for the COU.~TY to disburse CDBG funds. Unless amended prior to its expiration, the term of this Contract for disbursement purposes shall begin on JuN 1, 2000 and shall terminate on June 30, 2001, or unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section V or Section VII of this Contract. Invoices requesting disbursements submitted after the expiration of the contract will be honored only for charges incurred during the contract term. The term of expenditure by CiD' for the ~ant amount provided for herein shall begin on JuN 1, 2000 and terminate on the earliest of the following dates as set forth herein: June 30, 2001, or later date per amendment to this Contract; the date of the expenditure of the total grant, and'or program income amount provided for herein: upon the termination date established pursuant to Section V or Section VII of this Contract. III. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY A. City shall: Provide COL~'TY with written certification that the following information will be on file at the CITY offices, and will be subject to monitoring by HUD ancL;or COL.'-NTY HCD staff, or their representatives. a. Names and addresses of the current CITY Manager and CITY Council members; b. Copy of CITY'S approved Affirmative Action Plan; and c. Records of all CITY Council meetings dealing with CDBG matters. CITY shall provide COU~'TY with information and housing objectives for the Urban Count'5.' Comprehensive Housing Affordabilit?' StrateD' (CHAS) and/or the Consolidated Plan upon request at the beginning of each pro.am year. 2 Pro_oram Performance bv CITY. CITY shall: Conduct the PROGtL~.M within Santa Clara Count5.', for the purpose of benefiting Iow and reD' low income households. File quarterly reports with COL.-'_'NTY on the tS.'pe and number of services rendered through the operation of the PROGRAM and a description of the beneficiaries of these services, which reports shall evaluate the manner in which the PROGRAM is achieving its objectives and goals as a participating non-entitlement city. Fiscal Responsibilities of CITY. CITY shall: Appoint and submit the name of the CITY managerial staff Who shall be responsible for the financial and accounting CDBG activities of Ci!TY, including the receipt and disbursement of CITY CDBG flmds. The COUNTY shall immediately be notified in writing of the appointment of a new fiscal agent and that agent's name. and CITY will submit three (3) neW signature cards if applicable. Establish and maintain an accOunting SYstem that shall be in conformance with generally accepted principles of accounting. The accounting system shall be subject-to review and approval of COL_'NTY. Document all PROGRAM costs bv maintaining records in accordance with Section III, ParagraPh D below. : Submit to the COU~'TY request for reimbursement, as needed, supported by j r documentation as agreed to bv CITY and COU.'NT'~. CertiiX' current and continuous insurance coverage of CITY, subject to approval of COL.-NTY and in accordance with requirements as oUtlined in Exhibit "G" (Insurance); and obtain certificate of sufficient insurance from all subrecipients which shall list CITY as additional insured: - - Subparagraph C. 1) through' 5) above are express conditiOns precedent to disbursement of any COUNTY funding and failUre tO comply with these conditions may, at the discretion of COb =*~"TY, result in the suspension of funding or termination of specific projects in non-compliance; or initiate the sUspension of funding or termination of this Contract as Provided for herein. CITY is liable for repayment of all disallowed costs and ineligible activities. Disallowed costs'and ineligible aCtivities mav be identified through audits, monitoring or others sources. CITY shall be required to respond to any adverse findings which may lead to disallowed costs, subject to provisions of OMB Circular A-87. "Cost Principles for State and kocal Governments", and A-128, "Single Audits of State and Local Governments". CITY shall be required to respond to any adverse findings which may lead to ineligible activities, subject to provisions of 24 CFR Part 570.201-206 "Eligible Activities" and 24 CFR Part 570-207 "Ineligible Activities". Establishment and Maintenance of Records. CITY shall: Maintain complete and accurate records of all its CDBG transactions including, but not limited to. contracts, invoices, time cards, cash receipts, vouchers, canceled checks, ba~ statements, client statistical records, personnel, property and all other pertinent records sufficient to reflect properly: All direct and indl. rect costs of whatever nature claimed to have been incurred or anticipated to be incurred to perform this Contract or to operate the PROG1L-XM; and b. All other matters covered by this Contract. Preservation of Records. CITY shall preserve and make available its records: Until _the expiration of five years from the date of final payment to CITY under this Contract; or For such longer period, if any as is required bx' applicable law: or If this Contract is completely or partially terminated, the records relating to the work terminated shall be presen'ed and made available for a period of five years from the date of termination. Examination of Records: Facilities. At anv time during normal business hours, and as o~en as may be deemed reasonably necessaD', CITY agrees that HUD and the -COUNTY. and. lot any dun authorized representatives may until expiration of: (a) five )'ears after final payment is made pursuant to this Contract, {b) five years from the date of termination of this Contract, or (c) such longer period as may be prescribed by law: -have access to and the fight to examine Subrecipient CDBG records and facilities. The CITY shall provide language in it's Contracts with all Subrecipients stipulating that at any time during normal business hours, and as often as may be deemed reasonably necessary, Subrecipient agrees that HUD and the COULNTY, and.for any duly authorized representatives may until expiration of: (a) five years after f'mal payment is made pursuant to this Contract, (b) five years from the date of termination of this Contract, or (c) such longer period as mav be prescribed by law: have access to and the right to examine Subrecipient CDBG records a_nd facilities. CITY also a~ees that COUNTY or 4 G~ any duly authorized representatives Shall have the right-to audit, examine, and make excerpts Or transactions of and from, such records and to make audits, of all contracts and subcontracts, invoices, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment, materials and all other data relating to the' PROGKAM and matters covered bx' this Contract. CITY Will be notified in writing of intended audits. CITY will be p. otified in v~a'iting of intended inspections of records and facilities and of intended audits n_o less than three business davs before such inspections or audi. ts. CITY will be required to respond in writing to the HCD Program Manager to anv audit findings, and have the responses included in the final audit report. The cost of any such audit will-be borne by COL.'NTY. Compliance with Law. CITY staff shall become familiar and comply with and require all its subcontractors, independent contractors and employees, if any, to become familiar and comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, ordinances, codes. Regulations anal decrees including, but not limited to, those Federal rules and Regulations. executive orders, and statutes identified in "F" ASSU1L&NCES. Specifically, CITY shall comply with the requirements of OMB Circular No. A-87, "Principles for Determining Costs Applicable to Grants and Contracts with State, Local and Federally recognized Indian Tribal Governments", and OMB Circular A-128 "Audits of State and Local Govermments.,, In acldition. CITY will complY with Federal Regulations as cite~t in 24 CFR Part 570. Subpart J, and 24 CFR part 85. and all'other local. State or Federal laws applicable to this ' PROGRAM. ' -IV. OBLIGATIONS OF COI.~'TY Method of Payment. During the term of this Contract, Cou.rNTY shall reimburse CITY 'for alt allowable coSts and expenSes incurred in connection with the PROGIL,-XM, not to exceed the total sum of the beginning fiscal year Cash Control Record plus all Program Income accrued during the fiscal year: Reimbursement for eligible expenses will be paid by COU.