Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-1999 Staff Reports SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 1 A MEETING DATE June 2, 1999 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager PREPARED BY: David Russell SUBJECT: Saratoga Creek Settlement Agreement Monthly Report RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Receive report. REPORT SUMMARY: See attached. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: N/A ATTACHMENTS: as stated MEMORANDUM TO: Saratoga City Council CC: Larry Perlin Irene Jacobs FROM: David Russell, Management Intern 1 • DATE: May 28, 1999 SUBJECT: Saratoga Creek Settlement Agreement Monthly Report Attached please find the first monthly report on the status of the Saratoga Creek Settlement Agreement. Date: May 26, 1999 To: Saratoga City Council From: David Russell, Management Intern City Manager's Office Subject: Saratoga Creek Settlement Agreement Monthly Report SUMMARY City staff is at present completing the tasks as outlined in the Saratoga Creek Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement. A monthly report will be submitted to this body with the latest developments and lab results in order that you may be updated on the progress of the project and be aware of the policies that are being designed by City staff to implement the Settlement Agreement. Progress in all of the designated areas will be noted in this initial report. Future reports will include only developments that occurred in the pervious month. Some of the items outlined in the agreement have already been incorporated into the policy of the City while others are in development stages to be completed as soon as effective implementation can be achieved. No-dumping Stencils The stenciling required by the Creek Agreement has at this time been completed by the Public Works Department. As reported in the May 19 edition of the Saratoga News, the project took place May 7 through May 10. These stencils included a "No Dumping, Flows to Saratoga Creek" message along with the Saratoga Fire District's Hot-line number available to receive reports of illegal dumping into storm drains. The Acting Public Works Director has also said the City has painted storm drain warning stencils on several commercial properties in the Village. This action should demonstrate a good faith effort on the part of the City to meet this obligation. Warning Signs Under this section of the agreement, the City has agreed to replace water pollution warning signs currently along the banks of the creek as well as installing new storm drain outlet warning signs. The target audience for both types of these signs will be as young as possible, relying on symbols as well as text. Water pollution signs are currently being developed by staff. A prototype has been sent to Friends of Santa Clara Creeks for their review. A private firm will be creating the signs; they will be installed in-house. Pollution Signs are to be placed in areas of easy water access by children such as Wild Wood Park and by school yards. These signs should be installed in early July. The Storm Drain Warning signs will be similar in style and context to the pollution warning signs. Staff will determine the number of signs needed and placement thereof. Special attention will be given to sign placement near private properties to insure minimal impact. These too will be installed in early July. Water Quality Testing Cooperation with the Santa Clara Valley Water District will enable the City to perform the required sampling and testing of the four prescribed areas at a minimal cost while maintaining high quality. Results on samples will be included in following reports along with a comparison to EPA standards. The first sampling will take place in June. Storm Drain Maps The West Valley Sanitation District is currently undertaking a GIS mapping project using base maps created by a local firm. To these base maps, WVSD has been adding sewer line and storm drain information for their operations. These maps meet the requirements of the settlement agreement and will be valuable data for the City to possess. All field work has been completed for the project, editing however is still in progress. The Sanitation District was unable at this time to offer a sample for this report as the head engineer has been on vacation. A sample of the maps will be included in the July report. Discharge Response Plan (1) Fire Chief Ernie Kraule will assume the primary responsibility for responding to discharges into Saratoga Creek as noted in the Settlement agreement and as has been past practice. (2) All pertinent City employees are trained and fully understand discharge response obligations and procedures under the City's NPDES permit. Ongoing training will be conducted as warranted. (3) Personnel on call for such discharge response operations are trained and are indeed effective and efficient in their work. (4) Maps of the sewer system including storm drains, manholes, and outfalls are currently being developed by the West Valley Sanitation District as noted above. These maps will be made available to all field staff for emergency discharge response. (5) Emergency discharge response plans are executable at all times including holidays, weekends, and after normal operating hours. (6) Best management practices for construction activities have been developed and are incorporated into standard construction site inspections. Forms for documenting inspections are being developed. (7) A protocol for weekly inspections of the garbage enclosure areas within the four parking districts in the Village is being developed by staff. This process 2 will be executed by code enforcement staff; documentation will be kept by means of an inspector checklist. (8) An initial advertisement in the Saratoga News will be placed including the City's discharge plan and including the Fire Department's phone number as well as 911. Future annual inserts may be placed in refuse bills, but this needs to be determined. Memos to the switchboard receptionist and the City Manager's secretary at City Hall have been issued instructing them of the proper response procedures for handling reported creek discharges. (9) City ordinance already assures investigators and other public officials access to storm drain inlets on private property. City officials are informed of legal requirements in order to gain this access to the aforementioned property. Storm Drain Sag Repair Prior to the settlement agreement, the Fourth Street Bridge was scheduled to be the next bridge replacement Project by the City. With this plan still in place, the Fourth Street storm drain line will be repaired during the bridge construction project. Work on this project will commence as soon as the Quito Road bridge project is complete. Pending voter approval of a bond measure to rebuild the Saratoga Fire Station, the storm drain sag in front of the fire station will be repaired during the construction of the new facility. The West Valley Sanitation District is currently under contract with the City to clean all storm drain lines every other year. Under settlement agreement term, the two storm drain sags are to be cleaned at least annually until the time of their repair. By request of City staff, the two storm drain sags in question were cleaned on May 26,1999. An official request has been sent to the Sanitation District for another cleaning to occur in August. Non-Stormwater Effluent outfall at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road The City is currently in the process of determining the source of the high fecal coliform bacteria levels emanating from the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road storm drain outfall. By sampling several locations along the storm drain line, plaintiffs hope the City will be able to locate the source of this pollution. Several series of samples have been taken and examined by two labs to ensure accurate results. If test results fail to meet the effluent standards outlined in the settlement agreement by August 1, 1999, a consultant will be hired to aid the City in developing a resolution to the overall problem. Septic System Phase-out A new Ordinance requiring the phase-out of septic systems was approved at the May 19th meeting of the City Council. 3 Attorneys' Fees and Costs As specified in the Settlement Agreement, the payment of Attorney's fees is divided into three installments. The first of these payments was made to plaintiffs on the execution of the settlement agreement. The second payment is scheduled for July 1, 1999. The final payment is to be made at the beginning of the next fiscal year; July 1, 2000. 4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: 314(, AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: June 2, 1999 CITY MANAGER: Id ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Developm 'DEPT HEAD: AIL 0 Oa 11 i SUBJECT: Request from Hillbrook School in Los Gatos to waive the City of Saratoga's $200 Temporary Use Permit application fee for a one day "Kitchen Tour" to be held in Saratoga on October 15, 1999. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Deny the request. REPORT SUMMARY: The Saratoga Zoning Ordinance requires that a Temporary Use Permit be issued for special events held within residential zoning districts. These events are generally fundraising activities, and range from home tours to the St. Andrew's Celtic Faire to the Eastfield Ming Quong sponsored Strawberry Festival and the Rotary Club sponsored art show, both held at West Valley College. The objective of this discretionary permit is to ensure that the proposed activity is appropriate for the particular site and compatible with the neighborhood it is to be located in. The permit is also subject to the County Environmental Health, Sheriff and Fire Departments' review. If the event will be held less than 10 consecutive days, or less than 10 days within a 30 day period, it can be acted on by the Community Development Director subject to a $200 processing fee. If the activity exceeds this duration, it is acted on by the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing and subject to a $500 processing fee. Saratoga's development review fee schedule has been calculated to recover the staff time /costs expended reviewing and issuing Planning, Building and Engineering Division permits. The TUP fees were previously assessed at $500 and $1,500 to reflect the respective costs of processing the permits administratively and through the Planning Commission. For example, the San Jose Symphony Auxiliary's Showcase Home permit request required a publicly noticed hearing before the Planning Commission and considerable Planning and Code Enforcement staff involvement throughout the duration of the event. In short, the $1,500 fee collected for that particular application was certainly justified from a cost recovery standpoint. At the March and April 1998 City Council meetings, the Council heard requests to waive the TUP fees for three separate events; St. Andrew's Celtic Faire, the SJSA Showcase Home and the Farmers' Market held on Saturdays at the Saratoga High School. The Council denied these requests, but did ask staff to consider whether a fee distinction should be made between non profit organizations and commercial events. Of the approximately six events the City issues TUP's for annually, only the Farmers' Market would be considered a commercial activity. Rather then create a separate fee schedule for non profit versus commercial events, staff recommended simply considering a fee reduction for all TUP's. The City Council did subsequently reduce the TUP processing fees from $500 for administrative permits and $1,500 for Planning Commission permits to $200 and $500, respectively. This was a deliberate decision to deviate from the City's cost recovery policy for these particular applications, acknowledging that non profit fundraising activities are unique to the development review and permit entitlement process. As a result of reducing the fees, staff was directed to correspondingly alter how we process these permits to reduce the costs to the City. For example, rather than having the Planning staff be responsible for obtaining the various agency approvals that are required to issue the permit, the applicants were to be requested to provide these approval letters before the permit application was accepted. FISCAL IMPACTS: Negligible. The City receives approximately six TUP applications annually, and they are mostly processed administratively rarely requiring Planning Commission review and approval. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION: Fee would be waived and the City would not recover the cost of the service. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: None. Staff will process TUP application per Council decision on fee waiver request. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Hillbrook School dated April 30, 1999 requesting fee waiver 2 AI I, 4)'4 H ilb roolj 00 April30, 1999 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Susan Ramos, City clerk Re: Saratoga City Council Meeting, May 5, 1999 Dear Saratoga City Council Members: Hillbrook School is a non -profit 501(c)3 organization. We respectfully request that you waive the $200 fee for a temporary use permit. Please find attached Hillbrook's application for the permit and additional pertinent information. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, ilia(-4?)-K Sandra Williams Director of Development End of Marchmont Drive Los Gatos California 95032 (408) 356 -6116 FAX: (408) 358 -1286 APR -2? -1999 11:48 CITY OF SARATOGA/ADMIN. 408 86$ 1230 P.02'O:5„ a IMMIX Min mut Applicant's name: c1 •a 55 -N37 Applicant's address: 3 0. /A 01 fJ.! h. Name of Property Owners $PP Ci±taP led Address of Property Owner: P Ot&trheri. Address of Bits: 5afr r, _ct, Act ivities planed (including eases of goods, if any): tour �oo I umd.ruu seJr Days and hours of operation: lnar) Lf p Fr►'d a the I s' I q(39 Number of people involved in operation .vend t h 'St pJ FTh 4'C Number of people expected to attend the event: I 1 m i fed 11 O P S9. Is food to be served? Yes: No: •C what kind of and how served? `Ji AIL/ cck o I 'I l "114 i i it_. Number of sanita facilities existing si a (one le p lus one man's equals two (2) facilities) ;trim( as ad re on -site signs proposed h ��'Y11�C A 11or) All documents and saps submitted as required, become the property of the City of Saratoga and shall be submitted with this applica- tion ■O LUSH VOX %WRIT (3 0) DAYS sipoas Tun !toms= awl OF WE WNW. 1. Appropriate fees S O9 OO. UO 2. Appropriate letters of approval from the Fire District, Health epartment and Sheriff's Department (sae Section III, 3. Two (2) copies of site plan which shows the following: a. Designation of area to be occupied by use b. Existing structures and improvements, as well as pro- posed te*porsry structures c. Provision for off street parking d. Site location diagram APR -27-1999 1148 CITY RATOGA /ADM I N 408 86$ :280 P.02/D3 A �icant' 1 1 (Og 35(0 —6g37 pp name: ��J Applicant's address: O. I 110 1 W.1 I► base of Property Owner: 5 f E ail Address of Property Owner: P (2±b.d/ Address of Sits: 3Q, i f. ee Q. chD Ao ivitiss planned (including sa:.es of gopds, if any) i+chen. -1)4111- Scr1001 :tivn .r i5e Days and hours of operation: InarY) -1- 1 pm Friday, --obeir 6, Iggc Number of people involved in operation w e n t I C h I I, /J 111 j'6 Number of people expected to attend the event: I nirkd 110 Is food to be served? Yes: Na: s C What kind Of lood, and bow served? e 0 Sj/ /)I/ clii prov1 LeL-1-10.1.1- da os-fruutcort-t- Number of sanitaY facilities axistinq si s (one 's plus one man's equals two (2) facilities) Chas its e/ 0_ Are on site signs proposed h eS r 4411'1►'l none All documents and saps submitted as required, become the property of the City of Saratoga and shall be submitted with this applica- tion NO LAS TIM =MY (30) DAYS ssioas TU PROPOS= nATS Or TIE WM. 1. Appropriate fees l atCO.0) 2. Appropriate letters of approval from the Firs District, IS and dent and Sheriff's Department (see Section III, 3. Two (2) copies of site plan which shows the following: a. Designation of area to be occupied by use b. Sainting structures and improvements, as well as pro posed temporary structures o. Provision for off- street parking d. Site location diagram Hillbrook School is located at 300 Marchmont Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032. It is a non profit (Tax Payers I.D. No. 94-0382325), accredited, coeducational, independent day school for Junior Kindergarten through eighth grade students. Hillbrook's Kitchen Tour Co- Chairs are working under the guidance of the Belvedere- Hawthorne Nursery School which has hosted for 21 years the Tiburon and Belvedere Kitchen Tour. Hillbrook has also received information from a Kitchen Walk which has been held for 8 years outside of Chicago, and the Willow Glen Lifestyle home tour. Hillbrook's Kitchen Tour Information: Date: Friday, October 15, 1999 Time: 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM Location of Homes: Limiting the event, geographically, to the Highway 9 Saratoga corridor. see below Secured the date with La Hacienda Inn Restaurant (18840 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Los Gatos) as the main hub. La Hacienda Inn Restaurant will be used for event arrivals, parking, shuttle service departures, optional luncheon, public restrooms and event departures. Shuttle van service for attendees to and from the tour kitchens. Kitchen addresses /locations will not be available. No cars will be parked in the neighborhoods. Limited ticket sales to 1000 advance purchase. Hillbrook is providing docents in homes. Tour Kitchens (Property Owners and Addresses): 1. Jim Noel Castellanos Hillbrook Family 20950 Verde Vista Lane 2. Peter Karen Nose Hillbrook Family 14718 Aloha Avenue 3. Al Nancy Wokas 14703 Aloha Avenue 4. Jenniffer Jim Carrigan 19311 Monte Vista 5. Ken Teri Epsman Hillbrook Family 19141 Panorama Drive 6. Kevin Katie McLarney Hillbrook Family 19621 Juno Lane Questions can be directed to: Jenniffer Lewick at (408) 356 -0015 or Sheri Wolfgram (408) 559 -4225, Hillbrook Kitchen Tour Co- Chairs. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 17 AGENDA ITEM S8 MEETING DATE: JUNE 2, 1999 CITY MGR: AM' ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: 1 OFF SUBJECT: Final Map Approval for two lots located at 18630 Allendale Avenue, Owner: Voisinet. Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to adopt Resolution No. SD 98 -004 granting final map approval of Tentative Map Application No. SD 98 -004 for two lots located at 18630 Allendale Avenue. 2. Move to authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Report Summary: Attached is Resolution No. SD 98 -004 which, if adopted, will grant final map approval for two lots located at 18630 Allendale Avenue. I have examined the final map and related documents submitted to me in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.40.020 of the Municipal Code and have determined that: 1. The final map substantially complies with the approved tentative map. 2. All conditions of the approved tentative map, as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 98 -004, have been completed or will be completed concurrent with development of the two lots. 3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all other applicable provisions of law have been complied with. 4. The final map is technically correct. Consequently, I have executed the City Engineer's certificate on the final map and have filed the final map with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 14.40.040 of the Municipal Code for action by the City Council. Fiscal Impacts: The subdivider has paid $6,131.25 in Engineering Fees and $9,315 in Park Development Fees required for this subdivision. Follow Up Actions: The signed map will be released to the subdivider's Title Company for recordation along with recording instructions. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The final map must either be approved or rejected by the City Council. If the map is rejected, it would be returned to the subdivider with findings as to why the map was rejected. Attachments: 1. Site Map. 2. Tract Map. 3. Resolution No. SD 98 -004 granting final map approval. 4. Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 98 -004 approving the tentative map with conditions. ITEM 4 REPORT '1. J THE PLANNING CO1.IMISSION Applicant No./Location: SD -98 -004; 18630 Allendale Avenue Applicant/Owner: Snyder Staff Planner: Christina Ratcliffe, Assistant Planner e" Date: September 23, 1998 APN: 397 -02 -002 Department Head: North 1 I 1 v i 70 f 0 i ikte ,..7 asinvsz lill iroiiii „op A :2 4 it'4 a 4 let r w mil P� n 0,11110 ill 1 illass Mil :fi INS ,111 4 1 1 II Ir nil i 1 vi f c .�a�. lir Jj II 0 v3). A 18630 Allendale Avenue 000001 RIDE LE.E WNVAT[ u4P; 4c x..:. •4iSi:i12V.1a1� 1,71,M,,-,-,7“.77.1 ''�i• Q E tr" d lu r miwrarseLUT'u7erTromr..rrni=1u7 itiMi•104,•i.3.0iFY 0]•'I EyEL12- 1 xcY6�.ii -Y9- ?d YY��� Rf[:1''•IC.Ld14M•144 I ra C 1 E_fyA.35i• 5KFtIliA5,Y��� m[?rxralM44•UI •Y MD SLASH NAaNZ E•Dlyd.:•YDC17.1FLfF1.•Y� EE4.f1 .:44 ,OnMi4E4 O Tk M J/. MD 3/." IP E'} f!}:• x•: llUYYY4113 *51!1-31.3YSl1?15511_l:y 41 rL?Y:•YO/al�:I ON MANHOLE '1 www E• 7!}} 14YPUr: 6i .YL?(61.Ylc:4011i1F.]Flil[l1RL 19T1!lri019AC1lr3[Y PER .I L MD 3/� IP TAG (ILLEGIBLE) 0 ooD mr;H`uNNNOrm NO uNNNOW`++ illc: 7p:• YI. Y} YI .11F1E' }Ylj.:•;;ry43FY!libr6[.y E!]CF_�A- :9F1.11alrL.rY R I r IN T 253.03' (263 011 141 MD 3/ N IN MOx BOX .e3 DEEP NO 3/C Iv ENO 3/4" IP *ITN O '_W/ TACK $LAG (ILLEGIBLE) ('w/ TACK TAG (ILLEGIBLE) a OF 10' *DE SANITARY TACK TAG. RTE 6T:e IN MON BOX t IN YON BOK. 1' DECV TEE D T3�CAP 5 110 E p11.911. BEARINGS LO ALLENDALE AVENU LOOM, LOOM, EWR, v J) �L w BASS OF BEARINGS ---11---J.'12' f_: 1 G 091'06' q ,2„," 6p'16'00' E/514.17' (5 67/700' E/315.07)(1 1]{.OD' F 30.11' T 6A.lp' 1 •33p Otl' 1f 9 74.13' .LJ' 7 13.99 6 LL R I O I Q I N �00• g n (60_00'X6 FAO 3/.' Iv WIN NI ir.N. t iRI S N 16..6' `SN S1ING U NE ES 1 `19.6V �1 NI TY�AR PARCEL MAP �tt BRASS TAG ORION R UNKNOWN f fg J 3 g 13054757 /qa Y 20.00 a TO E D 3,- IP I c s g gg BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF THE LANDS OF WESTBROOK s 5926'00 E 60 .O V 4' f 8 �alr. uNKNONN BUILDERS, INC ED UNDER IN ENTTNOER1 CERTAIN GRANT NT s.g. L Costt"'"wr..'s....* v°- 0.11. i (s OB 2700' EXl) ti �,3: MD 3/4' IP g N 523 loos RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 343 I,) �RVEY g 4a /i i R R Z.' ORION UNKNOWN RECORD OF SURVEY 1 56 MAPS 31 LYING WITHIN THE R u w s 'WE CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA /y 20' a T P'"" "'E STORM I I DATE: MAY 1999 BNE R CE O FO Brian Kangas Faulk •I .��1 BENEFIT ETr aF PARCEL g !i g m IO. t01a LN: 4' i,. 1 I y ENGINEERS sLHfYEY013 RLUNx[9S Fi^N. I nO x_0.06 981 Ix00ER PARK ORIVE, SURE 100 END 30 ID 174 SAN JOSE. CA 96131 -2305 w END 3/C IP *TN-. NO TAG TAG& TAG Ir ORIGIN UNKNOWN e ORIGIN UNKNOWN 15 m z BASIS OF BEARINGS PARCEL 2 PARCEL 1 K 8 o THE BEARING S 897X00 E OF THE CENTERLINE OF ALLENDALE TRACT 6261 1.2835 Acres 1.1062 Acres x x AVENUE, 8ETWF3N THE FOUND MONUMENTS AT QUITO ROAD LOOUAT LOT B d 1 COURT, AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF •I'JRVEY FILED JANUARY 24, 1963 IN BOOK 156 OF MAPS AT PAGE 31, RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, 473 MAPS 33 8 34 1: RECORD OF WAS TAKEN AS THE BASS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS NAP. 2 e3 URYE Y 8 8 174 MAPS 35 o Y LEGEND FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED ON NAP NO AXLE w/ 1 g ��4 RON PI PE, TAGGED Y$ 379Y UNE 3' SPINDLE. LEANS FND FOUND x 01'wsrue T I LEE. INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENT ORIGIN UNKNOWN (7 IP IRON PIPE NON MONUMENT 1w.17 151.51' T I l PC PROPERTY CORNER N 6927m" W 330.6!1 (N e927 N 5 3.3.30 34M 6 I T TOTAL DISTANCE VALUE (R) RADIAL BEARING. FROM CENTER NOTES 7 1. ALL DISTANCES DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET R n R A DEOMALS THEREOF. LOT 16 LOT 6 Lai' .4 LOT 13 C LOT 12 LOT II 2. THE DISTWCTIYE BORDER LINE INDICATES THE W BOUNDARY OF THE LAND SUBDIVIDED BY THIS g c 8 MAP CONTAINS AN AREA OF 2.3897 ACRES, SS 777AC7 1146 e S MORE OR LESS. 4a MAPS4 RECORD DATA NOTES (1) DOCUMENT 14439630 (2) 343 MAPS 12 r 174 97 Y YAPS 21 35 APS I l 44 MAPS 4 'S A V (8) ,56 Y A P$ 3 42 3 MA PS 3 J -34 N OORI'OY E 1100' 49.49.2S M 811 W 34 (x 6r3e'DO• W) (5) (ND 3• IR (M 00 EXS) I j OPEN NO TAG N 5 91756" E 130051 TIE RAVENWOOD DRIVE I E` K 3/4' W ODD BIT MB BB NO. 556144 -10 PER (5) r K: \SIR98 \986144 \ALSVPNO2 SHEET 2 OF 2 1 CONTRACT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SD 98 -004 AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1999, by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter called "City and Westbrook Builders, Inc. subdivider and Owner, hereinafter collectively called Subdivider: W I T N E S E T H: WHEREAS, Subdivider is engaged in subdividing that: certain tract of land known and designated as 18630 Allendale'Avenue situated in the City of Saratoga,s'County of Santa Clara, State of'" ;California; and WHEREAS, a final map of ,SD,:98 -004 has been filed with the .;City:Clerk'of the City of Saratoga for presentation to the'Council for its a roval, which ma pp map. is ereb "hy referred to` =and by sa reference. incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, Owner and Subdivider has" `requested approval of said 'final ..map .prior to the completion." of improvements of all streets,' highwaysor public ways and sewer -facilities which are a part of-or appurtenant to' the' abovementioned subdivision, including, but without limiting the foregoing, the necessary paving, catch basins,' Pipes, culverts, storm drains, "sanitary''sewers where required, street trees and street signs where required, and including a water:; system and fire hydrants acceptable to the'San Jose Water Works and the .City of Saratoga, all in accordance with 'and as required by'the plans and specifications for all. of said improvements in or appurtenant to said subdivision, 'which plans and specifications were prepared by Brian Kangas Foulk Civil Engineer, approved by the City Engineer and now on file in the offices of the Clerk of said City and /or the City Engineer's Office of said City, and 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of said City did on the day of 199 adopt a Resolution approving said Final Map, rejecting certain dedications therein offered which rejection did not and does not, however, revoke the offers of dedication therein contained and requiring as a condition precedent to the future acceptance of said offers of dedication that the Subdivider improve the streets and easements thereon shown in accord with the standards of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, as amended, of the City of Saratoga and in accord with the improvement plans and specifications on file as hereinabove referred to, and .requiring as a condition precedent•to the release of said.final map for recordation that the•Subdivider agree in writing to so improve 'said :streets and easements in- accord "with this- agreement;' .NOW,.,; THEREFORE, in consideration of the above consideration of the City acceptingall dedications after the hereinafter agreed to cpvenants on part o'f' the Owner and Subdivider have been complied with` and iih 'accord with'! Gove'rnment's Code 'Section- of the `State of Ca1'ifornia, it is hereby' .agreed as follows: -1: Subdivider at this cost 'ad expens shall- construct all -of the improvements and do. all of th e` work 'hereinafter mentioned, a11' in accordance with and to the extent and as :provided in the above' .mentioned plans and specification. on'file in the office of said City, for the construction of':said improvements, in, for, or appurtenant to said subdivisionnd all in compliance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance as amended and the laws of the State •of California, and shall complete the same within one year from date hereof and shall maintain the same for a period of at least one year after the satisfactory completion of the same. 2.. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by City and as condition precedent to recordation thereof, furnish to the City and file with the City Clerk a good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in form to be approved by 3 the City Attorney, securing the faithful performance by Subdivider of all work and the construction of all improvements herein in this Agreement mentioned within time specified, and securing the faithful performance by Subdivider of the maintenance of said improvements for a period of at least one year after completion of the same, and for such additional period of time as may be necessary in order that Subdivider may cure and correct all deficiencies of construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the City of Saratoga (in addition to said bond at least 10% ($3,000.00) of said bond to be in cash, with the" right of City to use the same in its discretion for emergency maintenance and repairs in addition to any other 'rights of use) the amount of said bond to. be in the sum of $30,1)00.00; and :also a good and Sufficient, •surety bond inform to be approved by the Attorney securing the payment by Subdivider; of all bills'for "labor'and materials incurred.in the construction of any and all of said:improvements`; and the doing of all .other" work herein agreed to be done by- :"t "he' said Subdivider, the amount of said bond.;to be, Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30, 000.00) 3. Subdivider does hereby expressly agree to indemnify'•and hold harmless the City and' in. their. capacity -:as such, its." councilmen, officers, boards, commissions and its employees,. from'. 2- any and all loss or damage, and from any and all liability for any. and all loss or damage, and from any and all suits," actions"," damages, or claims.filed or brought by any and all person or persons because of or resulting from the doing by Subdivider `or any and all things required of Subdivider by this contract, or because of or arising or resulting from the failure or omission by Subdivider to do any and all things necessary to and required by this contract or by law, or arising or resulting from the negligent doing by Subdivider, his agents, employees or subcontractors of any and all things required to be done by this contract, or arising or resulting from any dangerous or defective condition arising or resulting from any of the above said acts or omissions of 4 Subdivider, his agents, subcontractors, or employees. Subdividef having heretofore certified, by the certificate upon the abovementioned subdivision map, that he can convey clear title to the land within said subdivision, and City having relied upon said certificate and the representation contained therein, the foregoing provisions of this paragraph are specifically made to apply to any destruction or damage to or removal of utilities, water lines or pipe lines of any kinds, and any other improvement, whether said destruction, damage or removal is required or caused by the plans or specifications or by direction of an officer agent or ee em to P Y of the City. 4. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by the City, and as..a condition precedent to the recordation thereof, furnish to the City and file' with' the City Clerk /certificates,or policies .of..public'liability.•and property damage insurance'in "form satisfactory to City •Attorney, and Subdivider shal`1 at all times during the entire term of :this:agreement'maintain° the'same full.. •force:, and effect, which polieie`s shall insure the ''City of Saratoga, its Councilmen, officers; boards, commissions and employees against loss or liability -for bodily Injury •property' damages arising_ or resulting from 'Subdivider's 'operations and' activities in the construction of any and all improvements mentioned in this agreement and the doing of any and all work mentioned in this agreement, within or outside the abovementioned subdivision, and /or arising or resulting from the doing or failure of Subdivider to do all things required to be done pursuant to this agreement. Said policies of insurance shall cover bodily injury and property damage on both an accident and occurrence basis, with completed operations coverage for one (1) year after completion and acceptance of improvements, and shall be in amounts of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) for each person, ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) for each accident or occurrence and property damage coverage of ONE- HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00) for each accident or occurrence and property damage 5 coverage of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00) for each accident or occurrence. Said policies of insurance shall in addition contain the following endorsement: "Other insurance the coverage afforded by this insurance shall be primary coverage to the full limits of liability stated in the declarations. If the assured has other insurance against the loss covered by this policy, that other insurance shall be excess insurance only, after the entire face value of this policy shall have been exhausted by payment." 5. In consideration of City allowing Subdivider to connect said subdivision to certain existing or proposed out =of -tract storm sewer lines, and in consideration of City relieving Subdivider of any obligation which City might legally impose.'onaSubdivider. to acquire any right -of -way for, and /or to construct, any out =of- tract`' storm sewer Ldrainage .pipe lines and appurtenance's -which might reasonably be, necessary ..to drain Said subdivision and carry storm waters from said subdivision to natural d±airisSubdvi'der' shall, .before :the•,..release of •said -final map "by` City and as' `a 1 condition precedent to the recordation' thereof, pay the'City the ...sum of. Zero dollars 0 6. In. consideration of City agreeing to accept,` in accord .with this agreement, the tract storm drain lines and -facilities• .constructed or to be constructed by Subdivider within ofoutside of said subdivision in accord with the plans and specifications'now on file with the City offices, including the streets and other' easements in or beneath which said facilities 11e, 'Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by City and as a condition precedent to the recordation co dation thereof, pay the City the sum of Zero Dollars 0 7. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by the City and as a condition precedent to the recordation thereof, pay to the City the sum of Three Thousand Dollars 3,000.00) to be applied by City to the payment of expenses to be incurred by City for engineering inspection services to be performed by the 6 City in connection with said subdivision. 8. Upon Subdivider completing in accord with this agreement all of the improvements to be made and done by said Subdivider as hereinabove set forth and as shown on the plans and specifications on file as hereinabove referred to, and upon Subdivider having properly maintained the same for a period of at least one year after the completion of said improvements as hereinabove specified, and upon the Subdivider complying with all covenants and conditions on his or its part to be done and performed in accord with the within agreement, then and in that event; City agrees to rescind its rejection of the offers of dedication of streets and storm drain easements .contained on the aforesaid finale "map, and at that time accept said:offers of dedication. r 9. ...Should•the Subdivider and Owner hereinabove referred to .40t be the. same: person, firm, or corporationtheri this agreement shall upon both the Subdivider and- the !Owner separately.,, executing the same, and wherever theterin.SUbdivideri •used, the same shall include Owner and wherever the term• '.Owner is used, the same shall include Subdivider. 