-NTY within thirty davs (30) of~he date the reimbursement request is received bv COL".'NTY HCD staff, under the provision that the CITY has complied with all PROGRAM rezulations, and contract conditions a~reed to bv CITY and COU,~TY. Reimbursement may be held back. in part or in full, by COL~'TY, in the event of CITY'S non-compliance to PROGtL4.M regulations and conditions. Substantial non-compliance includes, but is not limited to, incomplete doCmnentation 6f'expenses, failure to submit adequate documentation of PROG1L~.M prOgress as described in III, paragraph B.2, of this Contract, failure to provide and maintain an accounting System that shall be in conformance wSth generally accepted principles of accounting~ or based on the suspension or terminatiOn of the Grant to COU.'NTY made pursuant to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. In the case of CITY substantial non-compliance prior to exercising any recourse authorized herein, COU~'TY shall initiate the following procedure: Noti~' the CITY Coordinator in writing of the alleged substantial non-compliance and request an immediate meeting be~veen CITY Coordinator and COL.'NTY HCD Program Manager to resolve issue(s). If issue(s) is(are) not resolved satisfactorily within thirty (30) days, noti~' CITY Manager in ,aa'king requesting an immediate meeting between CITY Manager, CITY Coordinator and COL2','TY HCD Program Manager to resolve the issue(s). Determine if any portion of the reimbursement request meets all eligible criteria. and if so, authorize payment for the eligible portion of the reimbursement request; o Review the procedure to be followed under V. C. of this Contract (CONTtL-XCT COMPLIANCE, Corrective Action Procedure); and If applicable, fom'ard a written report to HUD's Regional Office detailing the substantial' non-compliance issues and the steps being instituted to correct performance, copy to the CITY Manager. Compliance with Law. COL%'TY shall become familiar and comply with and reouire all its subcontractors and employees, if any, to become familiar and comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws. ordinances, codes, regulations and decrees including, but not limited to, those Federal rules and regulations, executive orders, and statues identified in "F" ASSUtL~NCES. Specifically, COLLNTY shall comply with the requirements of OMB Circular No. A-87, "Principles for Determining Costs Applicable to Grants and Contracts with State, Local, Federally recognized Indian Tribal Gov,.rnments . and OMB Circular A128 "Audits of State and Local Govermments". In addition. COL~'TY will comply with Federal Regulations as cited in 24 CFR Pan 570. Subpart J. and 24 CFR Pan 85, and all other Local. State or Federal laws applicable to this PROGRA. M. V. CONTRACT COMPLIANCE Monitoring and Evaluation of Services. Evaluation and monitoring of the PROGtL~.M performance shall be the mutual responsibilit3' of both COL~'TY and CITY, with the understanding that HUD looks to COb~TY as the sole responsible part)., for meeting PROGRAM requirements. CITY shall furnish data, statements, records, information and reports as mutually agreed to by CITY and COU,,'NTY as necessa~:' for COU',LNTY to monitor, review and evaluate the performance of the PROGRAM and its components. COU.,-NTY shall have the right to request the services of an outside agent to assist in any such evaluation. Such sen'ices shall be paid for by COL~'TY. Contract Non-compliance. If CITY fails to comply with any provision of this Contract (24 CFR 85.43 "Enforcement") COUNTY shall have the right to terminate this contract or to require corrective action to enforce compliance with such provision. Examples of non-compliance include but are not limited to: If CITY knowingly has made any material misrepresentation of any nature with respect to any information or data furnished to COLt'NTY in connection with the PROGRAM. If there is pending litigation with respect to the performance by CITY of any of its duties or obligations under this Contract which may materially jeopardize or adversely affect the undertaking of or the carrying out of the PROGtLAM. The CITY and COU.,~TY may negotiate a reinstatement of this Contract following termination or conclusion of such litigation. If CITY has taken any action Pertaining to the PROGRAM. which action required COL..-:%."TY approval, and such approval was not obtained. If CITY is in default under any provision of this Contract. If CITY makes improper use of COL~'TY fi. rods. If CITY fails to meet al} provisions of the COL."~.'%-TY CDBG Reallocation Guidelines, or Joint Powers Agreement. Corrective ActiOn Procedure. Once non-compliance is established the tbllowing procedure shall be initiated: 1. COL;~'TY HCD prOgram Manager and CITY Manager shall negotiate a time frame and Course of action for correcting 'the nOn-compliance; Under this Contract, CITY shall provide COU~.~TY with a written plan and time frame for correcting the non-compliance issue (s). Such plan shall be submitted bv CITY to COL_rNTY within thin3.' (30) days of the initial non-compliance meeting between CITY and COL'.-NTY. CITY must initiate the corrective action procedure within sixt?' (60) days of the initial non-compliance meeting between the COU'NTY HCD Program Manager and the CITY Coordinator (COU~'TY, at their discretion, may extend this time line for extenuating circumstances); 7 Do ° COL.,'NTY shall have the right to require the presence of CITY officers at any . hearing or meeting called for the purpose of considering corrective action; and CITY has the right to appeal all findings of non-compliance, and subsequent corrective action, with both the COLqh'TY Board of Supe~'isors and HUD. Termination for Cause. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the foregoing, COL_rNTY ma3' terminate or suspend this Contract by written notice to CITY for any of the follovdng reasons: The non-compliance issue(s) as set forth in Section V, B have not been addressed and resolved within the aforementioned corrective action plan time period; If CITY is in bankruptcy or receivership; If a member of CITY'S management is duly found to have committed wrongful acts in connection with the CDBG program (termination or suspension shall be applied onlv to that portion of the CDBG program for which the person who committed v~u'ongful act is responsible); 4. If there is reliable evidence that CITY is unable to operate the PROG1LAM. Suspension of payment or termination under this section shall be efl%ctive on the date notice of termination is received by CITY, or such later date as ma3' be specified in the notice. C° Xq. PROGI:L-~M COORDINATION COL_"NTY. The Count' Executive shall assign a single PROGtL-X.M MANAGER for COL'.-NTY who shall render overall supervision of the progress and performance of this Contract by COL.LrNTY. All services agreed to be performed by COL_'NTY shall be under the overall direction of the PROGtL&M MANAGER. CITY. As of the date hereof, CITY has designated to serve as CITY CDBG Program Coordinator, and CITY MANAGER (or assignee approved by the CITY Council) to assume overall responsibilit3.' for the progress and execution of this Contract. The COL;,'NTY shall be immediately notified in writing of the appointment of a new CITY CDBG Program Coordinator, or a new CITY Manager (or assignee approved by the CITY Council). - NOTICES. All notices or other correspondence required or contemplated by this Contract shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses: 8 COUNTY CITY Charles Chew, HCD Program Manager Housing and Communi~' Development Program 1735 North First Street. Suite 265 San Jose, CA 95112 Name of CITY Address of CITY :Name of CITY MANAGER All notices shall either be hand delivered or sent by United States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid: Notices given in such a-manner shall be deemed received when hand delivered or seven~'-two (72) hours after deposit in the United States mail. An3' part3.: may change his or her addre:3s for the pUrpose of this section by giving five days written notice of such change to the other part.)' in the manner provided in this secti'on. '~ X, qI. TEtLM]NATION In addition to the COU2NTY'S right to terminate for cause set forth in Section V. either COL-".ZNTY or CITY may suspend or terminate this Contract as provided for in 24 CFR 570. at Subpart J "Grant Administration", and/or 24 CFR 85.44 "Termination for Convenience". Provisions of the RealIocation Guidelines will apply, but may be adjusted if termination is for cause. - B. Upol~ termination, either under this Section VII or Section V, CITY shall: be paid for ail documented services actuallv rendered to COU~TY to the date of such termination; provided, however, COb%'TY shall be obligated to compensate CITY-only for that portion of CITY'S services which are allowable costs and expenses as determined by an audit or other monitoring device; turn over to COL~rNTY immediately any' and all Copies of studies, reports and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CITY or its subcontractors or subrecipients, if any, in connection with this Contract. Such materials shall become property of COU~'TY. CITY, however, shall not be liable for COL.LNTY'S use of completed documents if used for other than the sen, ices contemplated by this Contract; and transfer to the COL~TY anv CDBG funds on hand and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds. All assets acquired with CDBG funds shall be returned to the COU~'TY unless otherwise negotiated by separate Contract per the provisions of the Santa Clara Counw CDBG REALLOCATION GUIDELINES. Upon termination of this Contract, CITY shall immediately provide COL :'-NTY access to and copies of (if requested) ail documents, records, payroll, minutes of meetings, correspondence and all other data pertaining to the CDBG entitlement fund granted to CITY pursuant to this Contract. VIII. USE AND DISPOSAL OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY CITY.and COL.". '"TY will be accountable for all applicable Federal Regulations as detailed bv 24 CFR Pan 570, Subpart J. i.e. 570.500 (Definitions), 570.503 (Agreements with Subrecipients), 570.504 (Program Income), and 570.505 (Use of Real Property) with regards to the use and disposal of Real or Personal Property purchased in whole, or in part, with CDBG funds. In addition, 24 CFR Part 85 (The Common Rule) includes definitions under 24 CFR Part 85.3. however, Common Rule 85.31 (Real Property) DOES NOT APPLY TO CDBG ACTIVITIES. The following definitions will apply to this Contract: B. Definitions. 24 CFR, Part 85 (Common Rule) 85.3 1. Equipment means tangible, non-expendable, personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. Title as defined in detail in 24 CFR, Pan 85.32 (a). Use as defined in detail in 24 CFR, Part 85.32 (c) (1). 4. Supplies as defined in detail in 24 CFR, Part 85.33. Procurement. Use and Disposition of Real Property as defined in detail by 24 CFR. Part 570.503 (A~eements With Subrecipients), 570.505 (Use of Real Property), and 570.504 (Progam Income). 10 LX. PROGRAM INCOME Incon'te generated bv the PROGRAM shall be regulated bv all provisions of 24 CFR 570 Subpart J "Grant Administration", and the Santa Clara Count CDBG REALLOCATION GUII2ELINES. (C. 1. a.c. ) X. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR This i~ a Contract by and between independent contractors and is not intended and shall not be construed to create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association between CITY and COL.%'TY. CITY, including; its officers, employees, agents. independent contractors or subcontractors,' shall not have anv claim under this Contract or otherwise against COU%'TY for anv Social SecuriT, Worker's Compensation, or employee benefits extended to employees of COL':~TY. 'XI. ASSIGNABILITY This Contract may not be assumed nor assigned to another CITY, CORPOR_-X. TION. PERSON, PARTNERSHIP or any other emit without the prior written approval of COU -TY. B. None of the work or services to be performed hereunder shall be assigned, delegated or Subcontracted to third parties without the prior written approval of COL.-NTY. Copies of :all third parD' contracts shall be submitted to COL~-TY at least ten days prior to the proposed effective date. In the event COL-',%'TY approves of any such assigpanent. delegation or subcontract, the subcontractors, assignees or delegates shall be deemed to be employees of CITY. and CITY shall-be responsible for their performance and any ~mbh~,~,.s attaching tO their actions-or omissions. The use of the word employees in this paragraph is limited solely to activities by those persons described herein, related to the management and. potential repayment of the program funds provided for in the Contract. The use of the term here does not create liability for personal injuries, worker's compensation or other forms of liability, obligation or responsibiliu~ which flow from employee/employer relationships. XII. DISCLOSURE OF CO:NTIDENTIAL CLIENT INFORzMAIION COLZ,~TY a/nd CITY a~ree to maintain the confidentialin., of anY information regarding hpplicants for services offered by the PROGRAM pUrsuant to this Contract or their immediate families which may be obtained through application forms, interviews, tests, reports from public agencies or counselors, or any other source. Without the written permission of the applicant, such information shall be di'~Iged only if permitted by law or as necessary for purposes 11 related to the performance or evaluation of the services ad work to be provided pursuant to this Contract. and then onlv to persons having responsibilities under this Contract. including those furnishing services under the PROG1Lq~M through approved subcontracts. XIII. HOLD I--L--XRMLESS CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless, the COU~-TY, its employees and elected officials. boards and commissions, with respect to an.-,' damages, including attorney's ,e,.s and court costs. arising from: An,,' negligent act or omission, or willful misconduct arising out of any work or service performed by CITY, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors under the PROGRAM or this Contract, including but not limited to the evaluation and monitoring of subrecipients PROGtLA. M performance. COL~TY shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless, the CITY, its employees, officers. officials, boards and commissions, and agents, with respect to an,,' claims, causes of action, or damages, including attorney's fees and court costs, arising from: Thc failure of COL-_~TY to reimburse CITY for eligible costs as defined by HUD and this Contract; and Any negligent act or omission, or willful misconduct arising out of an.`' work or service performed by COL~-TY, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors under the PROG1L-~M or this Contract. Ail additional provisions set forth in EZqibits "& .... G". attached hereto and incorporated ' - by this rei%rence, e.g. Insurance "G". shall be required bx' CITY of all its program recipients. XIV. WAIVER OF RIGHTS .&\'I) REMEDIES In no event shall any payment bv COL.'-NTY constitute or be construed to be a waiver bx' COL.-NTY of any breach of the covenants or conditions of this Contract or any default which max' then-exist on the part of CITY. and the making of any such payment while any such breach or defauit shall exist shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to COL_'NTY with respect to such breach or default. In no event shall payment to CITY by COL2NTY in any way constitute a waiver by COL,.~TY of its rights to recover from CITY the amount of money paid to CITY on any item which is not eligible for payment under the PROGtLAzM or this Contract. 12 NONDISCRIMINATION In cot nection with the performance ofihis Contract, CITY assures that no person shall be subject to discrimination because of sex. racel religion, ethnic background, sexual pret~rence, age. handicapped status, or union activiw. XWI. EQUAL OPPORTL.':NITY REQUIREMENTS The County' of Santa Clara is an equal opportuni~' employer. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations including Santa Clara Count?"s equal opportuni~' requirements. Such laws include but are not limited to the following: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended; .Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: The Rehabilitation-Act of 1973 (Sections 503 and 504); California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code sections 12900 et sea.); California Labor Code sections 1101.1102. and 1102. ~.. CONTRACTOR shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment becaUse Of age, race, color, national origin, ancestu', religion, se.-c:'gender, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, political beliefs., organizational affiliations, or marital status irf the recruitment, selection for training including apprenticeship, hiring, employment, utilization, promotion, layoff, rates of pay or other 1'orms of compensation. X¥II. .~MENDMENTS Am,..enS. ments to the terms or conditions of this Contract shall be requested in writing by the =arp,' desiring such amendments, and any such amendment shall be effective only upon the mutual A .... m,.nt in writing of the parties hereto. XWIH. INTEGIL-kTED DOCL,WIENT This Contract. in conjunction with the Santa Clara Count3.' CDBG Joint Powers Agreement. contains the entire agreement bem'een COL~'TY and CITY with respect to the subject matter hereof. No written or oral agreements, other than the Santa Clara Count).' CDBG Joint Powers A_r,.,.m,.nt. with any officer, agent or emr)lovee of COU_~TY prior to execution of this Contract shall affect or modif?' any of the terms of obligations contained in any documents comprising this Contract. XIX. ATTOI~NEY'S FEES In the event it becomes necessary, for any parry.' to obtain legal counsel to enforce the terms of this contract, the prevailing part),' shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs. .sLX. 5HSCELL_~NEOUS A. TEe captions of this Contract are for convenience of reference only, and the words contained therein shall in no way be held to explain, modi~', ampli~' or aid in the interpretation. construction or tneaning of the provisions of this Contract. Al! exhibits attached hereto and referred to in this Contract are incorporated herein bv this reference as if set forth fully herein. IN' WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract in duplicate the dav and year above written. ATTEST: COUNTY OF S.~N'TA CLARA Clerk. Board of Supervisors Chairperson. Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORUM AND LEG.4J. II~': Deputy Coun¢' Counsel mv.' APPROVED AS TO FOR_M: City Attornev FY 2000/0i Files Cities - Contracts 2000/01 Dec. 4. 2000 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GIL~-N'T PROGRAM AGENCY DESCRIPTION DATE APPLICANT AGENCY: Name Address Exhibit A (FY 2000/2001) PROJECT ,*4 PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: Telephone FAX PROIECT DESCRIPTION Rex'. 615100 Z Z I- 0 -~Oo Z Z D Z 1.1.1 I.U Z x '~.E- w CD.R'~ F!CAT!C) NS EXRIBIT E A~rmath,e!v. Further Fair Hcusin_c --TOn_, ".iur:,sdic~cn will a~r.m, at~-,~eiv .¢-c,-,her 'az,,-'- 'ncusm. c,' '.v;,i~ ..,==.:s gt ,cai: zcnC'-.'c: an analysis cf im..-eC!m,,enls tc :air hcusing choice th. touch ;ha: anaivsis, and maintain reccr:s ,'el!eof. trig that anaiys[s'snd' ac'acr'.s :.n- cf i ~,=2, as amenCec, anC :~-~-~ ....... ~n ' Free '"' : '- ]t " ,v.., c-n~L-.u_ tc :roy:ce F.i ~r:-;:-f'ee '.vcrk.-_[ace h_'/: i Fub,[!sh.i;-c a statement "' ' - ..... -- ....manufa.