10. This: agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives and assigns of Subdivider and "Owner, aiid .time °is of the essence hereof, -save and except that the City: Council- of the City of Saratoga. may, but need not, extend any... time or times for the doing or performing.of any acts as required under the terms of this agreement by resolution, if in the opinion :of the City Council any such delay is without fault on the part of the•Subdivider and Owner. Execution of the within agreement by the Owner or Subdivider shall constitute an irrevocable authorization to City to insert the date of passage of the Council resolution approving the final map, and to insert the date of this agreement as of the date of such resolution. 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand th day and year first above written. CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM City. Attorney By i.deEs ►3200 i3:; LID Eft S ►wc Subdivider By: (Owner, if different from Subdivider) 'v c,A-1-fu L/O S Div RESOLUTION NO. SD 98 -004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF SD 98 -004 18630 ALLENDALE AVENUE (VOISINET) The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: Two parcels as shown on that certain Parcel Map prepared by Brian Kangas Foulk dated May, 1999, and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga on June 2, 1999, are approved as TWO (2) individual parcels. SECTION 2: All streets and easements shown on said map and offered for dedication to public use are hereby rejected on behalf of the public, save and except for public service easements; and to the limited extent that any offers for public street purposes either expressly or implicitly include offers for easements for utility purposes along or beneath said street rights of way, then as to such express or implied offers of easements for public utility purposes, the same are hereby accepted on behalf of the public. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. SD -98-004 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Snyder: 18630 Allendale WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga. for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide one existing parcel into two single family residential parcels, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD- 98-004 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific regulations relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated September 23, 1998 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Government Code Sections 66474 (a) (g) and 66474.6 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence: THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tentative Parcel? Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated April 13, 1998 and is marked-Exhibit "A'S in the hereinafter; referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. Ttie "conditiotis of the'said.approval are as follows: =5 l'. Future development on both lots shall adhere to the then curresh Zoning Requirements Future. Acknowledged. homes shall be sitedsand. designed, to minimize the amount of !pad .grading necessary and the removal of ordinance protected trees. 2.. Prior to Final Parcel Map approval, Lot I shall grant and record an exclusive ingress/egress Easem on Parcel Map, in favor ofAPN; 397- 02- 003.•Easetiieht shall,not be'ursed ii1 Mute .fortLot or 2. Easement area will be landscaped and maintained by APN: 397 002= 003;': 3. Prior to Final Parcel Map approval, Lot 1 shall grant and record an ingress /egress easement in Easements ort parcel Map. favor ofLot2. 4. Lot 1 shall record a landscape and maintenance agreement to' assure that the area of Lot l A reement Recorded.. bordered by Alletndale driveway f Lots 2 will be properly maintained g, 5. Prior to Final Parcel Map Approval, Lot 2 shall grant and record 'ae easentent iit favor ,of the Agreement Recorded. Santa Clara Valley. Water as indicated op,E.xhibit "A and more particularly `set forth in File No. SD- 98 -004. 6. Landscape plans shall be required for each new home application. These plans shall incorporate Acknowledged. a reasonable number of native trees to vegetate the property. File No. SD -98 -004; 18630 Allendale Avenue 7. Subdivision improvement construction hours shall be limited to 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.. Acknowledged. Monday through Friday, except in the event of an emergency which imperils public safety. The Public Works Director may grant an exemption upon his/her determination of an emergency. No construction work shall be permitted on legal holidays. 8. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) Approved. shall submit the Final Map to the City Arborist for review. 9. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) Security Provided. shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security pursuant to the report of the City Arborist on the Final Map. 10. All requirements for tree protection as recommended by the City Arborist shall apply Acknowledged. throughout subdivision improvements construction. 11. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) Completed by Surveyor. shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 12. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance Completed by Surveyor. with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 13. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the Fees paid. time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. File No. SD- 98 -004; 18630 Allendale Avenue 14. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or Bond posted. some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 15. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements All Easements Offered on and/or rights -of -way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. Final Map. 16. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and Plan Submitted and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public Approved. agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. a. The plans shall include improvements for a pedestrian pathway along the frontage of the subdivision. Every effort shall be made to avoid removing the coast live oak located to the north of Lot 1, identified as tree #1 in the Arborist's review, including, but not limited to curving the path around said tree. b. The plans shall include improvements for a pedestrian bridge to be constructed adjacent to the existing vehicular bridge on Allendale Avenue. Prior to approval of the Final Map a Saratoga Building Permit, a Department of Fish Game Permit, and a Santa Clara Valley Water District Permit shall be obtained for the construction of the pedestrian bridge. 17. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined Fees Paid. by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. 18. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance Agreement Signed. with Section 14- 60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. 19. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14- All Securities 60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Public Works Provided. Director prior to Final Map approval. 20. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance Insurance Provided. coverage, m accordance with Section 14- 05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. 21. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with All Utility satisfactory written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the Commitments Provided. subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. File No. SD -98 -004; 18630 Allendale Avenue 22. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public All Permits Obtained. agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the Cite shall be provided to City Engineer. 23. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map Fees Paid. approval. 24. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the NOI Filed. Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City Engineer. The applicant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit. 25. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Acknowledged. Construction Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. Acknowledged. 26. No overbank drainage or storm water shall be directed to the existing storm drain system. Acknowledged. 27. Subdivision shall connect to West Valley Sanitation District prior to issuance of building or plumbing permits. Acknowledged. 28. Subdivision shall connect to San Jose Water Company prior to issuance of building or plumbing permits. 29. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses. including attorney's fees, Acknowledged. incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 30. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the Acknowledged. permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation. liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from he date of adoption. File No. SD -98 -004; 18630 Allendale Avenue PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California. this 23" day of September 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bernald, Murakami, Page and Chair Pierce 1 NOES: Commissioner Kaplan ABSENT: Commissioners Martlage A Chairperson, Planning Commission ATTEST: A I t Se• Planning mmission v SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3i c AGENDA ITEM £8.. MEETING DATE: JUNE 2, 1999 CITY MGR.: rffirf. ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: o f SUBJECT: Resolution Amending Fiscal Year 1998 -99 Budget Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt the Budget Amendment Resolution making adjustments to the Fiscal Year 1998- 99 budget to 1) increase Development Services Fund Revenues by $66,295; 2) increase appropriations for Development Regulation Contract Services by $66,295; and 3) create a new Capital Project for the Vessing Road Assessment District. Report Summary: Development Services (1 2): It is estimated that an additional $66,295 is required for the remainder of this Fiscal Year in the Development Regulation (Program 4020) Contract Services Account (Account 4010) to fund development related contract services in connection with geology review and subdivision map checking The reasons for the increase are the continued hyperactivity in development activity and the unanticipated expenditure, of $36,295, to cover grading and subdivision plan checking services contracted out to Willdan Associates Engineering while the Assistant Engineer's position was vacant. Through April 30, the Grading and Engineering Fee Revenue Accounts are $25,013 and $82,513, respectively, over the adopted budget amounts. Therefor, it is recommended that $66,295 of the excess Engineering and Grading Fees be appropriated to Development Regulation Contract Services to cover for the increased expenditures. Vessing Road Assessment District (3): On April 7, 1999, the City Council approved the formation of the Vessing Road Assessment District. In order to proceed with preliminary work on the project, at this time, the creation of a new Capital Project is recommended. For this fiscal year, an estimated budget of $20,000 is required for appraisal, legal, and engineering services. However, since assessments will not be collected from the property owners until next fiscal year, it is recommended that $20,000 be transferred from the City Council Contingency (Program 1010) to fund the new Capital Project. In FY 1999 -00, a second budget amendment to fund the remaining amount needed for the project and to reimburse the General Fund plus interest will be presented to the Council. The Resolution would also reflect the assessment revenues to be collected from the property owners to pay for the project. Fiscal Impacts: Development Services: The fiscal impact is a debit of $17,248 and $49,047 against Grading Fees (Account 250 -4015- 422 -0200) and Engineering Fees (Account #250- 3035- 443 0200), Revenue Accounts respectively, and an increase of $66,295 in the Development Regulation (Program 4020) Contract Services Account (Account 4010). Vessing Road Assessment District: The fiscal impact is a debit of $20,000 against the Council Contingency (Program 1010), and the appropriation of $20,000 for a new Capital Project, (Project 9901 Vessing Road Improvements). Follow Up Actions: None. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Resolution would not be adopted and the FY 98 -99 Budget will not be amended as discussed. In this event, contract services for Development Regulation could not continue for the remainder of the fiscal year, and a new Capital Project would not be created for the Vessing Road Improvements. Attachments: 1 :'Budget Amendment Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1998 -99 BUDGET: WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the City Manager that the following amendments to the present budget revenue and appropriations be made: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution 97 -22 be amended as follows: #1 $25,013 Increase 250- 4015- 422 -0200 Grading Fees $82,513 Increase 250- 3035- 443 -0200 Engineering Fees To reflect additional revenue received through April 30, from development activity. #2 $66,295 Decrease 250- 0000 399 -0000 Development Services Fund Balance $66,295 Increase 250- 4020 -542 -4010 Development Regulation Contract Services To increase appropriations for development related contract services by drawing from available fund balance. #3 $20,000 Decrease 001 1010 -511 -5002 Council Contingency $20,000 Increase Project 9901 Vessing Road Improvements To establish Capital Project and budget for Vessing Road Assessment District by transferring from available Council Contingency. After these action, the balance in the General Fund Contingency Account will be: $200,000 Original appropriation for Fiscal Year 1998 -99 ($25,000) Resolution 98 -22.1 ($2Q000) Item #3 above $155,000 Remainder of Fiscal Year 1998 -99 appropriation The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular scheduled meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 2nd day of June, 1999 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR CITY CLERK SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: 3 q AGENDA ITEM: 48 MEETING DATE: June 2, 1999 CITY MANAGER: le ORIGINATING DEPT: Community DevelopmEfit DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: UP -97- 015.1; Harkey, 20385 Park Place Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a modification to an approved Use Permit for a detached garage at the rear of the property. The original application proposed the garage door to be perpendicular to the alley with a curved driveway. The applicant is now proposing to have the garage door directly face the alley. The subject property is 8,725 square feet (net area) and is located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. REPORT SUMMARY: The Planning Commission originally approved the Use Permit on October 22, 1997 for a detached garage to be located in the rear yard. During the public hearing the Planning Commission heard testimony from the neighbors regarding potential impacts to privacy and traffic and parking along the alley. At the April 28, 1999 regular public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the application of Byron Mary Harkey for modification to the approved Use Permit. Due to the significant public input during the original approval, the Planning Commission denied the modification request, requiring that the project be constructed as originally proposed (see attached staff memorandum and minutes for further discussion). The applicant appealed the denial of the Use Permit modification request on May 3, 1999, requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the Use Permit modification. In the appeal application (attached) the applicant/appellant requests an appeal of the decision based on the fact that it will be difficult to maneuver a vehicle in and out of the garage with the door on the side due to the slope and short turning radius. FISCAL IMPACTS: Negligible. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and same notice was published in the Saratoga News on May 19, 1999. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's decision and approves the modification request, the application will be approved as presented. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The City Attorney will prepare a Resolution for the next available meeting memorializing the decision of the City Council on this matter. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Memorandum dated April 28, 1999 2. Planning Commission minutes from the meeting of April 28, 1999 3. Appeal Correspondence 4. Exhibit `A' (plans) A ATTip HMENT 1 4 S o ogurg ©g g A D A O A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 s 'ag C O' COUNCIL MEMBERS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey Jim Shaw Nick Streit MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Erik J. Pearson, Assistant Planner 9 DATE: April 28, 1999 SUBJECT: Harkey UP -97- 015.1; 20385 Park Place (lot 3) DESCRIPTION Request for modification to a previously approved under a Use Permit for a detached garage. The original Use Permit application, which proposed the garage door to be perpendicular to the alley, was approved by the Planning Commission on October 22, 1997. The applicant is now proposing to locate the main door of the garage facing the alley. The garage and residence are currently under construction. DISCUSSION The approved plans show a driveway from the private alley at the back of the lot to curve around to the garage door perpendicular to the alley. The plan attached to the applicant's letter dated March 31, 1999 shows the locations of the approved door and the proposed door. The applicant's reason for relocating the garage door is to allow for better maneuverability of vehicle in and out of the garage and to eliminate the sloping driveway. Neighbors are concerned that there will be less room to park in the alley and that limited visibility of vehicles exiting the garage will pose a safety hazard if the garage door faces the alley. Attached to the applicant's letter is a letter from Saratoga Fire Chief, Ernest Kraule dated March 29, 1999 stating that a width of 18 feet must be maintained as unobstructed for emergency access and that "No Parking" signs will be required along the alley. This requirement was not a condition of approval of the Design Review and Use Permit application and should not be considered by the Commission as an additional requirement at this time. Printed on recycled paper. Other letters from neighbors address design concerns about the residence and impacts on privacy. Because no modifications to the residence are requested, the Commission cannot require additional design changes to that portion of the project. The applicant is not asking to change the roof orientation, only the door and driveway. No impacts to privacy are expected as a result of the proposed change. RECOMMENDATION Due to the significant neighborhood opposition regarding the proposed modification, staff recommends that the Commission direct staff to deny the applicant's request to modify the project, requiring the garage door to remain as previously approved, perpendicular to the alley. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from applicant dated March 31, 1999 (including the letter from Fire District dated March 29, 1999 and photographs of site) 2. Letter from Kathleen Lynch dated April 12, 1999 3. Letter from Kathleen Lynch dated April 11, 1999 4. Letter from Mary Rich Schuppert dated March 15, 1999 5. Letter from Mary Rich Schuppert dated April 18, 1999 6. Letter from Richard Young dated April 19, 1999 7. Letter from Paul Terri Singer dated April 21, 1999 \Mis_ntsvr \public \Planning \Erik \PC Memos \Harkey.doc 11110 41, March 31, 1999 Mr. James Walgren City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Modification of Approved Project; Garage Entrance at 20385 Park Place Dear Mr. Walgren: Please forward this memo with the accompanying photos and documents to the Planning Commission members for their review in approving the above referenced request. As you are aware we are requesting the vehicle entrance into the detached garage at 20385 Park Place be moved 90 degrees counter clockwise. This will allow easy entrance and exit for all potential vehicle types and sizes. The current design contains two flaws which were not anticipated when the architect and engineers proposed the current entrance location. They are, 1) It will be extremely difficult to maneuver a mid -size to full size vehicle in and out of the garage and curved- banked driveway. It will be virtually impossible to back a SUV out of the garage in a single swing. 2) The grade of the alley is 1 to 2 feet above the floor of the garage. This would call for an unappealing curved banked driveway. The driveway would provide an awkward (and possibly unsafe) ingress egress from the rear of the house to the garage as well as an unpleasant view. Just a couple of feet from the rear door of the house would be the driveway, 1 to 2 feet ABOVE the ground level of the house. Why has this become an item for Planning Commission decision? One neighbor who lives directly across from the garage, Mr. Mrs. Young, have written a letter to the City Planning Department protesting this change. We have had two discussions with the neighbor to try and understand the basis of their protest and resolve the conflict. The neighbor's only reason for protest is that rotating the garage entrance will interfere with the parking location for one of his vehicles. If his vehicle is parked along the alley directly across from the garage (which it normally is) it will be impossible for any vehicles to enter the 20385 Park Place garage once the entrance is changed. This is true. He is wrong. As part of the approval process for the Park Place project the status of the alley needed to be established. When the City was incorporated in 1956 the alley connecting Park Place and Oak Place WAS NOT integrated into the city street system. All of the adjacent properties' borders end at the 18' wide alley thru way. Also there is no mention of an alley easement in any of the adjacent properties legal descriptions. Conclusion: The alley is a private drive, to be EQUALLY used, enjoyed and maintained by all of its owners (adjacent property owners). Another condition for City approval of the Park Place project was from the Fire Department. Attached are two documents from the Fire Chief outlining their conditions and requirements. Regardless of the fact that the alley is a private road it still falls under the jurisdiction of certain fire and safety codes. The March 29, 1999 memo clearly states these codes and the bold print defines their application to the alley. "The alley width must be 18' to allow fire equipment access" "No parking will be permitted in the alley Consider the following facts; Mr. Young's practice of parallel parking his vehicle in the alley clearly and consistently encroaches into the 18' NO PARKING ZONE indicated in the Fire Chiefs memo. Mr. Young's protest is invalid on several counts, 1) Its illegal to park in the alley, 2) If Mr. Young can park his vehicle there so can the owners of the new Park Place homes or any other alley users for that matter. This action would of course completely block the alley and cause potential safety hazards and inconvenience for all alley users, and 3) Mr. Young has a small driveway to park his vehicle in, why doesn't he use it? Most of the garage entrances on the alley face the alley. The proposed change is completely in line with what is considered normal and acceptable. The roofline of the proposed garage will not change. Only the entrance. There will be no change in views at or from 20385 Park Place. The Park Place project has run smoothly and without incident since demolition and construction commenced last summer. This can be verified with Brad Lind in the City Building Department. The Park Place project is proceeding nicely and should be completed by the end of June. The homes are turning out to be 3 fine examples of early 20 century craftsman style and should provide the City and their citizens with additional material for postcards and magazine covers. The alley will be paved in April and the required signs will be posted. If Mr. Young continues to illegally park his vehicle he will be subject to being ticketed, fined and his vehicle possibly towed. We look forward to your approval of our request. I (1:7*/0,/- I B fln J. Ha ey David M. Solomon --r---------------"--- s :',i.' HIMIIIIIIIIEVIS---1:11-7H f f i i .4�, [iliU•R(Mv( 108 wine of new reilidance 0 ai+tllrreof h N. tianra ('na A vc. awrr *lbor °!e'rceO6rq 2r I n, (:.rbn C,\ Will tit N 4 z oce 164.501 1 i 1111L111/11111 mai___________________________ e'C redwoop large i j '°`c. �I I ris I r_' 11-4' y IIIIil 1111 111111.1 1 r t enna.euls pW i'y A. N +Coa 32' od !75.00 8' redwood tome 4 w fireplace meow end cantilevered box windows OrWecWO Into *Obeid( 9r Or 2SLotl iTy b..• ty0tm6a' a i take Precedeatover co 1e:tentage batse4 G setbacks becau of i x �B house loeatc� ?.,a onhlt Al 3 J. r ,'r rt SARATOGA. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT •BUIL SITE APPROVAL CHECK LIST FILE DR 97 -027 DATE May 1, 1997 OF LOTS i,. St a •.jV};, i a "fi i ?i... i{[,. v q 1r f h r r APPLICANT.H F iY#T'"c. 1 LOCATION 20 385' Park'•P1ace.' E l'Ni;5 k ALT aU40 ..;.,Q.;.' !ID c ,U i+ -.Y. i';1.',' ;ON .,3n' .A,, r c s 0 1. 'WATER S $u UPPLY AND ACCESS FOR FIRE PROTECTION ARE ACCEPTABLE. r., ,{r�ur`��.:,� �j< t: P•�s�'`r� �At'�1•.n "ii ..,icy. i ts�> v t'v i1i t i Pt.,. '''."4 3 iii 2 EARLY WARNING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IS NOT REQUIRED. ":N /A 3. PROPERTY.IS LOCATED IN DESIGNATED HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA Yes 4 PLANS CHECKEDiFOR WEEDBRUSH ABAT A C C E SSIBILITY t/ •rAC-.w �s�'xm n' v f`" ,;;+la P i''..14 a i,.�.� ;$y: :`f .�,r.l's.: :'x t.,:% S :`1b 4 dar OK 5.; ROOF COVERING SHALIBE'FIRE RETARDANT, UNIFORM BUILDING'CODE CLASS A PREPARED OR BUILT UP ROOFING' 'RE- ROOFING LESS THAN 10 SHALL•BE EXEMPT:''(REF.'UNIFORM FIRE CODE APPENDIX 3, CITY•OF„,' j SARATOGA CODE 16 0:2 2 10.)' I P-90 ,i..t-;' :'f'« 4' +,.r Required6. EARLY :WARNING FIRE 'ALARM SYSTEM SHALL'BE INSTALLED AND 1 MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CITY OF SARATOGA CODE- ARTICLE 16-60 .K(ALTERNATIVE REQUIREMENTS 'SPRINKLER," SYSTEMS, 16-60-E.)=,), a... 1. 1 Required7; EARLY WARNING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM SHALL HAVE DOCUMENTATION }1 RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION AND SHALL O 7- BE,''' SUBMITTED 1 TO THE FI RE DISTRICT g FOR APPROVA F t t j J i F`v $L.s .f•.r x -r .1.`hpi »[;N. ^n -I1 3. i•� -i... 1P.,i ('w"� 1 t w''t i..,. i.,/,‘; k `"A .fa Required8 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN' NEWLY'CONSTRUCTED ATTACHED/DETACHED GARAGES (3 HEADS PER STALL), WORKSHOPS, OR STORAGE AREAS WHICH ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED AS HABITABLE SPAC 7 (ii. -,s4 THE DESIGNER/ARCHITECT. IS PTO CONTACT SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY;„' 1 TO DETERMINE THE SIZE OF SERVICEAND METER NEEDED'TO MEET FIRE SUPPRESSION AND DOMESTIC REQUIREMENTS.' OF SARATOGA CODE -16- 15.090 [I]) OK 9. AL LFIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 500 FROM THE ff RESIDENCE AND DELIVER NO LESS THAN 1000 GALLONS/MINUTE OF WATER FOR A SUSTAINED PERIOD OF 3 HOURS. (CITY 1 OF S CODE r,.. a., 14 =30 040 (C) r ,a rAg %?OTJN s i•,,• i..1,,'i ,,c•, 1 :4N; N/A 10 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE NEW SQ. FT, `e,. RESIDENTIAL DWELLING. A 13R SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS REQUIRED: A1xl µp PROPOSED INSTALLATION AND ALL CALCULATIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE FIRE DISTRICT FOR APPROVAL. THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR .e. f r 9 nt. •1 u. N- v. x n.T a1. .l' vA Page 2 Building Site Approval Check List 307, S r �err i f" ..`y.h t t 1.. w a CO 't y tle �d lt��� r �1� l� i. C r v u• .4 4:ti 5 n 0 t» 3. &c t. t t .n ry 1 F j; p f :'''44. .1" r 4', r 4 4 L. .1: ti,it5t, Atthea, $0% 1.} 1% "a f 4t.c...- w nx 11 FIRE HYDRANTS: DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL o FIRE HYDRANTS) Y I 2� 3 �.R MEET FIRE DISTRICT'S SPECIFICATIONS. HYDRANT(S) SHALL BE r, I AN ACCEPTED PRIOR TO'CONSTRUCTION OF A NY B 0 u i 'r+i,:r),�rs 4'I' �.B 10t1i: n :i 'a1%s 7' 12.. DRIVEWAYS ALL DRIVEWAYS SHALL HAVE 4' MINIMUM WITH PLUS 1' SHOULDERS. Alley Should Be ii Paved 1 A °SLOPES FROM:0 %TO 11% SHALL USE A DOUBLE SEAL COAT." 1 r V -7- 7" :7 OF O S OR BETTER ON A 6" AGG. BASE FROM A PUBLIC r. Ii r t=; .STREET TO THE PROPOSED DWELLING. B SLOPES •FROM 11% TO 15% SHALL BE SURFACED USING 2.5" F, t `i ''l f:; OFA.C. OR BETTER ON A 6" AGG; BASE FROM A PUBLIC?:'-'"; t�- x' STREET TO THE PROPOSED DWELLING. C: SLOPES FROM 15% TO 17% SHALL BE SURFACED USING A 4" .r. •PCC CONCRETE ROUGH SURFACED ON A 4" AGG. BASE k r ;a.s FROM A PUBLIC STREET TO THE PROPOSED DWELLING.__,_.,_,.:v D CURVES: DRIVEWAY SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM INSIDE RADIUS OF 21' E.. TURNOUTS: CONSTRUCT A PAS TURNOUT 10' WIDE 7:-,1•4,„ f AND 40' LONG AS REQUIRED BY THE FIRE DISTRICT,, Y DETAILS SHALL BE SHOWN ON BUILDING PLANS.' N/A 13 TUR AROUNDS: CONSTRUCT A TURN- AROUND AT THE PROPOSED _..w ;AI. p 1 :DWELLING SITE HAVING A 33' OUTSIDE RADIUS. OTHER APPROVED TYPES_ MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIRE DISTRICT. DETAILS SHALL {r�t:f• .BE SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PLANS, AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE' :3° t. DISTRICT. N/A .1.4: •,.�.riPARKING:., PROVIDE A PARKING AREA FOR TWO EMERGENCY VEHICLES AT.,::.,. THE PROPOSED DWELLING SITE OR AS REQUIRED BY THE FIRE DISTRICT r:'. 7.. <4� tt :'A',PETAILS SHALL BE SHOWN ON BUILDING PLANS. N /A15 :_SECURITY GATES: GATE WIDTH SHALL NOT BE LESS.THAN 14'. GATE. SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY A REMOTE DIGITAL TRANSMITTER DETAILS. t.• i._ c"•� SHALL BE SHOWN ON BUILDING PLANS.' N/A- l6..µ_ A BRIDGES: LL BRIDGES_AND ROADWAYS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO -_•_.'i, SUSTAIN 35,000 POUNDS DYNAMIC LOADING. APP' ;h 1 r Ernes t,0; w 1{ raj.; le;•c:� -.74 l':..: 1,-, r •m k 4 G• i �r F 6; ri ,i t) .r 0.. c ry C f C t l'r l 1,,: 4 y' ORE De sr SARATOGA FIRE DIS' RICT aC' SERVICE SINCE 1923 March 29, 1999 Dave Solomon P.O. Box 3028 Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: Fire Department Access Dear Mr. Solomon: The alley behind lots one, two, and three of APN 397 -22 -3 is subject to the following requirements. Per Sections 901 and 902 of the 1994 Uniform Fire. Code, Fire Department access shall be provided and maintained. Specifically: §902.2.2 1 DIMENSIONS Fire apparatus access roads shall hawunobstructed width. The alley width must be 18' to allow fire equipment access. §902.2.2.2 SURFACE Fire Apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus nd sshall be provided-w'ith a surface so as to provide all- weather driving capabilities The alley must be paved. §902.2.4.1 OBSTRUCTION (GENERAL) The required width of a fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in_any manner, including parking of vehicles. ,Mini "mum required widthi grid clearances established under Section 90 2 2.2:1 shall be -v� maintained at all times. No Parking will be permitted in the alley and No Parking must be posted with the appropriate code section noted on the signs. The alley must be inspected for compliance with these requirements prior to final approval of the building permit. The inspection must be completed by an authorized agent of the Saratoga Fire District. Sincerely, Ernest O. Kraule EOK:tw u.: 14380 Saratoga Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 -9001 Fax (408) 867 -2780 .1 i \.../1 a yam;. w �1'�'42,."� °AjM 'fl i 1-500-322-2263 y I i I q I r6 1 2 4 7 't 1 h l .r .1�• .a A T� ry f L— sJ A I/ c Le F 'L •L S �Ar WA.': t t ��q�yw�C. Gri.. Y 'Y^ p 1 F `I J r .s sk"''- ;"70.P :_i yh� Y S?r.i D T l d+� .,e., �f r-. 2 z Y J i r 7 3 L o 6( Y C A 1 ..i. at 4 ,.0 11, 4■•• "4„, .1 i 1..1 "7:'-: ...7 7 -1,ir,:,- -.V.::.'!..:..- li iill 4 4 ft■1 it Lii r •vk' 4. .....-'0...• ".tie,, 7_ 4 r •Ili 4 4 11111 ,ip •ge• .1. I I t. r IL ..7:• .i1 ..:1•.: 1 -I- P v H i 11 limiNt 1 4-1-,..._.. I Ij 1 1 :i 'ir 11 ,lh '1; momilip." ditiiii■,,.• NI -J.-4 :-...'d 1 'i .1', t r 4. I I :e, r.. ..,.411aiNig It 0.- L., -.4r •1 7 ■0 I 1 C'4.1"... P 34f. 'It'411 m, :1 ...131 1Zak. ir .74 .1.: -1 '.1. -7 4 7 .5. 2 4 r......-',",..,..,,,....',.....,:..:,-- t "4"4:.*: -..;;,e14 14 1€ .779t H_ 1 .4- .•"......-;4i' e f''''" 't.:4: #•'''',..14 30.:•-••' -..4 7.• __i_I -4-- ".7...- i ilill irTiil ilYA011111mw A i a nehlr'';‘ /2//7/2 /v 1 i r 4 ----aziurkik ri.gEr*... 66 r .c. 66 i ,...:0. :f .■......iilimm I a 1 [.1 @MOP-- (r s .....4 ;t f m aw ..,..,..v-;':gt_.-tf-'- =7.. ....7 1 l',:” 7 ;=.j.. 1 F..: 1 ..7"..-....: r• 1.‘, -':...7z 1 -7.. ,...-;.'xi?:-. I, -...3,..F.% :7 V..--' 1\k. r 20360 Orchard Road APR 14 1999 Saratoga, CA 95070 April 12, 1999 PLANNING DEF WENT James Walgren, City Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Park Place Construction Project Dear Mr. Walgren: Pursuant to our telephone conversation in March, I am writing this letter to ask the Planning Commission to reconsider two issues related to the Park Place project houses currently under construction. Enclosed is a letter written by our neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Shuppert, that addresses similar concerns. The issues are: 1. To change the glass in the upstairs back bedrooms so that the four Orchard Road homes located directly across from the project are afforded the privacy that should be available to all residents. 2. To allow parking in the alley for those areas that are larger than the 18' access space required by the Fire Department. I am making theses requests for the following reasons: 1. Although the house located on Lot 2 is directly across from our neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Shuppert, due to the fact that Park Place curves at the section of land where the houses are being constructed, the position of the house located on Lot 2 is angled so that occupants of the upstairs back bedroom get a full view of our patio, hot tub, master bedroom, dining room, kitchen and kitchen eating area. Our home is built around an enclosed patio with three French Doors that lead onto the patio. Eight months out of the year, we use the patio and the hot tub on an almost daily basis. In the early morning and evening, when we have lights on in the house, the occupants of 20393 Park Place can see directly into our living space. I believe that the Architect, the Planning Commission, Mr. Solomon and Mr. Harkey did not foresee this situation which affords us virtually no privacy. Obviously, we did not foresee the extent of the problem when the Planning Commission gave approval to the plans or we would have addressed it at the Planning Commission meeting when the plans were approved. While the same situation exists for us with the house on Lot 3, it does not effect our privacy in the same way as that on Lot 2. I discussed the problem with Mr. Solomon and he has kindly agreed to consider installing new windows in the bedroom that faces our patio. Those windows would allow daylight in but would become opaque after dark. At this time he has not informed me of his final decision. 