-%--';e,-disr!b,'fcn, · nc~n',vmc s.mc'.cvees that*he '-:-:,,~,. ',,;cr:<:lace :_nd s.=e~:.!.-;~ "-= act!cas *,ha.: "be taken a._:a.;n~ emp!cyees .-.ct ','~c~a-'.:c.". :f 'S'~.C'- ~ .... ~""- :~: , n,. an =ncc[nc dru?free awareness p. ~r-m tc :-~ --- ..'al :-?me dance~$ cf .~r'JC =~'use in the work:lace: cc:cxrrinc in the ',','crkpIace; - ,'-AakL-.c :' a ;ecu[remen-'.. that each, emalcvee tc ~- · -" . . ~= e.%.~'~ced~- ;n ":ne .:e~crmancs ct' the ....._, = .... = c:ver.. = cctv ~."*, ,, "statement 'e_u!red'- '- by = i; Nc:5.";inc :he =ms!cvee ~n ' - · ~, .= statement re_.u:-eC" ,, "by..:-r-=--._h= .-"', =" , i tn~.'., as =- ",,,~.-nc:?n", ,., ,.-f e..-. F ic:y..-.anti ' ur, c er the trent,_ the em ~,lcve e ',~111 i :'" ' :-" ~:-id'~ bv ,.,,e terms cf ;he n;=~--,~-,,-.-- ,. ,,. I . (b) Notify the em.cicyer in w~ing cf his cr her can'victJcn fcra viclaUcn of a criminal druc st;-:tute occurring in the workplace nc later than five calendar days al'tar such - cc:n],/ic.t, ic n~ -Notifying the acenc'/in wrffing,, ;"-;- ' · _ w,,,,,,, ten calendar days ~-fter receivina notice under subparagraph 4.(5) from an -emp!cyee or othenvise reJeiving actual no]ice of such c=:nvicdcn. F_.mpicyers cf convicted empicyees must provide notice, including .-'_ositic~ ,~.=, :C -=VE."; _CF-~o C~ic_=r Cc ct.-.er c-.$icnee c,'1 wP.c~e CFH~,T. -,'-. ,- - - -',-,,V. ~v :J~.e e~rt-(c,.,ee w~s- ~--' ;-~. - ~v,.,K .... , unless T'.e =°'~"~:' has CesiGnat. ec' · - _ ...... ,acenc/ _ =~ . . h= "'u .~, suc.~ nc:Joes. Ncdce shall !nclu,Ce the ident~fficat. Jcm mum:er(s) .~f affeced '~ Tak~r:._c ~ne c: iL,_ fcilcwinc a~fcns, w~;mr, SO cal-ndar Cavs a~ -=,-o~,; ..... ,,-.~ - =, , ' 'with - c , , e-.ca_t :c any employee who is sc ccnviced (s"., Tek,nc = - , -- :erscnnei actfcn a._ca?.st such ~n emnicvee :er.mma.'...'cn. cc.':_i_:.,,~ with 2 e ;ecu[r=~-=~,= cf-'.he - ' ' .... : - ' such ~m_-_~c,,ee 'c :-,-J~fF-te s-=dsfaccr:.iv i,~, ~ druc -=Zuse a_s:,_:a.-.-s c,- =..~.n crccr-:m ap~'c',eC ,cs such .=urpcses :v a FedOra!, ~ate cr :ccsJ '- enfcr:sm..~.ct, cr --.:her a~nr,cprfate ~.' , ' h~a!t.., Fader:_: ap.--rc.2r!-ted fun/_ nave be~.,'t .=-aiC cr ',vm be cain. b,; .... h_.shaft of :~ '- ar.v ~' " ' = :lng .... ' ."/.Ember cf C-ag:e_s, -on cr.'cer cr e:.--.z~"ee -= .... "-' r,=.~- = ~: , .-Z. =_R!;':C -: ....... =,=,,.? -,= ,,;aklnc cf any FeCe~a! !c&~. ;he e,,'-._.'.~.c ~,tc ~ an'; '~ az,.' -.'u.-..'"~ cma: thc.-..---~der-i appr:.-':rf-ted fu,-.-~s h:_ve ~een :~!d :r ',v![[ he :ai: tc ~.-,,, ._-eros.-. fo: im::uertc!~ c: aue..--.~:~2~c :-c :..".;:.~ertme an ct'~ce: c: -:m.Clc,/ee cf .' =-ge.cc/, ',~e.m. Ser cf Cc. sc:ass, a.-. cfi]cs: CF em._-'ic,/ee cf Ccnc:~ss. CF ,- ~., "~ a ,' , cf Cc.-.~:sss !r. ccr. r. ectfc.-. ',"f-:h th!_ FeCsrzl :c,'::.-act]~:ant, '.~-.'z., c: .. c , ~-= ...... =:,~. k '/;ill :c,.--.:!ete and su.cm!t ~' ~ :_l .... ~ ' · -~-~...:-~., :_ ~ar.C-:: F:rm-L , -~-c:cs,.:re For..-, :: .=.~-:c.-. ~--~-~- .... =, .,. = ..... =,,,-= ',vit~ its ;nstruc:fcr:~- and w,,, :~c'.:i:e .'..-.~_.". the -~--, ,- --" = th!s ,. Ca; ,=ua=a cf .:-r-z:a:h (n~ cf -=--:~--+:~- :-',',':-rd CcCu.--..="t~ '~r a!J su~a,,v~_rds at all t~---~ ':-~: " ....... ,,,,..uc;rt.c sub. cc.-t.t:acts, subc:sr%s, and ...... =~.-- unc~, ~:am's :car-s, and ccccera:i,.~ a~r~emen:s~ amd ~, al! -,. , ,-,.lents acccrdin_i,,,. Authcr!tv cf ". ' "--' -- · · ,,~.r:sc:,.:on - ;,--= cc. nsc[ida:ed .mar, is authcfzed uncer State and local ;las a~'ciica2ie) and the jur!sdictJon cessesses 'h" ;coal authcritv to cam/cut the prccrams for , ;.;~;. ;~, ; .- · ,v ...... ,..s seekinc func:nc, in accordance with ac~iicable ~,' ' ,~ .' - - , .~D re=ulat;ons. Consistency wffh clan - The hcusinc -~'~ "' · _ =-.~wues tc be undert.~<.2n wP¢, COBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds are consistent wi~h .2he strategic plan. - ~ t,,_ HcusinG and "-"=,- ,.,eve.c .... e... cf ~5.~ Section 5 ~t wiil ccmply with se~cn ~ cf "" ...... n ~."-- "' .Ac'. ' , ...... ~c, _=_,at,,.~s ~-. 24 CFR .=a.~ ,.. .. ...~ ~.. :,~' · , ,~,-. ,~,-~ . - ...,? .=._r _, ..-, .... c r,-- ~ 'C,,,'tt~:g] ..J Daze County Executive 77t!@ _.ce .... c CDBG Ce~ificatJcns mar, mat satisfies .h_ requirements a~ ~ C "~ ~ ~' Commune'/ Develc=ment Plan - '.ts cons:ilea:ed hcusir, m amd ccmmur,~v deveiccment :ia.-. - · ......... CS ~= .....~.C;',,,,,,U~.i?/ CeVe!CC'F'",~en.. cciec'.:ves *~'a~ -F~v~H-- ... -. · . -.. - .- ~"~ ....... :~ ...... ;;,, .:cF :erscns cf :cw arc .... -~ ~,.-,_~ an.- CF.:. 2; ua.-: 57C'~ ~ ~ :, :.-.rea: .... ~': he=-::th ,ar ',veifa;e cf :ha :amm,--'ni:) ' " :;her'.cra: res-ur:es ara ac: :cc-ns cur:nc --.-scram year{s) 2~, :'a :e::.c: s.:ec:,fieC bv the cran~ee ::ns:.s:!.-.~ :f cn.e .',v'c, cr :hree s.cecf-.'[c :c..-.secutf,/e .-zrcg:~m ','es:s::, shall .__.errant cf :ne amcun: [s e :er. ced :ar a::.f":.t~as :ha: 'enefi: ~'.ch .=ers:ns .... :-~ --= ce-i_cnatec ne:;-:' - ~ , C-::.'a: CC--'.- Cf --US':- !..-.src,'e..,e..ts assr:ted with SC_=G ;ur. Cs :.nclud:.nc Sec:i-r.; Ca !can ~- "f'.;ncs :y assessln_c ~nv amcur..: again, st Srcse.":.!es owned and cccu_-c~ed h,/ Derscr.s Cf mc';/ macerate !n~cme in_luCia: an,/ fee ~:'.=.=ed :r ,-~ ~ ": as ,- cane!ilar cf .._.:;. :r._c =-:cass tc such 7u:iic :m~rcveme.-.ts. :'-;~"'¢'"'""="' ;: .... ,~U,~S - ....... ; ='- =': used tc 'ca,/ ,he .:rcpc..-.fcr. cf a fee CF assessment re:ares ts the cacitai casts cf '-,,~-~;c !mF. rcvements .~=~:<~=,- in ",-'" with CS.~G ,uncs~ ftc, aa:ed fram ether revenue sources, an assessment cr caarce may == made stains; the srcce,c./with res:eat 'c the oubiic i .... ,-,-,,,,-+ - ' .. . . . . . ,,...,,,,v_,., .... s financed bv ~ source other tha~-~ n= will not a~em.~t to recover any "~',it:l costs ~f aubiic imcrcvements assisted with CC,,CG funds, including Section '1081 unless CC.B~ funds are used to aa,/ ,h, ;ro.ccn!cn of fee ar assessment att.:ibutabie to the ca:its! casts cf public ' ' ' ~mcrovemen.:s - ....cther :avenue -- ..-a_. In :his c-se, ar. assessmem,-, cr ~'h- c_ ma,/ :,,=.-- acain~ the 2:ccer:'./, - r__ue_. :c :ub. lic . ~=' :h~ '~=: - :mcrcvements ~nsr, c~¢. :y ct ....S-,-,, CC G ;ur. ds. ,~Jsc, in c-_, cf .-::cre~es cwr, ed ~nC cccu=ied ~v !n sm_ .'ncr icw-inccme) families, 2r. assessme~: cr ch- -: ' ' ' ~rccerT; '~r ,runic [m~rcvemea:$ fn-n~.C '-.,, - - ."r:~-:--: .... -' =scurce ,-tn =~ than C7_,~G funds if , ........~,, ce?.~,les that it n-r- - - ' ,=-.'<s C~ G t: ccver the assasa,-r, ent. =-x:ess:,ve .--cFTc -'.t has -'~--teC ar.-~ is ~' ". c i. ,-.._-ci!c:, - · .... t,.e use cf e ce_s:,;_ :~me by '- . ~ ~ mw enforcement acer:c!es '~t'-.~.-. ':";~c;-';~'- sca!ns: any incividua;s =nc:,-=,~ !n ncmv~cie~t c~vii -icOns ---,,-~,-,~ ....: .... cF e :t f-c..--, a faci!it CF lc-adc:. '.',r.:cm Ts ,.ne s"~:e,~ cf such .-.ca-¥icieat zcncsrrf.-.'j :eaZ-ta_-Z .z-i.-.t will ccmz!v .*,;~ ' "'~ " - ,,,.,. cc. .--.._: :y with aZ.z:ca'--{a :aws. ,..-,,-..-zi!a..za ',v~t:-, Laws :t ,,,F~ ~ = ......... u~n~r,._c Offic;-8 Sate A.=FENGIX , G C~.=.TiF~CAT:CNS ~ '~NS'77'-.UC'T;CNS CCNC.-'=.--.N',NG LC=-By!NG .--.NL. 3,=.U--FREE ' "~"";-"' Cs."t!fcatic,c -C-:is :s.;~ficadcn'-, -~ a ,m-ts.i-...- ' ~' resrsse.".tsdcn cf fact, u=cn which reiiance was -'---,~,_,.-...~._ whe.'t, th!s '.:ansact:.cn ,,vs.s m--e, .-,.. cr en:e.,sd :mis. Submission cf this _'::erec'uisite for ma:<ir._c or _.,:e-?.c !r. tc "-;~ ~5 . "" , _ . .... ::=_nsacti,:cn imccsed tv set, ca i ,. 2 31, "~,._., = C...'~-de. .-'.my F-.¢'s-m,- wac' fa[is'.c fi!_= the .'e_uf,- red,- ce.'-,3.:cz'.;c n ~ ';"q 2e~.a~?-/ C' no,. ;e_s th-.-. $: C,CCC =_.-.= :'.ct ' ' ~ '- , c ' -' CC,CCC ;ct ea~'h su~.-. fai'.ure. ...e. Jfcs.::c't 5v s::::.L,_ ....... .= =. .~,cr" submlt:.i.-.:_ :his ~_.--:'-:ca;icr,,, ..,"' =-:=_r.: --_:.-eeme., ".t, '.he _cr--r-.:se .<now:m?! rends, ed a false cs.T[fcsfc~, c:h_r, 'i__ v~c,~es 'he ~ecu~reme~s cf " ~' ' ?_ciies : .T,-,[s !s the =_r -ra.-.tse's other than :2c:v;cua,s,.-.;,e..-.ate; wac =-re .mc;v:cua~s. A:ternate ::.. .... .... an.~[icsb[e ,,,. ;:anises .::.-.er .ha~. , , .~ ..... ::e.'-.:Jfie'_.~ :.'t. :ms cs~if:,-atir-a.,. ,, ..~' k.-.cwr..:. '..-.e,/ m-v'~ ' :e ;der. th--red :..-. the =__-:i;.:a:icn. :f-'- = does ....... . -,,= ~rm-.'t.".-~ P.O'. ;=e.-.:;rz the ',;'cr:.<~;a:es =_.: the :~me of a.:.:;ics-:~c.-., :dr :.:c~. a.,v~rc, if there is -c 'a=clica:~:: .'.h.e ::~.-.~=o `.must :.-.-~ ;Ceh.-.i.-,'_ ..:~ :he wcrkmiacei's'~ on -i!s !2. ~ts off]cs =_md-make '.h~= m,crmma::ca' ' ' ' =':=;;¢~':= '-: Federal ~m. Sn:eoi[c~.. Faiiu:e -':,e'en.:%' ..... -- - · --. . ~,~ K. ,,.,';¢,; S.:nst:.tu:ss a vic!ar, cc; cf the ;raatee's drum-free wc..-k:iaoe :equhe.,,e., ~- ,-,ts. 5. ::'/--'~--:-~o :-'~-';':~- ' - r,,," aCC-_-ss c, sufid:r, cs (ct ........ ~. ....-- ...... ~.¢t:cr, s must! ,~iud-~ th_==~..~=.;, ,- , ,. - , cf :~;iic:,.~cs'; --, r, the., ' :'" "~'"'" ' '-'.-.der ' ' ..... = ...... d-=sc:[:tic,.ms ma,/b9 ':sec (e.g., all v=."~'.--, cf =_ mass "'-..'i. CF:?/ CF -~-'~ ~' '" _ ,,._ _r ...... , ,-.,---:- emclcvees ss.ch !coal umempicyment off, ice, ~e.,ff,'crmers in cot. ce.,': h=_ils or r~d~¢ st~Jcmsl. 7. ~f ""-' wcrknlaCe identified to the ace.,t, cv chad.deS .4.,,-,,. :~e ' '~'~ _ . .--,[,,,. merfcrmar, ce of .h_ cr~.t, the crantee shall inform the ~genc/of the chance(sl, if it previcusly ~c ......... .:he wcrkpieces in quest[ch (see para~r~-.ch five). 2. ,,The g,-, .:=,_ may inse.,-: in 'h= _.-.%~ "rcvided heicw · zv~., the specff']c grant: P!ace cf .=edcrmance (SL-",:, acC:ess, c~tv, ccun~/, ~ate, Count,! of San:a Clara housing a~n: Procram '"-r.t:cTed -uZ.,'.aame' means = cf the '~n.::c?:ec Sc=stances Act ~'~' ~ :.S.~.~i 27 and as fu~her cefnec tv '~ '= -. '"' ~,'-.-, 1308.1 th, c. ugt. :=,=ui-:i~r-, <_.,. ~-- . , ~ . .... v:c::cm' means a .-.nc:nc cf gu!:.: :ii..-.c!ud!nc a :isa cf .-.c:c :c.-.-:=,nCers' c: - -~- ......... seats,.we, ,r 2ctr., cv aa'; :uc;c:a~ ccc;.' ct.z:~eC ',vi:.-. :he ' : =~,-.,-..~,~;:[?/ ~ ;,,.r-;~.-:~.~ -~' ih~ ----=,'~-'r--_ ~. ~.--.~ _.; · ......... =: zr"~ s-atu:e" means = '.avery:ac the .v. an"f~_ctur_~ C;:'-;~-,.-;-- ..-':~..~.~.-_... ,.~= ,-, ....... '='- suC_.'.aace; ..... '.. =c..:-ha:ce; em,.r.~cvees /,-.:.ess '.maas: _, :nvc:veme~- is · ',,~ ,_ and ',';nc ar=, c,n the =:antee~s :avrcd. ;n~s '~efiak!.-',, dces ncr [aclu 'e ';:cr:z=~s -,ct ?. ~he cavrofi cf :~,e grant=,e .:'e.g., ,.~', 'at=,ers even ,- tc .... su;tants cr :ndec- EXBIBIT F ASSURANCES CORPORATION hereby assures and certifies that it will comply with all regulations, policies, guidelines and. requirements applicable to the acceptance and use of Federal funds for this . Federally-assisted program and will be responsible for implementing and complying with all re!e:'z_nt future changes to Federal Regulations or OMB Circulars. Specifically CORPORATION gives assurances and certifies with respect to the PROG1LA. M that it is in compliance with the following Regulations as defined bv 24 CFR, Part 570, Subpart J; 24 CFR, Part 570. Subpart K; and will be conducted and administered in conformit3' with "Public Law 88.352 and Public Law 90-284. 570.601. Public Law 88-352 and Public Law 90-284; af£m-natively fi~thering fair housing; Executive Order 11063, as amended by Executive Order 12259 addresses discrimination. HUD regulations implementing Executive Order 11063 are contained in 24 CFR, Part 107. '3. 570.602. Section 109 of the Act addresses discrimination. 3. 570.603. Labor Standards. 4 ~, 0.604. Environmental Standards. 5. 570.605. National Flood Insurance Program. 6. 570.606. Relocation, Displacement and Acquisition. 7. 570.607. Employment and Contracting Opportmaities. 8. 570.608. Lead-Based Paint. 9. 570.609. Use of Debarred, Suspended, or Ineligible Contractors or Subrecipients. 10. 570.610. Uniform Administrative Requirement and Cost Principles. The COL~'TY, its Subrecipients. agencies or instrumentalities, shall comply with the policies, guidelines, and requirements of 24 CFR Part 85 (Common Rule), and OMB Circulars A-110 (Grants and Agreements with Non-Profit Organizations), A-122 (Cost Principles for Non- Profits), A-128 (Audits of State and Local Governments-implemented at 24 CFR, Part 24), and A-133 (Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non-Profit Institutions), as applicable, as they relate to the acceptance and use of Federal funds under this part. The applicable sections of 24 CFR. Part 85 and OMB Circular A-100 are set forth at 570.502. EXHIB'T F - ASSURANCES 1 REVISED 11/151'00 11. 570.611. Conflict of Interest. 12. 570.612. Executive Order 12372 allows States to establish its own process for review and comment on proposed Federal financial assistance programs, specifically the use of CDBG funds for the construction or planning of water or sewer facilities.' wg'~2000/01/files contracts/assurrances EXH!BIT F- ASSURANCES 2 REVISED 11/15/00 CONTRACT-PROVISIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION RE CONTRACTING PRINCIPLES. ['I-YPE I CONTRACTS] This .;ontract is a Type I service contract, subject to the Resolution of Contracting Principles adopted by the Board of SUpervisors On October 28, 1997. Accordingly, Cont'actor shall comply with all Of the following: a. Contractor shall, during the term of this contract, comply with all applicable federal, state, and local rules, regulations, and laws. b. Contractor shall maintain financial records adequate to show that County ,und., paid under the contract were used for purposes consistent with the terms of the contract. These records shall be maintained during the term of this contract and for a period of three (3) years from termination of this contract or until all claims, if any, have been resolvedl whichever period is longer, or longer if'otherwise required under other provisions of this contract. The failure of Contractor to comply v~ith this Section or any portion thereof may be considered a material breach of this contract and may, at the option of the County, cons';:itute grounds for the termination and/or non-renewal of the contract. Contractor shall be provided reasonable notice of any intended termination or non-renewal on the §rounds of,nor)compliance with this Section, and the Opportunity to respond and discLss the County's intended action. Type Contracts/Exh I - p. 2 Contr~:cting Principles 7/19/99 2 EXHIBIT DECLARATIOI'-,I OF CONTRACTOR (to be completed by all Type I or Type II contractors) Ix] This is a Type I service contract under the Board of Supervisor's Resolution on- Contracting Principles. If this box is checked, please complete the following: Type I Category: Section II C.6 Explanation: Contract with other public agencies. H [] This is a Type II contract under the Board of Supervisor's Resolution on Contracting Principles. To be completed by Contractor: The contractor currently has other County Contracts for the same or similar services: [] Yes [] No If Yes is checked, please list and describe contracts, types and dollar amounts. I am authorized to complete this form on behalf of (name of contracting entity). I have used due diligence in obtaining this information, and this information contained herein is complete and accurate. Signature: Name: Title: Contractor · Date: Contracts #3 Citv/County Contract CITY OF SARATOGA Urban County Housing Rehabilitation Services Exhibit I Description: The Santa Clara County Housing Rehabili.:ation program provides sen¢ices to the Cib/of Saratoga. The County shall provide all phases of housing rehabilitation including application processing, bid process, loan preparation, construction oversight anc loan ser¢icing. (See attached Santa Clara County Cooperative Housing Re~,abilita,.ion Prograrr Guidelines) Direct Se~ices: -_ i. Review client's application, verify that client's property is located in the approonate ;urisdiction and make a preliminary determination regarding income eligibility in -~, ..... ~.",'~' with most "',rrent income guidelines determined by Federal Depart, ment of Hcusing-and. Urban Development for Santa Clara County. ,_,,.,n,.r.u~ to verify application information, order credit report, and property profile or title re,3ort, schedule termite inspection and conduct an environmental review of the prope~y. 3. i,,_...-,,~+ oroperlv for conformance '*~' w~,, building, housing anc health codes: assist client :.n assessing and designing needed property improvements prepare a Project Cost Esdmate (scope of work) detailing the proposed work items and cost estimates. -'. Schedule and meet with a Loan Review Committee to discuss client's application, ;ncome status and proposed work scope. Advise client of the final decision regarding approval/disapproval and loan terms. (See attached Santa Clara County Housing And Community Development Loan Committee Policies and Procedures) 5. Invite contractors to submit written bids based on approved scope of work. Review bids with client and assist client in selecting the responsible bidder who submits the lowest price bid. Verify that selected bidder complies with all insurance, licensing and bond requirements. 6: Prepare all-loan documents for signature and recordation as appropriate such as De~dS--- - of Trust. Promissory Notes, Notices of Right to Cancel. Truth in Lending Disclosure Statements, Requests for Notice and Owner Participation Agreements. 7. Assist client in finalizing construction contract documents and authorize ,.,..,,,mv.,cem~n,. of work. Inspect construction work in progress for compliance w~tn project specifications and all applicable codes and ordinances. Authorize change orders and progress payments to contractor. 8. Perform final inspection and authorize final payment to contractor after recei2t cf finaled building permit, mechanic's lien releases, contractor's affidavit, any appiicab!e warranties cr guarantees, and manufacturer's informational materials. Record Notice of Completion. After 35 days from date of recordation, verify that there are no unreleased recorded mechanic's liens and release the 10% retention to the contractor. Provide client with a Housing Rehabilitation Evaluation QUestionnaire for~.,.,m~.,ut,o,"'" '-'~: "', anc return to the County Program Manager. ! 0. Maintain "'~;'-'-' "' ,.,,~,L me: ensure client's ongoing adherence to hazard insurance requirements; ;,ssue final letter to client documenting all rehab, costs, change orders and final loan amount. 1 i. Address any warranty or guarantee claims issues. 2. P'~,,;~'-' City with , .;*'^ , ,.~,~.. Yv, ,,~n quarterly Housing Rehabilitation Program Senzices reoort, s ':c!udinc financial and project data. "-' ^ I i - ,~l, 'proqram income" aenerated from loan '-' , '-".-' ' ~,a¢,~t,s shall be deposited. -,"'-"-' ¢ ' ,-. ~ . . ~,..,.,,~u nLa for amc: tracked individually for eacn jurisdiction and shall fund future housing -~' ~' "'~': ~nctg~l,~uOn .