2. Most of the homes located on the West Side of Orchard Road were built prior to 1940 and therefore, the garages were designed for one small vehicle. In addition, most of those garages face the alley that divides Orchard Road and Park Place. Since parking is limited on Orchard Road and most residents cannot use the garages due to the size of 1990 type vehicles, many have been forced to park a second vehicle in the alley. Accordingly, since most of the Orchard Road residents have lived there for many years, in some cases, they have parked in the alley for more than 20 years. While we understand the Fire Departments' need for an 18' wide access, most of the alley is considerably larger than 18 feet wide. In the case of our home, which has the narrowest space on the alley, the distance between our planter adjacent to our brick wall and the Foothill Club is 19 feet. The distance between our garage wall and the Foothill Club is 23 feet. An average light pickup truck is 5' across. Therefore, even in our case, if our truck were parked flush to the garage, the Fire Department would have the required 18' access. We rarely park in the alley, however, for us, no parking would mean that an occasional guest who stays in our cottage could not park near the entrance as it faces the alley. Instead, they would have to try to find space on Orchard Road and walk through our house, or walk around the block to get to the entrance to the cottage. That can be tough if the guest has luggage. In addition, it would also mean that we could not park our pickup truck in the alley to unload large items or to load the truck with items for the dump. Thank you for considering these requests. Please feel free to call us at 867 -5679 if you have any questions regarding these issues. With regard to the privacy problem, we will be happy to show you of the Panning Commission the extent of the problem. Sincerely, Kathleen Lynch CC: Planning Commission Chair David Solomon 20360 Orchard Road 'e Saratoga, CA 95070 April 11, 1999 APR 1 4 1999 David Solomon P LANNING P.O. Box 3028 1" Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Solomon: Pursuant to our telephone conversation in March, I appreciate your willingness to consider changing the glass in the upstairs back bedroom so that the occupants of the house located at 20393 Park Place (lot 2) cannot see into our patio, master bedroom, dining room, kitchen and kitchen eating area after dark and accordingly, we cannot see into their bedroom. As I explained, the position of the house is angled so that occupants of the upstairs back bedroom get a full view of our patio, hot tub, and into the rooms mentioned above. Our home is built around an enclosed patio with three French Doors that lead onto the patio. In the early morning and evening, when we have lights on in the house, the occupants of 20393 Park Place can see directly into our living space. I believe that we, the Architect, the Planning Commission, you and Mr. Harkey did not foresee this situation which affords us virtually no privacy. Therefore, we appreciate any and all efforts that will be made to ensure our privacy. Based on our last discussion, I can appreciate that the plastic covering the windows in question made it impossible for you to appreciate the full extent of the problem. However, since the plastic has covered the windows for three weeks, perhaps the painters could remove even a part of the plastic from one pane, so that you can see our privacy problem. Finally, I appreciate the willingness of Mark Thomas and Mr. Harkey to add a small burm in front of our driveway and entrance to our cottage. That coupled with the dip in the alley and the final installation of the storm drains should eliminate the problem of water coming across the alley into our garage and cottage. Of course, we are all acutely aware that our property is situated at the lowest point on the alley and therefore vulnerable to water coming down it. Please let me know when it will be convenient for you to observe the privacy problem and I will be happy to meet with you. I can be reached at (408) 867 -5679. Again, thanks for consideration of the problem. Sincerely, z ei-,3-&,_q s Z ey‘ Kathleen Lynch CC: James Walgren Rich and Mary Schuppert 20350 Orchard Road Saratoga, CA 95070 APR 1 4 '1999 March 15, 1999 PLANNING DEPARTMENT' Planning Department City of Saratoga Re: DR -97 -036 and UP -97 -005; Harkey, 20393 Park Place (Lot 2) To Whom It May Concern: We are the owners and residents of 20350 Orchard Road which is directly across the alley and behind Park Place Lot #2. We respectfully request consideration of the following privacy issue raised by the current layout of the spec house on Lot 2. The privacy we have enjoyed for the over 16 years we have lived here is being impinged upon by the two windows in the rear master bedroom and bathroom of the second story facing east looking directly into our home and yards. From these windows one looks directly into both bedrooms of our home as well as into both our back yard and our side yard where we have a spa. Conversely, the view from our back patio is directly into the bedroom and bathroom of the new home. This is less than ideal for either us or the new owners of the Park Place lot. It has been suggested that we plant trees to maintain our privacy. We currently have many trees and we have planted an additional tree that is meant to increase our privacy, however it will not provide the current level of privacy we have. A tree that would provide us with the privacy we currently have would block the sun from our home. As I'm sure you are aware, this area is filled with underground springs which contribute to the moisture we have in our homes all year round. We need the sun to bring light and warmth into the house and to help prevent the mildew that grows in such damp conditions. We would like to request a modification to the current widow style, size or location to help respect and retain our privacy. Smaller windows, north and south facing windows, or frosted windows would help maintain our privacy. This change would not only ensure our privacy but also ensure the privacy of our new neighbor's bedroom. Sincerely, p ietAjTh c~ Mary and Rich Schuppert RECEWED Mary and Rich Schuppert 20350 Orchard Road APR 1 9 '1999 Saratoga, CA 95070 PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 18, 1999 Mr. James Walgren Planning Department City of Saratoga Re: Modification of Approved Project: Garage Entrance at 20385 Park Place Dear Mr. Walgren: This letter is to address the above request for modification to the garage entrance and a desire by the owners of the property to restrict parking in the private alley behind the property. We are the owners and residents of 20350 Orchard Road which is across the alley and slightly below the house. We respectfully request you decline the modification of the garage due to the following concerns. The grading of the alley seems to be of importance to both the garage entrance and the parking. At a meeting with Mr. Harkey and the contractor, Mr. Thomas, we received Mr. Thomas's commitment that the alley would be returned to its original grade; this is extremely important to us as the alley is now 10" 12" higher at the edge of our driveway than prior to the construction. This has caused both flooding of our driveway and difficulty exiting our driveway. Therefore if the grade of the alley is lowered the approximate foot it needs to be lowered, and was promised to be lowered, the issue of the garage platform height as indicated in the letter from Mr. Harkey and Mr. Solomon becomes a non issue. Their driveway would be lower and not unattractive or unsafe. Therefore it should be returned to its original orientation. For the 17 years we have lived here we have legally parked in the alley directly behind our home. We have had conversations with the sheriff's department and representatives of your department indicating that because the alley is private property and belongs to the property owners who abut the alley, we have the legal right to park there. We have NEVER had a conflict with our neighbors over the parking because common sense and good will prevent any of us from blocking the alley to anyone who needs to use it, whether that be other neighbors, the garbage collectors, drive through traffic, or the construction workers for the Park Place project who routinely park in the alley (see attached photo of the construction workers' vehicles). The sheriff's office has confirmed that they have no jurisdiction over parking in the private alley and therefore won't restrict it. Additionally to this issue, there are 5 6 cars of Park Place, Oak Street and Orchard Road residents that are routinely parked in the alley and they do not block traffic of any kind Mr. James Walgren Page 2 through the alley. The main routes for the fire department has been and continue to be the public streets for access to the homes on Park Place and Orchard Road should there be a need. For decades this has not been an issue for any of the neighbors or the fire department; why is it an issue now because of the unapproved and unnecessary rotation of this garage? We support the concerns and vigilance of our neighbor, Mr. Richard Young, regarding this construction project. He has several times noted and communicated dangerous conditions (no caps on the re -bar, unfenced construction sites an attractive nuisance to neighborhood children) at the construction site to the contractors and, without his vigilance this unapproved modification would have gone un- noticed by the city. Despite what Mr. Harkey and Mr. Solomon say in their letter to you dated March 31, 1999, we too have expressed our objections in a personal meeting with Mr. Harkey and his contractor, Mr. Thomas, to the modification of the garage and of the parking issue. We have witnessed personal verbal attacks on Mr. Young by the contractor due, it appears, to his vigilance. This conflict seems to be clouding the real issues of the correct, approved orientation of the garage, the grading of the alley, and the parking of vehicles on private property that does not impede traffic. We support Mr. Young's point of view and his vigilance during this inconvenient and irritating construction process. Numerous times we have had our driveway blocked by the construction workers vehicles and materials and have had to request access to our own driveway. The letter from Mr. Harkey and Mr. Solomon states that the "project has run smoothly and without incident since demolition and construction commenced last summer To the homeowners who have lived with this project for the entire time, it has been anything but smooth. Our peace has been disturbed by loud annoying music from early in the morning to all day during the week and sometimes on the weekends, as well as having to accept mud, dust, loud machinery, foul language from workers and the developers directed at the neighbors, short to no notice on the closure of the alley and therefore access to our driveway, the loss of our privacy and the increase in density that these three homes add to our neighborhood. Again, we respectfully ask you to review the after the -fact request to rotate the garage and deny their petition. Sincerely, k e4red Mary and Rich Schuppert tr i A j z r n,,:. y. ..,..f.,..:;: .:=.5.4,..,-,-;-4-i.--,- ,,f I I 1 r a 4 2 I l -n x i r q tai `'a 'z racs� �-t E y EI ED Richard A. Young 20340 Orchard Road APR 2 1999 Saratoga, CA 95070 'DUNNING DEPARTMENT April 19, 1999 Mr. James Walgren, Community Development Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Development on 20385 Park Place, Saratoga Change in garage access alley elevation Dear Mr. Walgren: There is a lot of misinformation being promoted as fact by the developers of this property. It is important the facts are straight with regards to the Solomon/Harkey development on Park Place. Mr. Harkey and Mark Thomas Contracting clearly explained in front of several neighbors on Saturday March 27th 1999, that the garage slab had been constructed 1 foot below the approved elevation in a meeting two weeks ago. I can only guess this was to help with the elevation of the garage with respect to the alley elevation. The original plans had the garage entrance perpendicular to the alley, with which we had no objection. As you are aware, the garage had been rotated 90 degrees without consultation with any neighbors, the building department or the planning department. Mr. Proctor, the Shuperts, the Lynch's and myself all want the alley elevation to return to at least its previous elevation before construction began. If the garage was constructed at the designed elevation and the alley is graded at the appropriate elevation or slightly lower, (with which none of the above property owners object) I see no reason why the garage cannot be constructed as originally designed, other than the developer's contractor does not want to spend the money to make it right. The record needs to be set straight on several issues: 1. The small slab on my property on the alley Mr. Harkey refers to in his letter of 3 -29 -99 is only 9 feet wide and 15 feet long. It has never been a parking place nor can it become one. 2. This alley is not 18 feet wide for its entire length. Other parts of the alley are only 14' 6" wide from fence to telephone pole. 3. My parking on the alley, as do four or five other neighbors do, has not interfered with garbage or fire access. As I discussed, upon purchasing Mr. Walgren April 19, 1999 Page two our property in 1985, I visited the Saratoga Fire office and discussed my parking in the alley. It was explained then and recently confirmed that my parking my vehicle would not interfere with fire vehicle access as long as the parking did not block the fire vehicles. 4. When I do park on the alley, as I have done for 14 years, with part of my vehicle on the paved section in front of my "garage" (built for a model A), there is in excess of 16 feet of clearance, providing a full one and a half feet more than other sections of the alley. 5. The alley, with exception to the area on the side of the Foothill club has never been designated a No Parking zone as Harkey would like to make you believe. 6. The elevation of the garage floor is well above (10 inches)the present alley grade which is 6 to 8 inches above the original elevation before construction, not the 1 to 2 feet "below" as Harkey has indicated. Up hill the grade of the alley is indeed higher, but even at the upper of this property, the original elevation of the alley is almost even with the original elevation of the proposed garage. In discussions with Mr. Harkey on the phone, Mr. Harkey promised to investigate the elevation questions I raised, however, in a meeting with the contractor, the cost of changing the garage back to the original design was described as not a possibility because the concrete had already been poured. This whole Fire Department access subject was raised by the developer only after they rotated the garage opening. The Fire Department has been up and down the alley many times without our parking ever being an issue. Why do they need this alley anyway? There is easy access to all the homes on either side of the alley from Orchard or Park Place respectively. This is just another bully tactic. The alley has been partially blocked with construction materials (including today) during the entire construction that has reduced the alley width to less than 18 feet. The construction workers have continued to park in the alley during the day (including today and yesterday) also reducing the alley width to less than 18 feet. Now that it is to the developers advantage parking in the alley is all of a sudden a fire access issue and no parking should be allowed! I'm am interested to find out who made the decision that this alley must be a fire access alley and when such a division was made. r Mr. Walgren April 19, 1999 Page three This will impact me every morning when I load my vehicle for work (tools) and every evening when I unload. In addition, Orchard Road is already a disaster for parking. I am not in favor of approval of this orientation of the garage. This project has been a nightmare for those of us that live with it day in and day out. The arrogance and attitude of the developer and his contractor is disgusting and appalling. I am very weary of personal verbal attacks by both the developer and his contractor and would like to see closure to this issue. I would like to know if this issue will indeed go to the planning commission and if so on what date; or will be a staff decision. Could you please advise me of the direction this issue is headed? Please call or fax me Home# 741 -5020 II FAX 867 -1216 Thank you. Sincerely yours, Richard A oung cc: John Cherbone, City of Saratoga Planning Commission Chair April 21, 1999 I APR22 1999 Mr. James Walgreen Community Development Director o- City of Saratoga re: Development at 20385 Park Place, Saratoga proposed change of garage access Dear Mr. Walgreen: I reside at 20320 Orchard Road, Saratoga, and my property and garage abut the alley providing access to the three houses being built by Mssrs. Harkey and Solomon. We believe the proposed change, which would result in the garage directly accessing the alley without a sufficient driveway, is dangerous. There is traffic in the alley as well as children playing in the yards that abut the alley, and the notion of a car pulling blindly out of the garage directly into the path of traffic strikes us as inherently unsafe. It has been asserted that many of the existing garages directly empty into the alley. We would invite you to simply walk the length of the alley and note that while a few of the older homes do not provide adequate visibility when backing into the alley, the majority do. Several of the existing sub optimal driveways cluster around 20385 Park Place, and adding yet another will make the situation worse. Our examination of the property suggests that the garage arrangement as originally proposed provided adequate and safe access for standard cars. We ask the Design Review Committee to comment on the record regarding our concerns about the visibility issue. Thank you. Sinrely 4 ,2 ;t_ tl e, Paul and Terri Singer ATTAC WVIE NT„2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES p Ili APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE 23 Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners. She felt that it was a shame that this much cut was done for the generator and that she did not believe that a generator of this size was needed. Therefore, she could not support the appeal. Planner Bradley stated that per yesterday's site visit and the concerns raised regarding the trees, staff contacted the city arborist. She informed the Commission that the city arborist will be visiting the site. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /PATRICK MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. DIRECTOR ITEMS No director items were noted. COMMISSION ITEMS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION NOT TO RECEIVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE COMMISSION ITEMS. DR -97 -027.1 (397 -22 -030) HARKEY, 20385 Park Place; Request for modification of an approved Design Review application to allow the door of the detached garage to face the alley. Planner Pearson presented the staff report and indicated that a use permit was approved in conjunction with the design review for the home on Park Place. The use permit was required for the garage to be placed within the rear yard setback. The original proposal had the garage door perpendicular to the alley with a curved in driveway with a 90 degree curve for cars to be able to travel from the alley into the garage. Following construction, the builder realized that the grade changed that one would experience stepping out of the back door area to the driveway. The applicant decided to locate the garage door directly facing the alley to avoid having a slope turning driveway. The applicant provided a letter from the Saratoga Fire Chief noting that "no parking" signs would be required to be posted along the alley. This would eliminate the problem of potential cars parking in the alley that would prevent access to the garage. He informed the Commission that he has spoken with the fire chief who has indicted that he may relax the requirement for the "no parking" signs but that this is something that would need to be worked out between the fire district and the public works department. The fire chief is mainly concerned that an 18 foot wide access way is maintained. He said that there are several letters in the Planning Commission's packet from the neighbors objecting to the modification of the use permit due mainly to the concern of the limited visibility of cars coming in and out of the garage. For this reason, staff recommends that the Commission deny the request to modify the use permit. The Commission also has a letter dated April 28, 1999 from the builder's arborist verifying that the fencing around the oak tree at the front of the property is back up and the problem of debris being stored under the oak tree has been taken care of. He indicated that the city arborist will be visiting the site to inspect the fencing. Commissioner Page stated that Mr. and Mrs. Schuppert stopped by this evening to express their concerns. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the removal of the fencing was a violation of the terms and conditions of the approval? If so, is there a daily penalty that would be assessed? Planner Pearson responded that a penalty is a standard condition on all resolutions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES M [I\ APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE 24 Commissioner Page stated that there was much discussion in the letters regarding the height level of the alley /back yard elevations. He asked if this elevation is proposed to change? Planner Pearson responded that the alley elevation is not proposed to be changed. He indicated that the pad of the garage is lower than the alley and said that the alley is on a slope. If the cars are to come straight out of the garage directly onto an alley, there is less of a grade change versus the location where the driveway has been approved as there is more of a grade change. Commissioner Kaplan said that the Commission drove through the area yesterday and stated that she did not understand the problem as this is a small alley. It made more sense to have individuals back onto an apron off the street than it is to back directly onto what seems to be a smaller depth, backing onto a fence, opposite the garage door. She did not see a reason to change the design. Commissioner Patrick agreed with Commission Kaplan as the Commission studied this project in depth. She did not see a reason to change it. Commissioner Murakami felt that the issue should have been raised at time of design review and have the change in design incorporated at that time. He felt that it was inappropriate to change it at this time. Commissioner Pierce agreed with the comments expressed. Commissioner Page felt that this was an opportunity to install some greenery instead of cement. However, in light of the pandora box that this would be opened, he recommended that no changes be approved. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners. NO ACTION TAKEN. REVISED SIGN PROGRAM ARGONAUT SHOPPING CENTER; Request to modify the sign criteria and colors for tenants at the remodeled Argonaut Shopping Center. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there were other drawings than those provided to indicate what the signage will look like? She asked how bright the internal lighting is to be? Planner Pearson informed the Commission that the project architect has not provided any renderings of the particular sign design. He stated that the applicant has broken the information into sections for the anchor tenants, the pad buildings and the rest of the tenants. All of the stores with the exception of Longs and Safeway, are proposed to have individual letters that are metal on the front and sides, internally illuminated that will shine out the back side of the letters. The letters are to be spaced approximately an inch away from the wall. The two colors proposed are black forest (green) and cranbrook for all the non national tenants. The applicant is requesting the discretion of designating certain tenants as national tenants and that the national tenants would be allowed to use their own corporate colors. Chairwoman Bernald asked if this request was a great departure from the city's sign ordinance? Planner Pearson responded that the revised sign program complies with the city's sign ordinance as the sign ordinance addresses size and location of signs. ATTASHMENT 3 Date Received: Hearing Date: 6 ttt 9 f/ Fee 4 z0 r 4 9 Receipt No.: qS's-Gtq (v/ APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: E (di J g c S /4 Address: I g 34-3 Cal (364A)E. -T b4( Ot 5'4' 7 4 M. Telephone: o l3 c- L 5.19 Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant): D 9?- Project File Number and Address: (97 -Zl -039) 20.5f35 Fg2 tK- L'I C E Decision Being Appealed: rI4e PLAN) A11A)c, CAm M 1 SSici DE-0 Fd 5/K970104 m 1 i2 (4 •poL To F4GE 1 ALLrY Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): tft- Z H4 ✓F_ 2EQl-(- .s e-o `ro C144/4(?E Mt( E book. To Flc& rite /k' 1 Amt t PI-A -Ab bE%A1 App2O06o Fog. 4 SIDE rAT2. co4e4eQE, 62CAKSe_ of ntt 4A)6 W) 4We- NAJI(o4TtoN Or EiJrE.-1f 44v.6 EX T 4 sae E,trty &4-2410E (4) aQuteE..rNt DI t=FERSMc.F Et.6t1, F2oirt NE;. 4 c '-f AND 130.-le-V4-10 WOu..i.D *SE DIP 4-S F. Act-SS 7o rNE (424kt Act. Soo,2.S OA) TAI iitae rtf F q LtrFes"( *Appell -j is S' nature *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF, THE DECISION. File No. AUTHORIZATION FO PUBLIC NOTICING 4 4 0 J, as appellant on taeye file, hereby authdr,le Engineering fa Services to perform..the noticing on the above file. Date Signature: 5- 3 44;71-----' EcE[wE May 25, 1999 MAY 2 7 iq99 CITY OLD SARA TOGA Mr Fred Proctor CITY P.��!_'_':. ^_C''""''S OFFICE 20330 Orchard Road Saratoga, CA 95070 City of Saratoga, City Council Regarding: New development at 20385 Park Place Garage To whom it may concern: I have not able to attend the night time Planning Commission Meetings concerning the building of these homes as am 86 years old and do not wish to drive at night. I want to go on record as being opposed to this kind of over development. These houses are much too large for the lots and much to close together. With regards to the modification of the garage at the 20385 address, I am opposed to allowing changes that would have this garage opening sit right on the edge of the alley. This would be dangerous to have a car back out directly onto the alley. It would also interfere with parking on the opposite side of the alley which is used by my good neighbor Mr. Young and those that visit us. We have used this area for parking for over 40 years! My access to my home is via the alley and I do not-want any further work that would block my driveway to be completed without notice. This parking issue is just self serving for the developers as contractors continue to park in the alley at the same time developers say there should be no parking allowed. The contractors working on this site have blocked the alley without consideration of those of us that live here. This jobsite has often been unsafe and should have been fenced. Mr. Young has been diligent in trying to keep the alley open and area safe. These people arrogant and I am angered by the verbal abuse Mr. Young received by the contractor. Parking is already difficult for those that visit us on Orchard Road and placing more pressure on it just doesn't make sense. It appears the contractor or developer just doesn't want to spend the money to correct his mistake. Sincerely, Fred roctor III Richard A. Young 20340 Orchard Road RECE1YE Saratoga, CA 95070 I MAY 271999 May 26 1999 CITY OF SARATOGA y CrTY MA N A CE:'. °S OFFICE Honorable Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Development on 20385 Park Place, Saratoga Change in garage access Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Our home is located directly behind and across the alley from the new development on Park Place. We have been impacted by this development more than any other resident in the area over the past year. My home has only a small garage built in 1929 that unfortunately will not house today's cars and has no driveway. Upon purchasing our home in 1985, I contacted the Fire Department to inquire about parking on the alley and was informed that as long as the alley was not blocked it would not be a problem. So, for the past 14 years I have parked my work vehicle in front of my "garage" leaving 16 1/2 feet for garbage, fire and other neighbors and vehicles to pass without any problems. Several other neighbors have also parked on the alley without problems for many years. Recently, the Fire Chief told me that he wrote a letter talking about the Uniform Fire Code and 18 feet width, but also admitted that such a requirement would probably not be enforced as long as his fire trucks could pass by. I am not sure why this alley is considered a "fire access" anyway. This is a private alley. There is access to all of the houses via Park Place and Orchard Road, just as there is on La Paloma and Orchard Road for the houses on the next block. The Fire Department has been, though, up and down the alley many times without our parking ever being an issue. This alley is not of uniform width for it's entire length. Further up the hill, the distance between a property fence and telephone pole is only 14 1/2 feet This whole Fire Department access subject was raised by the developer only after they rotated the garage opening without approval. The alley has been partially blocked with construction materials (including today) during the entire construction that has reduced the alley width City of Saratoga City Council to less than 18 feet. The construction workers have continued to park in the alley during the day (including today and yesterday) also reducing the alley width to far less width than 16 feet (many times totally blocking the alley). Now that it is to the developers advantage parking in the alley is all of a sudden a fire access issue and he believes no parking should be allowed! There are four reasons for which I am opposed to the re- orientation of this garage: 1. The elevation of the new garage was reported to be one foot lower than the original plans by Mr. Harkey and Mark Thomas Construction during a recent meeting with three neighbors and myself. Information about the alley height that has been reported by the developer in recent letters and even by City Staff (during the last planning commission meeting on this subject) is not correct. The alley is now 6 to 8 inches higher than before construction began. I have had to dig out a section of the alley in one place to open my back gate and in another to allow water to drain from another area of my property. The orientation of the garage is not an elevation issue. The original driveway access area is adequate for the garage use. 2. By allowing the garage to be rotated 90 degrees, the garage would open directly onto the alley with virtually no off set, and more importantly no view of alley traffic. Once this alley is paved, cars will travel at speeds higher than the existing graveled alley.., it is a recipe for disaster. 3. The developer made it clear he wanted to eliminate all parking on the alley. This would place 4 or 5 more cars on Orchard Road, where parking is already a problem. We often must park our other car in front of our neighbors homes as other people are parked in from of our house. 4. Unfortunately, such a rotation would also impact me every morning when I load my vehicle for work (tools) and every evening when I unload. This project has been a nightmare for those of us that live with it day in and day out. The arrogance and attitude of the developer and his contractor is disgusting and appalling. This development has impacted us measurably: We lost our view of the mountains We lost our view of the beautiful Saratoga Federated Church City of Saratoga City Council -We lost our view of the majestic old heritage oak tree -We lost the privacy in our back yard and all rooms facing the alley (all three homes have large windows that look directly into our yard and home) -We have lived with an unfenced and often unsafe construction sight (open pits, unprotected rebar, etc) -We have lived with unchecked dust, mud, no- notice alley blockages and un- pleasant and foul mouthed workers for over a year I urge you to agree with the staff recommendation and ruling of the planning commission and have the developer construct what they originally proposed. Please do not approve the appeal to re- orientated the garage. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Richard A. Yo g r/ lc 4 r 1 1 ExHIBIT A48...'. p (MOM SPECIMCATIONS 4■ ..44, rue www,,,,..• w■ www.• Arwww...00 *ow •=1 •••&••••••••elmtW o r::•••• 1••••••••■•• eArrHwomc cruANTnirs .7 4, ..1.......•••• ...........X.. ...Las I, Pinfir/IMIUMIVIPEW:tra:4 r M.a. .6 WIN ww t. roma...COTT Ma WM" owis. sewn ornwm awes maw. meows wt.. W• woo 9 wt. vow 0n• ww 1 /t 20379 20391 20)93 ow.. fm Oa 0 Mom a or mM m.......... T.M... wo......,.. II au 1••••••1••• no, NW um evaw•-no ...row wwww.,••• ma. Wil a ••••wwwww Qs rms... 0•••■ www W newer www 4, ...sr= wso 7 /7 1 F EXCAVATION FOR 256 (PARK PLACE) wwww w o• wwww ay., wow rw ww..... v ...I w• wow.. woo.. w PM Wa Mae or PM maga. i sar am. Maas M■ won.... WwWne....W. 'Toro r...... tamsae••.... M. ^Pam s a 'ammo /spry ...am Mm .m... wWWW•Ww1ww WM. IMWOW Or Memo Mal W KO•104. Sralla.0 I% DOW BASEMENT (C. Y. I 249 er. la sin. es urox we*, NTS a.alarla a. Mfaa VW". NAN" wars... 00 mr... wwww. wow. /an raWarf. IMM.....S..",, MOP ...WM* a Vali ariMarNMII Ir Is Mame. M ITS /161 ...Ia. W." ..MA WCOMMIMPata• MO Lana sa ...ma" MUM 0 I /I TOTAL COT (C.Y.) 309 302 351 I row. •wwww•www• %anew au, w ...ww wow/. ....Ls omm e.,... awe.. we wwaw•••• ow r• w wwww!,.....•.• ww 1 '...1',..."",.%."' :=Z:' Tr swwww Woo. twos.. ow...ww I ...Awn nyw,•.....• W. T' M amft a. r.,,,,,,„... I,/ TOTAL nt.L (c.v.) 59 30 0 4. a.....a..meown. am,. wwww revue, w••■••••••Ww ww, C l I ....x.wzr...mr..;;; ','::.Z.,.." ;7..."74rr .r.r=V1.7::. .r....r.:= w now alsow ft...wan www.wwww ..J now 11 VNI,YR P.. Was el Imral• ii •wwww rano.. ...ow row paws to we .00.111.1.• I., mow. mt... it 1 CW (1.,,•,, ...law •••■••tw,w, ...IA I I Iv ow, =we 1 tira• .0:7;7•0 .1 wr i owl wro Au Le.. i WI et li 1 ...r.;;•• wawa oanw0 ar 01 n.a. alt. win. law Mg •91,17•11 MO aftwass muj,...........,.........■............,...-..........,... ......w....•j• AL ...............21 4 A4 32' OC 1 a IMO TM, W.V. a WM. Mt nu WAR. owe raw twWwww nw lox *Ws,. iit i ma/ we•rw wtti. .0 ...0•710 .....1.0. at /TM mtwaTs. *MO vf.a 'MEP 011•• f Malan /1 Or mcww. if I it [:!,,,t),, "";:::...r.41:."'""7"."'"V:=4-*".........'"•tMr::"'"'"'"'""• ,I 1 I i 4 i II' 1 I .V I t, I I 1 -.as. or at wwwww am 'on. nall 0 ..4108•0 0.0•10 /1 1 rk 1 i.r,_,' ...',4 r 4' SCALE I 080•0•80 0.01 .00 8•00100 110 Ida 0008. 0000 09 00 0 11 0 000 Le 0; 77 r, i i "'"'''':=•.:1'' H 1/ s '4. H I 0 1 I. Lrttms Wi..7 a ''''.1" A''' I I co,voe .1 is-- I P ;:r.xnur mortroracy m 0 woo. ...Ammo welt 4 Y.* ,I, Ift■ t ry, i 1 I I 1".• l',1'1 1! 'A..= •crei'' C• Miami 0...var....sr* saMtars alt III II I 1 Mal "A IOW WM. VW Waal. OW. MO Warr' to. •••na maw ww ow mow, i •••••••••ft. II i I .1 I ...wow. awwwww•• Ou 00 if 1 1 ,g,,,• .r.f, 3?; i 0 1„„: 1/81.000 ft 0100408. Ai wwww wir As ...rm.. wa limp.. 111' 1 (WO,/ i Waal Ma *Wow w ww■ w•nws. m eta« ow. awww 00. .0 on000. II i ..„,...6,7,• lietr e i ...n ...saw W. w mut. ow, run ww* no www •Ws• ft...WO MM. VW otc......•• .10.11.17111 IT kaa0 11•1110.111m10.1 I, i 12 C' 11 t 000 6000 00.008000 woos ot, 1 )1 j 11 I. 4.2.1. IMO 4. ...1.18 484.., P 1 owwww Dow W. 001080 or 000 v., pow Raw OM We. 1, 01•4,0aert. MO If f y. 09 ft;‘ 1 IIM011.....ft onlve foam 1471Pfu 00 DV 1 011 i 1 ■=rt.o7.311 :Mgr Ag A :rf■ =I 4 M .!...V V: rt i t r 4 i ‘41 1. .1. 