~,..,~e~ only in such iur',sdiction. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY OF SARATOGA 1. Distribute Housing Rehabilitation Brochures or flyers to various locations frequented by ,h~ general public. 2. Publish an advertisement in at least four times annually informing the residents of the existence of the Housing Rehabilitation Program basic eligibility requirements and how to contact the program. 3. Run a public service advertisement on the local public: access television station at least twice annually describing the Housing. Rehabilitation Program. 4. Refer all call in or walk in clients seeking home improvement assistance tc the Housing Rehabii'tation Program. 5. Make a lump sum transfer of 590,999.41. from the revolving housing rehabilitation !can fund to ':he SanTa Clara Co. Housing Rehabilitation Program to be applied to project costs for four (4) projeCts. _ 6. Transfer S 20,000.00 from City's CDBG funds to the County for Housing Rehabilitation Services for staff costs to complete four (4) projects. 7. if the agreed upon number of projects is exceeded, the city of Saratoga will transfer to the County S2.000.00 for any project completed from initial application through Ican committee review and an additional 53,000.00 for any project completed through project c!oseou-:. 8. In the event that Count' staff is required to exceed the prescribed responsibilities set forth herein such as litigation, arbitration, mediation or claim, the City of Saratoga shall compensate the County for staff work at the rate of 560.00 per hour per staff member. FY 2000-2001 FY 1999-2000 CDBG funding amoun~ client Total program budget CDB,2 as of total 520,000.00 4 S5,000.00 520,000.00 S15.u00.u0 3 S5,000.00 00% (proj.) $15,000.00 100% (act.) SANTA CLARA COUNTY COOPERATIVE HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES INITIAL APPLICATION ,,_. or deliver application packet to properly owner with explanation of basic program objectives and procedures ~see attached Guidelines). , .~-,:e,.~ c',len~ application ...,,d verify nousenoid ;ncome househoic size , a,,~,~icant's age, credit history, and other ;n'ormation cenaining to loan processing. ,~'~+~;" aooiicant's -,,t', .... ¢.u,r,or,zat~on to gather financ',ai :,~:or.ma:ion. and or-:er Credi; retort. :' ' -,,~,,i:nc ~.ontlnue a,qc ei:g,.oiiltv seems ,., acplicant is";"' ~ to ~ ' ........ ![;<e,.~i, order or~i!mlF,,ar'-i u, e ,~.~or:.. · . '._;,.,,*BL: DOCUMENTS · ^'""' '""~+;'""' ~'or,~, · ~,,-,,,~r,7=, An Form · .~ecuest =or '.~format;on Form · i-~fcr.m.a~.ionai ~rochures · --_."vironme~ta~ Review F:rm II. INITIAL INSPECTION bleet with propert, y owner, and inspect the property for conformance with building, housing, and health codes. Explain to property owner what type of repair work is e!igibie (ie.. Health and Safety Items), and what type is considered General Property Improvements. Termite inspection reoort will be incorporated into the work write-up. Based on i-,.;-; . ' ,~ ,,,,,,~, ~nsoection, .order deS;dh worK. engineer:n~ work. or additional professional i ?,-,~t; ns." -. ns,~.....,,o iT necessar'/. Prepare Work write-u3 :,nciuding specifications anc_: orel,,,,,narv cost -"stimates. III. IV. PREPARATION OF CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS :,s, and cost estima:es A,~r approval of preliminary Spec ~; * 3v property owner, prepare final specifications. Expiain ~',~,-"~',~,~,,..,.,,,,= .grocedures to property owner. LOAN PROCESSING Take project information to loan committee members for their review and approval. inform-applicant of approval or denial and exact conc:,tions anC terms of renabiiitation !pan. BIDDING PROCEDURES Preoare contrac.tor's bid package and send it to appropriate number of contractors from list of aooroved Didders. , ,-,. ~,-, ~' ,,,~y meet the A~,o.,~v~a bidders have demonstrated that '~'^ " :o,~o,,~ng rain:mum program requirements: Liability insurance; Workers Compensation insurance; Contractor's license currently in good standing; Proof of solvency; References checked for related work. Establish bidding period and bid due date/time. Mail b, id invitations and packages to contractors. VI. {'usually one week) r.,-, t-~ ',',-. wii! tO . . ...~n., ~c .... be calling make a¢oointments for site inspections; or, in oases of u.u,~_,,:, u .... u,o w,;o need asslstance, an open house --- scnecu!ed for a divert afternoon and contrac;ors are ~.~,,~,,~.~-""'*'"-.~ site inspection at :i,a~" * time only. H ~';" ~"' at ' ' ,.. .u,~..,~d ooeninq~ ore-de;ermined t~me. date. acc ..~¢,.c+; ~' Review bids for ¢rocram ~'"."'" -,~,--'- ' ' ' , ~ ~,.~,,,¢lia, ,.~ and matnema-'.ica, accuracy. Feview responsible, bids with property owner =nc- ' con.tractor' is seiected by owner. Prcoe~y owner is a!lowed :o choose =,../ bid which .s w~th~n a 10=.':: range of Rehab~ b.~ec:~,s, ~ =~rim.=t~ or J,¢, ',owest bidder. ' AP~L'.C.-' BL-- 3CCUMEN--.. S · '~* ........ ~ :o Bi~cers · Bic Document · Work '~;'~'~,,,,._-¢~,'," with --s;:.m..ates ·Bicoer's ...... ~ ual;.,".cst;o rt.s LOAN CLOSING Procare ',can documents ~'~ ' on u.--sec accepted bid amount. ,..~.;,,,.~e,,c/ amount., design costs, ,,;,*o",-",,-*;,~n:o~=,..,,,,.. costs, a2ora!sa! costs, title fees. and other necessary costs. Obtain property owner's iht, rials on Joan fact sheet. Prepare contract between property owner and contractor based on accepted bid amount. Contract includes total construction costs and projected dates for beginning and end of construction. Meet with property owner for signing of loan documents. Concurrently, contractor signs construction contract and any other relevant documents. =.-..,-.,-,r,~ appropriate cocuments aha' issue no~.,..=';'-'~ to D[oceed to '-' ,-,.t,- * r ,.,0, ,,~ ~CLO, . '.-:olc. ,, ,.ecessary, a ~"~ ~'~' .... +' " ~,,--,.,,ns~, uc.Io,, conferen~.e 2rooertv owner and "'-. :r-,-, . - : - ,.,un,, =,.,,o, oresent az work size. · Deed of Trust · ~ tO...~q, ls S C r,./ · T;u[h in Lencing Statemen'. · Right cf Resclssion · Aadenda · St.=-[ement of [nformado'.n VII. CONSTRUCTION MONITORING Make twice week!v, or more often si~e vis,~s ~' to ensure :erform :he following services ~ necessary: a~d contractor: Execute wr;.~en change otters when applicable' prOceSs Contractor's payment requests' ' "-"*~' ' w,,.,, owner, as · - Cu-c:.u;orlze 3avments ';*~' : '- 'a'pplicab!e' Perform final inspection and oreoare "punch list" as applicable; 6. Obtain copy of signed final building permit; Obtain and record notice of completion, signed by property owner. APPLICABLE DOCUMEN'TS · Con.tract Awar-~ · Contract Agreement ·Leac =ase .-a;nt · Notice To Proceed · .:rogress Payment Recuest · Change Orders · Fina¢ inscection Report PROJECT CLOSEOUT Ob~=~n-"-~: :'*.i=n r,-,ieases from ,"",.'-'-~,-+,-,. for suocon::ac:ors and ..materiai suppliers. ~ev:ew ~,~un,y Recorders records for any .~.*~':', ,_,,_,, ,~L, ,., C L,,.,rq '"ia:ed '.lens =;t=,-,m,-,,-, to Assist owner :n obtaininc any warranty or ~,..~,,=,,,o or mate als. ,rom contractor. .is~,'~__ fina! .... payment tc contractor after a:l ._.,~,,,..,,.,,~,:~""'~a>'"'~._ are me~ and a,,~,-,,,o~..,- waitinq Deriod has -, . ~..,.-,,~, ,,....,.,~ ~ . ,, ~X,..,,I ~. Wai;:,'"",,~ .oeriod is 35 Ca,/s. ~,....-=f~'"r n,-.ti-..-....,~.., of como[etlon :~ 'ecorded. .'-Ja;i Prciect Evaluation for,m to prope.~y "~, .... :...~',~¢'; ~2;; . · Notice cf Ccmoletion · Ce.rtificate o: Final insoectior. · Lien P.e~ease Forms ·Rccf *,-C -'""--' ' _.. ,..,,:=, Warran:~es · ~.,o..'t. traotors Aff~davit · Proiect Evaluation Form SANTA CLARA COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN COMMITTEE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES purpose The --,'-~.."-s~ of =h~ San:a Ci~-~ ~ ...... mousina .=,~ :mCD)- ' Loan Committee :,~ to ~:~=~'-~,'*~= '.oan a~[icaticns. . and a~prove, ~oar. :er.ms for ~-~:~ ~h== have :~ ~-~---; ~ by ' Hous:,n~ and ~eveto::menr Committee Objectives .:im. eiv manner. Assure that =:1 io~r,~ -~,~,-a .~,4 are in ' "_ ....... a_~,,.~%~, cc, n~ormance ",V:.E~'. ail 7~=-~: State, or ioc~: -'~-";- ~ ~"~ ' C,-,mm;~teo Membershiv and Terms of Service ......... ~_e_ ts) L_ou:-:t'7 star.- aggoin:ed ;'" -x-,._..,.,-~ -.x~.~ i~ no 1;..i~ ' ' " ~,.~ ~,.~_..,,-, ...... the .................. ,iT..~ -'.0 the /ep.~.?.z of teF, ure :.D. "¼~ '-,,'~;-;m :r..e_T, bers serve a: the -q:.~--~,;a~..-~: the Coun,w .'=x~--,;;','e T'~ desired .~..~ ....................... x ......e for .- ~ '~-- --m.; --- ~o ~ ~ ,"~ L' ~ ~' c, L' '.' '-' ..... ~ ' ............. K:.o~ ..e,..o,. of i-,~ze.'-a, State, or rea:_~sta:~ transactions. Committee btafttng ::~' "- -',. ,_ _~ s:aff 7rovides i-',e¼.~.-.',*~].l ..... assistance and staff suvuort to 'the Loan '- I ] ' c;. -'~-'c HCD sta:z support members are :he HCD P:'ograrr, Manager and Housing Rehabiiitation Coordmator. Other HCD s~a£f orovide additional committee suaaort as neectec. -!- Stevs To Review Loan Applications Ev-~,,~"~ the ~,~ ~h; ,~o~- presented on assure :he appro?riate use of funds. the loan a.~z'-:icat!on and ~_o ...... ,on~ for i,- uni.-rn-'-'n''~-~'~ County. C:.tv :-~ ,'--,~,-i~,--, City of Los '" -- ~' ...... ~', ?.hiS, 7'OW.-, ,n? ~ - ~..'tos, Yown of Los Altos Ga:os and C'kv of Saratoga. :,.~ :,_~ .... ~...r,~¥~ !oan suoorclna::or, a§reements . ~a .... anc interest rate~. W'--e~- aF?ropriate, rnake recomm, endations to ;h~ Santa Clara County Board ,of Suler;'!sors for final approval of loan :ransac.:!ons. Meetin§s Committee Chairperson .-..e.--...be:sh:.z. C'_'::entiv. ine chair.-_.e:scn's term. :~. Committee Decision Makin§ Process cannot be ............. -eached b;- con~en~u~ t:-.= Loan. C.~,rrt: .... ,~ w:.,: ,_=~:,,~ .... :ssue bv ma:.czi:;' vote. ~.ommlt~ee Documentation Rezular '"'; ....~- will b~ '-~-;."-~4'-,~ ~e~,-di~-_~ .... ......... ~ the ac:ions or each aoap. C~mm meerinz. HCD szaff will b~ -= m~-ihi~ ' - ~ _ ~S~u.,~_. .~ nor transcribing and ty~:ng n,e ~ min~:e~ and distributing them to CTe Loan Committee members and ail ,uris:ic:!ons. Tke Chairperson will approve ail actions approved during a Loan Commi::ee meeting by ' ~ a .. m~,,.,~ co~v of the a~proved mLnutes. Basic Lqan Policies l ..-,:,' ~' ]oar,. -a.up]icatior,.s~ ar'.c recuests ,,~,: considered or', a ...~.a,'¢~-r,".'~p :-~ ,~ .... ~, ;+i - :i]i be considered ~' cases of ~irst-serve basis. ,.o~,.',e ...... .r,,ea v~ ...... :-~-: or .... =.-, ,' as defined ¼v each fund!.n¢ source .... .'<~__ mc!uaes factors such as income, ~ and ~'hvsicai co.--..aznon of r:~n~ overcrow~tn~ -~ ~ ~xi~-;~ heahh or 5a~e:v ~ssue~. Urgency ' ' -- :hat -~ -t~ = serious health or safety ~krea:. induces any ra~or r~ep,.- ~ ~ The Loan C.~..~:m .... '.viii .o,,'ow basic runmn~ source (CDBG. Loans. banswin'" '~e distributed in a manner assurln¢ 100% iow income ~,~o. ' , ' '~o, ~2 ~ ..... o or County median income) or very '.ow income ~_~' o ~;;~= income) he=e;~ = -~+ where the fundin~ CALDAP) instructs ~' ~ "~ ':-' ~:.oans to homeowners for sin e ~amnv residential :-=h:'-,:~.~.,~:,,~-~., :::.e. -.znLncor~orated county, City of Cupertino. Ciw o~ Los Altos, lown. Los Ai+o~ .... '~.,:,% .... 7.,, .... of Los Gatos =~d~: City ~: c~~ will be awarcez as shown on ~ artacneG Housin~ Rena~h:.atlon ~o=:~ u,_.~, .... ~ .... ~ chart The ~oa~ can . deferred a~ ~ ~o or ..... ~-~--~o rate APR} or amort:ze~ at U% ~ ~,o zne zenith of the O:her loans such ~- loans to Nor.-Prof4~ for acsuisition and re2.,a~,illla~iorl or ap~ exist::-.~ s:ructure for r%~ suruose .-r =rc=~m5 ,,.r .~4~ %Vlii ~-0~ a spec!nc amount ..... ~.. ~n:ess a case rot an excepnon esr be made. ~h=:~oa~., t~r.z.S= ~- %viii be ~% APR :: the loan '~ deferred ant s--o if me roan ,~ amornzea. ~ne u,~e~s exception is necessary to Ail loans, be [: acauisition and rehabilitation, ne,*' construction, or accu~sx.t:on on!y, anal., De susmattea to the Loan Committee :or review. The Loan Committee has the option to establish the terms of the loan or to -"~' -~ ~ that the ='-'-';' ~ ' grant from the Board of ~.,..mm~nG _Fk,lc.~nt recuest a Supervisors. irc.~oi & pro.9/13/g6 3 [=-'7- CiTY OF SARATOGA Scr.'-'to~ F[ous~.z -~s~;s--~'-c~ ~nd ~en~m.','~'i~ Program Income ~nd,n~e.~s~ .... Char; based on C~u~.' ~-'~-";' ,' z. ~., .... ..:_0.--.~, V£RY LOW ,zx, COMr_ ..'u'-c uu~i ~R -L',,'C0.¥[£ ' .4.1,10 f..'.VT As ."4e~ded 0% interes.: deleted ..... s:.~,I ................. s, ch~mSA- l SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works PREPARED BY: ~ (~_~x~.~ AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: SUBJECT: Citywide Pavement Condition Update and Approval of Cooperative Agreement with the City of Cupertino for Prospect Road Paving RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): 1. Accept Citywide Pavement Condition Report 2. Authorize City Manager to execute a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Cupertino for Prospect Road Paving from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to Union Pacific Railroad Crossing. REPORT SUMMARY: 1. Citywide Pavement Condition Update In February, Council approved a consultant contract with Harris & Associates for a condition inspection update of the City's pavement system, which included a transfer of the City's current Pavement Management System (PMS) to the widely utilized Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) PMS database. A PMS database systematically recommends various maintenance treatments for all publicly maintained streets in the City. The program is built upon a model, which assumes standard pavement performance characteristics for various street classifications over time, and which attempts to extend the life of a street before reconstruction is needed to approximately 100 years. By carrying out the recommended maintenance treatments the City will, over time, reduce its annual pavement maintenance costs. Attached to this report is the final draft report of City's pavement system, prepared by Hams & Associates. The report provides information on the City's current pavement network inventory; current network conditions, maintenance recommendations, and budget scenarios. I am pleased to report that the current overall condition of the City's streets is rated "Very Good" corresponding to an average Pavement Condition Index of 70 on a 100-point scale. Please refer to the executive summary of the attached final report for detailed information regarding recommended street maintenance funding levels over the next ten years. 2. Cooperative Agreement with the City of Cupertino for Prospect Road Paving from Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road to Union Pacific Railroad Crossing Recently the City of Cupertino approached the City with a proposal to enter into a cooperative agreement in connection with paving work on Prospect Road along our shared city limit line (the City shares a common boarder along the centerline of Prospect Road between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and the Union Pacific Raikoad Crossing with the City of Cupertino). A detailed project scope is included in the attached cooperative agreement for your information. The estimate for this work is $125,150. Cooperative agreements of this kind have been executed between the City and its neighbors occasionally through the years. The most recent cooperative agreement was executed around 1992 with the City of San Jose when Saratoga performed a paving project along the shared section of Prospect Road. Joint city paving projects benefit both jurisdictions by normalizing the pavement condition of the commonly shared road. The City of Cupertino is in the process of bidding this work, and work should begin in August. This section of Prospect Road was scheduled for paving in this year's Pavement Management Program, so the work will not impact the pavement management program schedule or budget. FISCAL IMPACTS: The adopted budget contains sufficient funds to cover the expenditures associated with the cooperative agreement in Activity 3005 (Street Maintenance) o Account No. 4010 (Contract Services). CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The report would not be accepted and the upcoming Pavement Management Project would be delayed. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): A list of City streets will be generated for inclusion in this year's Pavement Management Program. Staff will solicit bids and submit a construction contract to the Council on September 5. 2 of 3 ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. PMP Condition Report. 2. Cooperative Agreement between Saratoga and Cupertino. 3 of 3 City of Saratoga Citywide Pavement Management System Draft Final Report - July 12, 2001 Page i Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Pavement Management System (PMS) for the City of Saratoga provides a current pavement network inventory, current network conditions, maintenance recommendations, and a forecasting of the budget needs and funding scenario impact. Limits of Study It must be recognized that this report is limited to existing pavement repairs. It does not include existing deficiencies for right-of-way concrete sidewalks, curb & gutter, drainage, trees, bus pads and non-structural improvements such as decorative crosswalks, medians, lighting and street furniture. Costs for these right-of-way repairs and improvements throughout the City would easily exceed the deferred maintenance costs identified in this report and can be identified and estimated separately in future reports. The following recommendations generated by the Pavement Management System are fo__rr planning purposes only. The resulting general recommendations are not intended to replace sound engineering judgemevt, which should dictate specific needs for an individual project. Final work program recommendations should be based on a combination of the system's recommendations weighed against the City's preferences, budget constraints, and other contributing factors. In addition, further refinements may be warranted from an engineering staff review of the pavement condition. For example, a particular pavement section may require treatment earlier (or later) than the rest of the roads in its localized area. Quantity of pavement & replacement value The pavement network' within the City of Saratoga has approximately 135.2 centerline~ miles of paved surfaces. The network is composed of approximately 92.6 miles of residential streets, 23.3 miles of collector streets, and 19.3 miles of arterial streets. The estimated reconstruction cost of the City's asphalt concrete pavement is approXimately $44 million for residential streets, $10.9 million for 'collector streets, $14.2 million for arterial streets and $4.8 for