7 j I weal.. w Wrwa.••ww, www. MO motor., m• v Ini •nnee 11 i 0 1 u.,........., t I f 1 t..‘ Aril i .e.sonernp■•••■■••.....■.0..werr wow. ••••4.. Is wwww t., ..w. 11 t p .klit' www ,w wive...man ww, a 10 wow...6 ..,•...tw ws....., ..g.w. at... r., 0 i n l 0 I ono mi..* MY...01W SM. •ww w rw ow ow.... 1 I 1 we Ar j. w .sst/c i,,,PL wow. 1, www....• 1... ow u .1••■ prowl... I I 1 I I map/. ea. ft.. 0 0000;0 ..0 r000 11 i 1 r# ;?0:7; 7 Jila ue bpse■ sll MaVallptIna•••■••••.T.S. M J i f 1 II I /1 4 ii 1 C J i 1 0 •sr.. h 0,, .c........... --A„,, t r." i i:I. I 1 N"! II t 1 I iee..Y. I' 11 .1 7 1 E AP.'" i' i vfe-s&e*cir .1 I J r V I I,. E i"r i l u ,.p7,4 1 o.: A i L C...) I (Th, AIX 1 9 1 I 1. N If 1 7 400 re S. 1 ;58 1 7 1' 44 4„ ,:4: 7 1 6., 7.,.,...r., 77„.,, ..........„..„___,.........i.___ 1 19/ 11 I I I r Cl.. I I !;17 21 ..I 011: 1 I 14. b 1 9 4r ,1(' I 2 i .i, t1 i eLcLili° 0 11 i ...4 LI I f r 8 I 4 fl C ti, Cr 1 I 1 811 0 If .40 /10 1;1 0 1 11 4 11 Q i.r 44 I I 41 li 1 7.1 1 kg. I 4 r VW Or 't tFOIr 00 9 I '''-i_e l II a,. .4. riiP --Pig. -11P..„ 7,0 h i" 1 II .1" 't•__ t ‘1. ./t 1 0 4 p. 6. 1 p II q a ....saus....i.ii.u.....:atrat6 ---7------ IS i ".•"I if I ..(fi I ,:r.:1 ii .11\ 4.1.W 11 1 0 ),I f II 1 II ti ."'L‘r"'-'----'----------"-----* I 44 4,- in .1.... ......1 II I 1 I II I II 8 'I 8 I (80379) 1 1 i II I 1 r 1 Res:ode/re ....,i,,4 11 1 7. II 8 I I 7 1Y,, FATE/ 84 a P -.I fF11.- ,11 0.1...f? I li'r 41. r 3 4 ii r i it------„....... ,L ,......,,f. II i 1 1 or 41 11 _i•■■..-- -it% ..44/77.44.-., /.1 I 8 'Y .4.08176 ii i i I I: 4- 4` 19,- I 1,,,„ it 0.10 (Ms .4 0 I 1 i 1:: •.V: I i 5 I Sp 1p WI la 0 P. I 1 a,. 4 I I/ t I .6 l'-'6 i ag4t, .••oc Astr._,_4•,..t- I p 4 c ..-0'!---I-- '•-.7- ''s 0. 0. 4.07 MI 41. N 4t," 32' 00 E I PC 30' 1 i ri. Ii 'Z'41A z1-•=1.,,, t I I 5 7 .i/, I ...110 r t H I 1 t 7 7 i• I I Or 7 140 MICE. RE, I SION /44.” B T DATE pA lt /4 f 1 I 1 .76ea nvl 11= SC AL E 44OR ,ey- ...:00.4 0,, .K. ,,••,..„4., GRADING aL DRAINAGE PLAN FOR J08 NO. ENG I NEERS I NC Illa DESIGNEI)E,MT. KY: HARR RAIIIICKA mown•••••• MIIIII RWN.. .44 DATE1 t.S. 4053 4i-:§' WES T L. j4sb e 40, 144 SHEET WAY SARATOGA. CA 95070 (408/ 867-0244 20391 20379 9 20393 PARK PLACE PR.„ NCR, SARATOGA CA. of- •■•./rwwwwww. 4. ----.4 .7 .1 os.• 4111111■NIONMilfr Annie 31.• 0 il REVISIONS BY I .____L_ .,i I 1 o 1 MICOMIISN MOO ONO 3 10 Ti PreCitets (typ 6i mmimarpliamtler l im I .1 L J ION OA) I Ian* cOurss cedar ilshIscrde cedar shingle shingle iidirp (typ "Ong OW.) r.., Mops i.. --(1., MIt. I i a. 1 1 :2L ,i, /nominee daps Seleht 0 4 00ker WOW 111,11 ''--1 1411111101 I Wirth -7 .1 2 ia J. ...7.7 i.: -.7.=-.:... 7 p 7.77;.. 7 71.=•::.•_--1-77 if 1 -O.,. H..- I 1 1 11 1 I;4 1 1\ l' 1! 1 t 4 1 1 ,,1 t 1,,, r z, j .dr Oott 1: 1. :i et ."±:..t.Z. 7 4.',.' '-i' o cow.. cads _77 .7: 1. „1,1 1.1 f_. 1 i 1 ...........1 •■III.... I si, I r. Illar -f :7- -77 7.•= 'Pullooker wood fasis thin g t o Wing Owl a I •7 boards (typ i r ni F r ri r1 S, 'a ',I 1 I I 1 •1_. ''l H ':1: l'1:1 I.1 r,.,., ..,,,,,,,,.,,,,....,,st ______...,_____-,T 111 1 1-1 r1" 1 I ll I t T i =•-7 -2 i ..1 1 1 1 401 u p;: 1 i .-=-•____T-.: .7 7 t. 1 L t l 'i rl -n 7 .L .3 1 I• 1 1 .1 i I 1 r II 1 4,1 ;1 i .....:777. ,..-1. 1 0 ..7. 7_ i .1 1 1 .1 --r :•i ll t- 7- -.7---- ..7: _I -7 0 1 L -----------11----- .77- ....1' 7 L -7...:7E 1 .1 1 1 !_:..1. 7 7- -:=7::=T ...7 2 1 1 4. ..1 1 lf •il I r.i i'■ 1 ia.--.:-..Q.-,-,,-i.7.-........-1---i 1 ....m.p.) :7- 7:;:_: 1- 1 iT 1._, 1; tLir, il norttontai bevel wow NI .i 7 I r• 1 li L t o4-- 4 t t i i 1 14 I I-,--..i. I _7/. 4.._.. 4.- 4: siding orp i i 1 i ;II i i I i I i I .1 I .1 I 1 i 11 i I' 1 L .1..11g.:_•;= i i 1 :1- 1- Irma los dm 1 i I 1 Mai MU A 1 I', ...122.1*-2..s• .1 1 4', oridomano r.: F. I. 1 i send firusll plaster siding honzontal bevel wood k i I 1 exposed roller tab M.) used brisk sleds OW 1 •0 base of house and siding IVA/ (N fireptace chases MO 1 I 6 LA C.; FRONT ELEVATION WEST) SIDE ELEVATIONASOUTI9 AMMINSIIMMIMIMME ila i vs I a I /4 11, IN ila 11'N i decorative wood ewe Class 'G'" treated cedar tyackets snake roof (typ bath x decora ,ets tive save 1 S ed 611 fishecale cedw •Nnale 'single course' ceder horliOntal bevel wood lading MP I i shingle sidmp (typ ill meg siding MP -'N 1 1 W PAM O. ,..m., 'single mum cedar ening), Wing OW i manse rldps raps 1 •,1 7---- r :.E.E r 7 71 .7_=_. 7: 1‘_•.=•:•:::. r i 1. •-':=•-F;r:-.:-..-.-_- .fi ---7L ----S------i----------j-------± --r i i 1 7.7:•:, 2,:--:--. yr ft r 1 1 I I.. i .--.:1:*---:.:--. •T ••1 I .1 I i I' 4 N .7=: .i„, .V.:- '1 2. i r I I 1 1 1 0 4.....4.••• sewed low frio.) teen% Ova) Ai 2:: L.... a LAI. I 91! AST'•:III,/ 1 7 .7 r .74_ 4_ _I:ir 1 2: J--- 1 III 1,,-- 1 -I. --L ,f ti Ivy i a 71 'IV: r tr''' 1 I a: r-T• l'••■••. i ii•.; 1 1., •-:,,.1.r ,T, r i,li j L'ril."111 W 0 1 is T 1 i I -:::E:=-3 I adig ----,-71....i.*..i.;_l•fr. L 2_ 2= .0 _fb.ltrp.),.____ ra ■..i !I5•9 1 .77_2= a :1 -17 I i IV _I i- 7 I 'a I i_ "e, i i I-- 17 _1 11 I 1 I -..--:=T.._ likillMil OW MIN lg •bswee how and i I rom,ok.ftli.) 1 1111 ____I --7=--• t- my NMISIent AMIIIIHI I I I 1 a 111111 NW r Mal 11111WM ilimtvil f46 1"mmi l ......1... ,...1 5 0 wed berk OW* OW expaind new tab Oa) herttorom tovei %yaw wino ftro.) sand finish plaster siding bala of house end A G g fascism ohasai Ilya I li REAR ELEVATION (EAST) SIDE ELEVATION (NORTO) i 1 4'• o A5 IIIIIIMININIIIIMIIIIIMIIII■ 1 e ,...n...„ --s...., 1 REVISIONS". BY r a °Wm: I gess V esti& °Id° snake roof (typ breasts (typ 0 I 5 to *mks roof er 6 wood dspboard WIN! to 6(100(0411vO otOod ea I match existing resicleno• I t bracket' I s 1 t I t t II .4 vnatdroun, tiOpo !root 1 t *1 Mari WI I T IL=1. f:_,.- C.” :II- -L-1 '1 4 7 -171 .7 ''''',.1 1 L ',".1 1 _=1. ....T.., I :7.7 .7_11 '1 .:::-.......,:1;: .1.1 n i ir J.: i.7.:1": _I t ....AI .2.; 1,;,:.• 1,,:..:.1 t 3 7 11 1 ,,......t .I., I, 1 `I- .1. -L 7 7 -r•ir ---0 ----1 III{ i 1.. 1 t.n 1 r:- 1 ,---44- ____._T.,...1 __L ;11 L .:7 r.:-.... -_-:•-•:r.. 1 --1. L4---- L L r ■-e- 1( 1 .4 .4 I: c N• "Tr 1 ""a 7 ..,1 4-, L.,71. ..11 0.16 riiii•ki i -,‘!---5:1'1,-..,: 4 r 1 7 I 1 I Ls' t 7 -7- -I r'' 1 i.: :'r fr 'I i 1 4: -i- 1,. '-r-1"."-r" r: I 10' 72- .1 I ,II ...i -I,. '1 11 l. 11: „1 i LI- •1, Al' 9 1 ,_-.0.00. --,r--r- 3 E. T .L".r ..,r1...1'1 .iD _IIIMINEIMNI 1,11 Ili _ii_Iir___: t J. F i z ow. 1 *VW noc: 01111 j I low v 1 I 1 I 1 r 1 1 .,-...--Nrilmr■rrimerramriissorpr,. 1 1••■■•••••• L I I r I I T Ti --z 1 1 --4 o I ---1 1,--,--ii 1 4 t 7 '71 r"' !It t_,- Iii 1 i 1: 1 1,F 1 1" 7 :1 I 1 !I- 7 II 1 II,' 'i 1 i 11 I _1 4. ..i i 11' I 1 S/ 1 t1 I, I. v 1 -I 4 cf 1 101 i lig 1.11.___ i i 1 I I il I7 t«------ 4 L-- 4 t r 1 i. •Iii ':i ,i ,H I II I .1-..-{I I ,1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i i 1 1 iiig ...J1 .11‘,—; 11 1 j, i t I 1 7 NM t s 1 ,41iti I __1 7' t *melee I th e) ""ami i fi ...=•tier.,.=er.n.= I if. I ill I. snehhoureceele t 7 1r7-1 'K. 7,-4:,• ...._„1 OnloNnotord poop 'fill Ml.il sand 11111fh Plaste Oding r used brick steps (t)p bass of hOUSII 8 used brick steps (typ sand Immo Moto won0 0 bees of house 8 erepiace chases (typ k. fireplace chimes (typ.) J 1FRONT ELEVATION (WEST) III ---,---.-.-7. r" SIDE ELEVATION (NORTH) r. Ctass'C eased cedar g f lulus root hyp decorative wood SAVO k r illi fa wood clapboard skiing to .s.N brackets IhrP 1 wl 10 to m r s atch easinp eside* Class V treated cedar shoes root (fYo 111 DM 'i• *000 chiPbosrd Siding tO CWr2 match seeing residence AIM =Oa et, 4 -.--.-k-=',. 6 2 MR: 1 ;12 ir.., ....0.,. IV t 7 11 _i Ill.,. L ----Li Fill 4 1 -:L-- 44- ,t.....1„,..L.4_ 1 ._i _1- 1 1 1 r 1 C F.-11P 1 1 r It I L. 11,._1 1 9 Gd f _-=_.-1------7-_-_7.-_-_-/:.:-: -.0 I _•-•.h.•-• ca ap t... \4 1) -'7------ t- vlit woo. MI z 1 si I i r I T T 1-1 III i z 11 r_.... F H.._4_ 1' 1 7. =t, 2 Hi 1 p I-a, T i -----1 r----- r r 1.T 9 7 0 I, MIII secs eyp 1 ,,it L I -.LI l I 2: _:_2__:..: L_ ---r__. imorigliesefoi. ro... 1 Ems.. MININIOn111,12 1 f. ..11...P. 1 1 Sind finish piaster *Ina t beet of hares ei 1111 (qv.) REAR ELEVATION EAST SIDE EILEVALT ROUTH lkeplacie chases g o L.,.. v#'•! -0 •I -0 i f A5 ReviE jot g y.,,, ,y ,c .a ii ,i i :,..4.) r I 4 decortabve savbracics I I I r e et Ow 1 r 011Clar i gays 'C' 11Twded **aerate OW) 'angle course' cedar 1 WV' siding (typ 't w A an 1 mapinum Mee ho1/411111 I S I decorative cut rafter tads MN i 7 OW 7 1 1 I .rI 4-11: 7:7 I IL i "1 ----7-2.1___:---r--2,.--...• r.:_, *4 plate 0 Ircon0 lb.. Or =:--E'r .7'. I I II. t.. .1 1 s. I i Ir:TI -r :T. I 1. _T. 2 7 .--r------ :.17::. ui.d_ bfick0.p. ov) I r• I 1 I 1---: 7.-_-_____-_=,_.-,-_-__ i i 11 4].., I I 1 ;II I. t 4 I -I -,-!!.-6,;,,,,-% ,,•40-, ---7.- 2.- _44.,,--•_-_ -..„-44. -s. ,,,•„,,s,„ ,s, I I I -.17 i 1. r r r 1 1 II 6, 1, I 1, i 1' .k.... i i I I 1 I I 1 H I •JI II ee. 1-- 4 -11-=;'-".N 0 H 'I 1 i 1 ill i I 1 1 I I. :I_ i' ...1.. I I II I I :7 111 3 -4 1 r i !::''',;Y rr rg); f 1 I ll II 1 r 1 !I 4 I 41 C` i'! i r I 11'. 1 i ''t 4-_.,--.._1.2_7•1,-=.---,----=2,,t,..:_:-.J1 l' i NoiMI '.3 1 3 1 Li L 1 I I 1 _L _;c...1= 4 I ir: il 1 L_. ____.1 ..T 4 eeeeeemeeeetene .WI p I I I !4ft i tA resehonesei Wed. (1)1 I y. OMMINFM.M1141.1•■■••■ 1 I 1 1,,, if sand brush piaster ogling t 1 11111 0 babe of house and e I ri 11 areplace chasett Itylt I "r SIDE ELEVATION (SOUTH) 11 REAR ELEVATION (EAST) /4. -0 I 14,ice. t, 1 N i i' i Di Co; 4 .0 0 shake root (typ 0 1 S 10 M ;:.'.3''')': lc 6ixiiiigrimir" decorative say. brackets Ctaas 'C' treated Ceder OW I ahake roof (tYP 1 N. NM 'angle course' ceder ewe I 'sing* course' cedar Shingle siding (typ i I 7 ahingte siding (tyo Illalk 1 ___12 . ri N rneranura row ItetanI, all 4.■ 7,... I 2... I 0.. 0 ...d ri.c. -11 ._••.7-_____-_-i__________ 7.7._;:_727 :a w ammo.% out raft, tails i 7 -La- 4! 41° IL '.1:'' ■=4 1.::::'''.•;', 1 :4 3 N 011) ea R .•'•,-,.'''i:**!'1 om ks 0 "141111r ---1 1--.III I i■ L o! i I V 0 "I o ,0"..•_. '5 :1 Er ---4 7• `T 1 1 1 :4 '4: A call ..4 nI Is I el eel Owe •ele i .1•• Ii......:. I ---------7- 1. i,,,',...1 ,:i:;, g -1 a ili7 ily •,i1 1 7 ,---:,--il I 1 !7 I IF )4. 4 F r 11T I I 1 1 i 1-. 7 T 1 1 I l' h r/r 1 1 I 77. 4 !.°'';.-1:: I i r it'. 1 lit Ac 1 11 I I Hi 1 I 1 i. 1 1 4 I II-.. T T •III I I'— 1 r i. 4 1 1 il 1■ I 4 i i Iiii I l. i, I I; H i I _.i I I i 7: I I II. 1 I s- --I I '.._'.1" I I I I I I I -,_:-2_..,..... -:.,•_____,„_A •,-V-r r' r 1 r 1 •r" L.. 11 .3 3 „.P i: -,L_,, i „1...._____.4,,-,-- I 1 „ILI L 1 1 .:-.__..L J •_i!' A,,.',:&;, 1 1: ,1 .•••_1_74—...:,-__=_'4'7,...,,,:::,--: r'-- 4 1 ....11 --LI. 71 .'..1.....,.......„1... j "s!', 44 3._I 3.... _4...„3. miaiiims4=0, N 7 1 I. 1 '1C 16„, l OrdeNnasSal gml. Ma =III tm=,. '...Zr....watle l =inimmir I X i':,,' Mind M PlO of WWII."' WOO UMW erte OOPS (tYPI w 4- TT4 fireplugs chafe' (?P) I Q 1 ..."1;;;;,:::. i i 4:1 P. 4111 I FRONT ELEVATION (WEST) SEEE ELEVATION (NORTH) ,,:.:-0• I v -or .,1.,... ,,,Ls,, As i 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 a AGENDA ITEM 6 a MEETING DATE: JUNE 2, 1999 CITY MANAGER: 0 ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Landscaping Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 Public Hearing, Approval of Engineer's Report, and Confirmation of Assessments for FY 99 -00 RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to adopt the Resolution Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments for FY 99 -00. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is the final Resolution which the Council must adopt to complete the renewal of the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 for FY 99 -00. Once adopted, the Resolution approves the Engineer's Report and confirms the assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. The Resolution can be considered by the Council only after the close of the Public Hearing and tabulation of ballots by the City Clerk. Recall that the property owners in six of the Zones within the District are voting on proposed increased assessments for the coming year under the requirements of Proposition 218. These are Zones 1, 9, 12, 17, 27 and 28. Until the ballots are tabulated, it is uncertain whether the proposed increased assessments can be approved by the City Council. If it turns out that the ballot results in any of these Zones fail to approve the increased assessments, the Council will face the tough choice of figuring out whether and how to continue providing the services of the District in these Zones. The options the Council will have are to: 1) discontinue providing the services and turn the responsibility back over to the property owners, 2) reduce the assessments to the previously approved maximum amount and fund the difference through some other means, or 3) continue the Public Hearing to June 16 in order to allow property owners who haven't voted the opportunity to still cast their votes, possibly resulting in a final vote in favor of the increased assessments. At this time, I am most concerned about the balloting in Zones 9 (McCartyville), 17 (Sunland Park), and 28 (Kerwin Ranch) because of the highly visible landscaping maintained through the assessment district in these neighborhoods. The Council should particularly consider how it would want to respond to a vote in opposition to the proposed increased assessments by the property owners in either of these three Zones. Attached to this report are the Preliminary Assessment Schedule for FY 99 -00, and the schedule showing the history of the assessment amounts in each Zone since the inception of the assessment district. There have been no changes made to these two schedules since they were first provided to you on April 7. FISCAL IMPACTS: All of the costs associated with the administration and operation of the Landscape Lighting Assessment District are recovered via the assessments levied against the benefiting properties. Thus, the LLA does not affect the General Fund. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The Resolution of Intention and Notice of Hearing have been published in the Saratoga News as prescribed by law. Additionally, the property owners in the six zones which are balloting have received notices and other information also prescribed by law. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The Resolution would not be adopted and the assessments would not be confirmed. If this occurs, the Council will need to direct staff accordingly. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The assessment roll will be finalized and transmitted to the County Auditor by August 10 for placement on the upcoming tax roll. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Confirming Assessments. 2. Schedules and Notices. RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FISCAL YEAR 1999 -2000 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: WHEREAS, on the 17th day of February, 1999, said Council adopted its Resolution No. 99 -10, "A Resolution Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1999- 2000" for the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City Engineer to prepare and file with the Clerk of this City a written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 99 -10; and WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk of said City, whereupon said Clerk presented it to the City Council for its consideration; and WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the provisions of said Act and said Resolution No. 99 -10, including (1) plans and specification of the existing improvements and the proposed new improvements; (2) estimate of costs; (3) diagram of the District; and (4) an assessment according to benefits; all of which were done in the form and manner required by said Act; and WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and every part thereof was sufficient in every particular and determined that it should stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings under said Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to the requirements of said Act, appointed Wednesday, the 2 day of June, 1999, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for hearing protests in relation to the levy and collection of the proposed assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, for Fiscal Year 1999- 2000, and directing said Clerk to give notice of said hearing as required by said Act; and WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were duly and regularly published and posted in the time, form and manner required by said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and Certificates on file with said Clerk, and that the notice and ballot required by Article XIIID, Section 4(c) and (d) of the California Constitution, were mailed to all property owners of record subject to the assessment at least 45 days prior to the date of the public hearing on the proposed assessment or increase, as evidenced by the Affidavit and Certificates on file with the City Clerk, whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the time and place stated in said notice; and 1 WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to or in favor of, said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district, or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, submitted ballots with the Clerk of said City at or before the conclusion of said hearing, and all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the levy and collection of the assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, were fully heard and considered by said Council; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing the City Clerk did tabulate all returned ballots; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1. That the tabulation of ballots returned to the City Clerk indicates that with the exception of Zones protests against said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, for Fiscal Year 1999 -2000, do not represent a majority protest pursuant to Streets and Highways Section 22630.5 or Article XIIID, Section 4(e). The tabulation of ballots returned to the City Clerk indicates that the protests against the proposed increase in assessments for Zones do represent a majority protest pursuant to Streets and Highways Section 22630.5 or Article XIIID, Section 4(e) and the proposed assessments and improvements for Zones as set forth in the Engineer's Report are modified accordingly. 