other pavement (a total of almost $69 million). Condition of Saratoga's Street Asphalt Pavement The overall condition of the City of Saratoga's street pavement is rated in the lower range of "Very Good". The City's average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is 70 on a 100-point scale, with 100 being a new street. PCI's for the City's pavement network are based on a distress rating calculated by an algorithm the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Bay Area modified from algorithms the Army Corps of Engineers developed. Saratoga's average PCI condition value by street classification is as follows: * Note: PCI weighted by area. CLASSIFICATION PCI* Arterial 72 Collector 67 Residential 70 TOTAL NETWORK 70 I All miles reported and referred to in this report are centerline miles. City of Saratoga Citywide Pavement Management System Draft Final Report - July 12, 2001 Page ii Executive Summary The maintenance strategy for the City of Saratoga described below is based on PCI scores and the corresponding condition category. Streets with scores from 70 to 100 are considered "Very Good", but may require a crack seal, a slurry seal or a thin overlay. Streets with scores from 50 :~'~::::~'-~'~-¥-0"-(~i) ai:~-~'6h~-i~-~-'"Go0d" and generally-r-~-~iiii~6h- thin ~x;-erlay. Streets with scores from 26 to 49 are considered "Poor" and typically require a thick overlay.. Streets with scores below 26 are "Very Poor" and need surface reconstruction. in the present condition, about 0.9% of-the City's pavement network area is in need of structural reconstruction. Budget Analysis Using the treatment strategy described above, an inflation rate of 4%, and an interest rate of 6%,' the MTC PMS software generates a Budget Needs analysis. The Budget Needs analysis projects the total budget needed to bring the City's pavement network to an optimal condition where most pavement sections require only minor preventative maintenance. The difference between the interest rate and the inflation rate help to determine the cost effectiveness of the recommended treatments. Budget Needs dete:Xnined a ten-year total need of approximately $25.7 million (about $2.57 million/year) for the years 2001 to 2010 (see Section IV-A for the Budget Needs Cost Summary). After Budget Needs, Budget Scenarios are run to determine the funding levels required to maintain and/or improve the current level of overall condition and generate a work program for the next ten (10) years based upon actual road pavement conditions. For the city of Saratoga, a projected budget of $1.35 million for the first year, $1.4 million for the second year, and $650,000 for the remaining eight years was assumed. Budget Analysis Results At the City's base funding level described above, the overall network condition declines from a 72 PCI in the year 2001 to a 65 PCI in the year 20010 (PCI scores after suggested treatments applied). The backlog of deferred maintenance, valued at approximately $I0.5 million in the year 2001, increases to about $20.4 million in the year 2010. The City's projected budget was compared against four (4) other annual budget scenarios ($1.0 million, $1.5 million, $2.5 million, and the needs average ($2.6 million)). The Budget Scenario analysis Shows that the $1.5 million annual budget level is required to maintain the overall network PCI and maintain the current level of deferred maintenance. Scenario charts showing the impact of different budgets on network condition and deferred backlog over a ten-year period can be found in Sections IV-B and IV-C. Cost and network summaries can be found in Section IV-D. Annual Budget Projections The budgeting process was approached with the following in mind: generate a work program for the next ten (10) years based upon actual road pavement conditions and determine the funding levels required to maintain and/or improve the current level of overall condition. Based on current and projected pavement maintenance needs, annual work program alternatives City of Saratoga Citywide Pavement Management System Draft Final Report - July 12, 2001 Page iii Executive Summary have been prepared. Table 1 on the following pages shows the projected ten-year work program cost totals along with the expected deferred maintenance costs for each year, for each of the five budget scenarios. lO-Year Projected Work Program Budgets Table 1 Year Pr~ec ted Budget Rehabilitation Work Prevent. Maint. Work Budget Program Program De~rred I $1,350,000 $930,550 $418,493 $10,485,267 2 $1,400,000 $965,060 $434,513 $10,201,241 3 $650,000 $447,620 $202,373 $12,895,334 4 $650,000 $448,347 $200,689 $13,817,763 5 $650,000 $448,150 $200,968 $14,554,969 6 $650,000 $447,987 $201,446 $15,177,307 7 $650,000 $442,691 $206,947 $16,069,609 8 $650,000 $447,642 $202,152 $17,120,518 9 $650,000 $444,067 $205,655 $19,607,267 10 $650,000 $447,027 $202,708 $20,408,601 Annual Avg. $940,000 $647,945 $331,696 $12,390,915 Year $1.0 Million Rehabilitation Prevent. Maint. Budget Work Program Work Program Deferred i $1,000,000 $688,685 $309,936 $10,835,689 2 $1,000,000 $688,371 $309,943 $10,966,938 3 $1,000,000 $689,551 $309,521 $13,057,342 4 $1,000,000 $688,986 $309,942 $13,837,669 5 $1,000,000 $687,248 $309,591 $14,281,402 6 $1,000,000 $389,660 $308,750 $14,924,206 7 $1,000,000 $384,977 $309,854 $15,618,876 8 $1,000,000 $687,194 $309,709 $16,095,836 9 $1,000,000 $388,938 $309,982 $17,246,992 10 $1,000,000 $686,711 $309,406 $17,764,803 Annual Avg. $1,000,000 $688,568 $309,787 $12,595,808 City of Saratoga Citywide Pavement Management System Draft Final Report - July 12, 2001 Page iv Executive Summary Year $1.5 Million Rehabilitation Work Prevent. Maint. Work Budget Program Program Deferred I $1,500,000 $1,033,538 $464,704 $10,336,068 2 $1,500,000 $1,034,906 $464,489 $9,975,464 3 $1,500,000 $1,034,540 $29 $11,806,739 4 $1,500,000 $1,033,834 $464,768 $11,844,569 5 $1,500,000 $1,034,103 $463,762 $1'1,895,109 6 $1,500,000 $1,030,852 $464,796 $11,422,642 7 $1,500,000 $1,033,103 $450,572 $ l 1,592,447 8 $1,500,000 $1,028,898 $464,592 $12;194,786 9 $1,500,000 $1,032,477 $464,699 $13,478,127 10 $1,500,000 $1,030,795 $463,849 $13,575,679 Annual Avg. $1,500,000 $1,034,184 $371,550 $11,171,590 Year $2.0 Million Rehabilitation Work Prevent. Maint. Work Budget Program Program Deferred I $2,000,000 $1,379,519 $619,621 $9,835, i 70 2 $2,000,000 $1,375,902 $503,718 $8,993,245 3 $2,000,000 $1,379,463 $ 619,606 $10,153,977 4 $2,000,000 $1,378,609 $614,004 $9,636,994 5 $2,000,000 $1,376,380 $607,038 $10,103,518 6 $2,000,000 $1,378,262 $244,871 $9,388,981 7 $2,000,000 $1,373,806 $214,534 $9,352,442 8 $2,000,000 $1,374,153 $618,705 $9,579,552 9 $2,000,000 $1,366,795 $619,799 $10,293,048 l0 $2,000,000 $1,378,519 $618,644 $9,740,854 Annual Avg. $2,000,000 $1,377,975 $ 592,797 $9,744,581 Year Needs Averai~e Bud~;et Rehabilitation Work Prevent. Maint. Work Budget Program Program Deferred I $2,570,787 $1,769.503 $800,924 $9,263,883 2 $2,570,787 $1,769,176 $323,220 $8,282,946 3 $2,570,787 $1.770,917 $798,927 $9,162,871 4 $2,570,787 $1,765,137 $799.856 $8,034,901 5 $2,570,787 $1,769,767 $341,088 $8,123,286 ....... 6_____ $2,570,787 $1,770,330 $118,900 $7,063,579 7 $2,570,787 $1,771,970 $215,672 $6,464,853 8 $2,570,787 $1,763.110 $807,295 $6,207,704 9 $2,570,787 $1,770,1 I 1 $799,894 $5,252,154 10 $2,570,787 $1,772,488 $797,889 $4,201,946 Annual Avg. $2,570,787. $1,768,900 $612,803 $8,573,577 All work program budgets generated use 6% interest and 4% inflation. City of Saratoga Citywide Pavement Management System Draft Final Report - Jul), 12, 2001 Page v Executive Summary Recommended maintenance program and costs To rea!izg..th_.:~:.maX~__ imum net b.~pefit and to reduce the long term costs, preventative maintenance on streets with above a~age .PCI ratings ~mus~--~¢ considered in combination with the more extensive rehabilitation of failing streets. The strategies herein were developed to provide alternatives for halting the deterioration of the existing pavement, reducing the backlog of street maintenance work over the next five yearsi and improving the overall condition of the roadway network. These strategies generally involve the utilization of crack sealing, slurry seals, cape seals and pavement overlays with base repair as maintenance components. Future roadway maintenance plans for the City of Saratoga should be based on the general maintenance strategies developed from this pavement system analysis in combination with other major contributing factors such as utility coordination, grouping of projects by geographical proximity, and safety considerations. CITY OF SARATOGA Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) by Annual Funding Level 90 85 x 80 · ~ 75 fi 70 65 60 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Analysis Year. 2008 2009 2010 --e-- Projected Budget ---m--$1.0 Million Annual Budget · $1.5 Million Annual Budget -~--$2.0 Million Annual Budget ~( Needs Level Budget CITY OF SARATOGA Deferred Maintenance Cost Trend by Annual Funding Level $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,00,0 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 ' $0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Analysis year Projected Budget ----$1.0 Million Annual Budget $1.5 Million Annual Budget $2.0 Million Annual Budget Needs Level Budget