2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require and said Council does hereby order the levy and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described in said Engineer's Report and made a part hereof by reference thereto. 3. That the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 and the boundaries thereof benefited and to be assessed for said costs for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are situate in Saratoga, California, and are more particularly described by reference to a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said City. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in said District and any zone thereof and the general location of said District. 4. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof contained in said report, be, and they hereby are, finally adopted and approved. 2 5. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report, be, and it hereby is, finally adopted and approved. 6. That the public interest and convenience require, and said Council does hereby order the improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Engineer's Report, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements. 7. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution No. 99 -10, 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 it 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, finally approved and confirmed. 8. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of said improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements, and the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof and of the expenses incidental thereto contained in said report be, and the same hereby is, finally approved and confirmed. 9. That said Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1999 -2000 be, and the same hereby is, finally adopted and approved as a whole. 10. That the City Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of Santa Clara County the said assessment, together with said diagram thereto attached and made a part thereof, as confirmed by the City Council, with the certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and the date thereof. 11. That the order for the levy and collection of assessment for the improvements and the final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram and the assessment, as contained in said Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to said Report, or any portion thereof, as amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in accordance with any resolution or order heretofore duly adopted or made by this Council. 3 Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the day of 1999, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 4 Supplement to Exhibit A City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 Special Benefits provided to each Zone Zone 1 (Manor Drive Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance of the Manor Drive medians 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 Tract 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 neighborhoods; 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, 1 1 1 1 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. 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 Tracts 6199, 7495 and 7928. 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, 2844, 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. p p Zone 17 (Sunland Park Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance along the Quito Road frontage of Tracts 976 and 977. Zone 22 (Prides Crossing Landscape District) Provides for periodic landscape maintenance along Prospect Road between the Route 85 overcrossing and Titus Avenue and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85 overcrossing and Saratoga Creek. Includes all 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). Zone 24 (Village Commercial Landscape and Lighting District) Provides for routine maintenance of Village Parking Districts 1 -4, Big Basin Way landscaping and street lighting. Zone 25 (Saratoga Legends Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga Sunnyvale Road frontage, and pedestrian pathways within Tract 8896. Zone 26 (Bellgrove Landscape and Lighting District) Provides for common area landscape maintenance and lighting associated with Tract 8700. Zone 27 (Cunningham Place /Glasgow Court Landscape District) See description for Zone 10. Zone 28 (Kerwin Ranch Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance along the Fruitvale and Saratoga Ayes. 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 Tracts 3946 and 5001. I CITY OF SARATOGA LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 1999 -2000 ZONE 1 ZONE2 ZONE3 ZONE4 ZONE5 ZONE6 OF PARCELS 29 85 176 693 113 64 I FACTOR 0.0078 0.0227 0.0471 0.1853 0.0302 0.0171 EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES $162.66 $476.75 $987.16 $1,468.66 $239.48 $135.63 Public Works Director 26.03 76.29 157.97 622.01 101.42 57.44 Office Specialist II 35.43 103.85 215.02 846.65 138.05 78.19 Park Maint. Leadworker 101.20 296.61 614.16 Park Maint. Worker II Park Maint. Worker I 2001 BENEFITS $49.14 $144.03 $298.23 $388.33 $63.32 $35.86 Public Works Director 6.51 19.07 39.49 155.50 25.36 14.36 Office Specialist II 9.74 28.56 59.13 232.83 37.96 21.50 Park Maint. Leadworker 32.89 96.40 199.60 Park Maint. Worker II Park Maint. Worker I 4010 CONTRACT SERVICES $450.00 $800.00 4011 LEGAL SERVICES $3.88 $11.37 $23.54 $92.67 $15.11 $8.56 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES $49.17 $144.13 $298.43 $1,175.08 $191.61 $108.52 Engineer's Report 49.17 144.13 298.43 1,175.08 191.61 108.52 New Parcel Charge 4014 REPAIR SERVICES 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $1,740.00 $2,892.00 $2,220.00 4022 WATER $630.00 $275.00 $775.00 4023 POWER $10,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,400.00 Irrigation Controllers Streetlights 10,000.00 2,000.00 2,400.00 4040 ADVERTISING $9.21 $27.00 $55.91 $55.60 $9.07 $5.14 SUB -TOTAL $3,094.06 $3,970.28 $5,458.26 $13,180.35 $2,518.59 $2,693.71 8001 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $402.23 $516.14 $709.57 $1,713.45 $327.42 $350.18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,496.29 $4,486.41 $6,167.83 $14,893.79 $2,846.00 $3,043.89 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES $1,730.00 $345.00 $2,300.00 $20,400.00 $8,200.00 PROJECTED FY 98 -99 CARRYOVER $279.66 $166.92 $114.90 $25,755.18 $14,900.64 $55.77 TOTAL TO ASSESS $1,486.63 $3,974.49 $3,752.93 ($31,261.39) ($20,254.64) $2,988.12 CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED IN FY 99 -00 PROJECTED CARRYOVER TO FY 00 -01 $31,261.39 $20,254.64 NET TO ASSESS $1,486.63 $3,974.49 $3,752.93 $0.00 $0.00 $2,988.12 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ,z a $46.76 $21.32 $0.00 $0.00 $46.69 MAX APPROVED ASSESSMENT $52.50 $63.00 $78.75 MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 LLA99- 00Prelim CITY OF SARATOGA LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 1999 -2000 ZONE 7A ZONE 7B ZONE 9 ZONE 10 ZONE 11 ZONE 12 OF PARCELS 472 291 48 9 250 9 FACTOR 0.1262 0.0778 0.0128 0.0024 0.0669 0.0024 EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES $1,000.30 $616.71 $269.22 $50.48 $1,402.21 $50.48 Public Works Director 423.65 261.19 43.08 8.08 224.39 8.08 Office Specialist II 576.65 355.52 58.64 11.00 305.43 11.00 Park Maint. Leadworker 167.50 31.41 872.39 31.41 Park Maint. Worker II Park Maint. Worker I 2001 BENEFITS $264.49 $163.07 $81.33 $15.25 $423.62 $15.25 Public Works Director 105.91 65.30 10.77 2.02 56.10 2.02 Office Specialist II 158.58 97.77 16.13 3.02 83.99 3.02 Park Maint. Leadworker 54.44 10.21 283.53 10.21 Park Maint. Worker II Park Maint. Worker I 4010 CONTRACT SERVICES $475.00 $84.38 $125.00 $350.00 4011 LEGAL SERVICES $63.12 $38.91 $6.42 $1.20 $33.43 $1.20 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES $814.44 $493.43 $81.39 $15.26 $423.91 $15.26 Engineer's Report 800.34 493.43 81.39 15.26 423.91 15.26 New Parcel Charge 14.10 4014 REPAIR SERVICES 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $2,352.00 $545.40 $960.00 $960.00 4022 WATER $2,100.00 $735.00 $1,125.00 $300.00 4023 POWER $5,800.00 Irrigation Controllers Streetlights 5,800.00 4040 ADVERTISING $37.87 $23.35 $15.25 $2.86 $79.41 $2.86 SUB -TOTAL $7,980.23 $1,335.47 $5,380.62 $1,449.83 $4,572.58 $1,695.05 8001 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $1,037.43 $173.61 $699.48 $188.48 $594.44 $220.36 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $9,017.65 $1,509.08 $6,080.10 $1,638.31 $5,167.02 $1,915.41 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES $21,165.92 $1,509.08 PROJECTED FY 98 -99 CARRYOVER $11,170.98 $0.00 ($205.85) ($2,102.36) $341.49 ($691.72) TOTAL TO ASSESS ($23,319.25) $0.00 $6,285.95 $3,740.67 $4,825.53 $2,607.13 CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED IN FY 99 -00 ($1,151.73) ($672.13) PROJECTED CARRYOVER TO FY 00 -01 $23,319.25 $0.00 NET TO ASSESS $0.00 $0.00 $6,285.95 $2,588.94 $4,825.53 $1,935.00 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT $0.00 $287.66 $19.30^ WON MAX APPROVED ASSESSMENT $52.50 MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT $0.00 $0.00 $77.08 $287.66 $207.12 LLA99- OOPrelim CITY OF SARATOGA LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 1999 -2000 ZONE 15 ZONE 16 ZONE 17 ZONE 22 ZONE 24 ZONE 25 1 OF PARCELS 41 55 200 863 124 15 FACTOR 0.0110 0.0147 0.0535 0.2308 0.0332 0.0040 EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES $229.96 $308.49 $1,121.77 $4,840.43 $8,152.50 $84.13 Public Works Director 36.80 49.37 179.51 774.60 111.30 13.46 Office Specialist II 50.09 67.19 244.34 1,054.34 151.49 18.33 Park Maint. Leadworker 143.07 191.93 697.91 3,01 1.48 432.70 52.34 Park Maim. Worker II Park Maint. Worker I 4,435.00 3,022.00 2001 BENEFITS $69.47 $93.20 $338.89 $1,462.33 $2,447.21 $25.42 Public Works Director 9.20 12.34 44.88 193.65 27.82 3.37 Office Specialist II 13.77 18.48 67.19 289.94 41.66 5.04 Park Maim. Leadworker 46.50 62.38 226.82 978.73 140.63 17.01 Park Maint. Worker II Park Maint. Worker I 1,330.50 906.60 4010 CONTRACT SERVICES $250.00 $75.00 $1,000.00 $2,125.00 4011 LEGAL SERVICES $5.48 $7.35 $26.75 $115.41 $16.58 $2.01 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES $69.52 $93.26 $339.13 $1,463.34 $210.26 $25.43 Engineer's Report 69.52 93.26 339.13 1,463.34 210.26 25.43 New Parcel Charge 4014 REPAIR SERVICES 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $2,724.00 $900.00 $3,720.00 $4,980.00 $4,000.00 4022 WATER $600.00 $1,250.00 $1,050.00 $2,025.00 4023 POWER $125.00 $65.00 $18,500.00 Irrigation Controllers 65.00 Streetlights 125.00 18,500.00 4040 ADVERTISING $13.02 $17.47 $63.53 $274.13 $39.39 $4.76 SUB -TOTAL $3,961.46 $1,619.77 $7,860.06 $14,250.63 $37,515.94 $141.75 8001 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $514.99 $210.57 $1,021.81 $1,852.58 $4,877.07 $18.43 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,476.45 $1,830.34 $8,881.87 $16,103.21 $42,393.01 $160.18 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES $18,100.00 PROJECTED FY 98 -99 CARRYOVER ($1,924.35) ($56.96) ($332.82) $488.45 $24,293.01 $3,538.83 TOTAL TO ASSESS $6,400.80 $1,887.30 $9,214.69 $15,614.76 $0.00 ($3,378.65) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED IN FY 99 -00 ($1,181.50) PROJECTED CARRYOVER TO FY 00 -01 $3,378.65 NET TO ASSESS $5,219.30 $1,887.30 $9,214.69 $15,614.76 $0.00 $0.00 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT $127.30 $34.31 $18.09 N/A $0.00 MAX APPROVED ASSESSMENT $94.50 $52.50 $341.25 MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT $127.30 $20.76 N/A LLA99- 00Prelim CITY OF SARATOGA LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 1999 2000 ZONE 26 ZONE 27 ZONE 28 ZONE 29 TOTAL OF PARCELS 94 31 16 61 3,739 FACTOR 0.0251 0.0083 0.0043 0.0163 1.0000 (1) EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES $527.23 $173.87 $89.74 $342.14 $22,730.00 (2) Public Works Director 84.37 27.82 14.36 54.75 3,356.00 Office Specialist II 114.84 37.87 19.55 74.52 4,568.00 Park Maint. Leadworker 328.02 108.18 55.83 212.86 7,349.00 Park Maint. Worker II 4,435.00 Park Maint. Worker I 3,022.00 2001 BENEFITS $159.28 $52.53 $27.11 $103.36 $6,720.73 (3) Public Works Director 21.09 6.96 3.59 13.69 839.00 Office Specialist II 31.58 10.42 5.38 20.49 1,256.20 Park Maint. Leadworker 106.61 35.16 18.15 69.18 2,388.43 Park Maint. Worker II 1,330.50 Park Maint. Worker I 906.60 4010 CONTRACT SERVICES $290.62 $6,025.00 (4) 4011 LEGAL SERVICES $12.57 $4.15 $2.14 $8.16 $500.00 (5) 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES $159.39 $52.56 $27.13 $103.43 $6,354.10 (6) Engineer's Report 159.39 52.56 27.13 103.43 6,340.00 New Parcel Charge 14.10 4014 REPAIR SERVICES $0.00 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $21,192.00 $1,878.60 $3,648.00 $1,020.00 $55,732.00 (7) 4022 WATER $3,800.00 $550.00 $1,250.00 $16,465.00 (8) 4023 POWER $600.00 $39,490.00 (9) Irrigation Controllers 600.00 665.00 Streetlights 38,825.00 4040 ADVERTISING $29.86 $9.85 $5.08 $19.38 $800.00 (10) SUB-TOTAL 26 480 .33 $3,012.18 $5,049.21 1 $1596.47 $154,816.83 8001 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $3,442.44 $391.58 $656.40 $207.54 $20,126.19 (1 1) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $29,922.77 $3,403.76 $5,705.60 $1,804.01 $174,943.01 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES $73,750.00 12) PROJECTED FY 98 -99 CARRYOVER $1,963.49 ($482.45) ($258.40) $2,243.66 $79,258.07 (13) TOTAL TO ASSESS $27,959.28 $3,886.21 $5,964.00 ($439.65) $21,934.94 CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED IN FY 99 -00 ($258.40) ($3,263.76) (14) PROJECTED CARRYOVER TO FY 00 -01 $439.65 $78,653.58 (15) NET TO ASSESS $27,959.28 $3,886.21 $5,705.60 $0.00 $97,324.76 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT $297.44 $0.00 (16) MAX APPROVED ASSESSMENT $498.75 $300.00 $100.00 (17) MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT $64.24 18) I LLA99- 00Prelim Notes for FY 99 -00 Assessment Schedule 1. The Factor for each Zone represents the number of parcels in each Zone as a percentage of the total number of parcels in the District. 2. Wages include 5% of Public Works Director, 10% of Office Specialist II, 15% of Parks Maintenance Leadworker, and 10% of Park Maintenance Workers I II. Wages are spread to each zone per the factor. Wages for Parks Maintenance Leadworker are spread proportionately to landscape districts only. Wages for the Park Maintenance Workers I II are assigned to Zone 24 only. 3. Benefits are spread the same as wages. 4. Contract Services are for one -time needed improvements identified in various Zones. 5. Legal Services are fixed at $500 and are spread to each Zone per the factor. 6. Engineering Services charges are spread to each Zone per the factor. New Parcel Charges are assigned to those Zones in which new parcels have been added from the previous year. 7. Maintenance Services are the proposed landscape maintenance costs for landscape districts as bid in February, 1999. 8. Water is estimated annually for landscape districts based on historical usage. 9. Power is estimated for both landscaping and street lighting districts based on historical usage. 10. Legal advertising is spread to each zone per the factor. Advertising associated with maintenance contract bids is spread proportionately to the landscape districts only. 11. Indirect Costs are determined from the City's Indirect Cost Allocation schedule. Preliminary estimate is 13% of direct costs. 12. Property Tax revenues are estimated annually for the original 7 Zones of the District. 13. Projected FY 98 -99 Carryover is calculated from the audited fund balance figures as of June 30, 1998 projected through the end of FY 98 -99. 14. Carryover Not Assessed in FY 99 -00 represents a portion of the projected FY 98 -99 negative carryover amounts for which each Zone in a deficit position will not be assessed in FY 99 -00. The amounts not assessed are covered by the available fund balance. 15. Projected Carryover to FY 00 -01 represents the projected surplus for each Zone as of June 30, 2000. 16. Preliminary Assessment is the Net to Assess for each Zone divided by the number of parcels in each Zone, except for Zone 24. 17. Maximum Approved Assessment represents the maximum assessment which may be levied in these Zones as approved via prior balloting, and above which another Proposition 218 ballot is necessary. 18. Maximum Allowable Assessment represents the maximum assessment which may be levied in these Zones above which a Proposition 218 ballot is necessary. SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT HISTORY ZONE DATE FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY CREATED 80-81 81 -82 82 -83 83 -84 84-85 85 -86 86 -87 87 -88 0 (7C) 4/16/80 $102.01 $92.50 $92.58 $56.80 $21.02 $34.56 $35.38 $21.60 1 4/16/80 $34.26 $10.54 $0.00 $10.90 ;6.80 $203.76 $207.82 $113.70 2 4/16/80 $11.30 $5.62 $6.16 $6.62 $7.86 $8.86 $35.14 $27.40 3 4/16/80 $4.76 ;4.46 $0.00 $0.00 $4.20 ;11.60 $8.70 $20.50 4 4/16/80 $20.95 $18.54 $0.00 $2.06 $2.30 $5.86 $6.70. $2.26 5 4/16/80 $23.52 $21.28 $2.12 $0.84 $1.24 $5.00 $6.56 $5.14 6 4/16/80 $42.03 36.68 $0.00 $15.68 $11.32 $14.78 $16.94 $10.54 7 (7R) 4/16/80 $10.41 $8.90 $6.66 $5.78 $2.54 $2.50 $3.32 $3.14 8 (VPD #1) 4/16/80 $269.07 $48.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $213.80 $341.32 9 5/4/83 $65.00 $84.86 $83.52 $90.82 $87.40 10 4/18/84 $1,416.00 $0.00 $167.34 $186.26 11 4/18/84 $14.32 $5.66 $8.38 $7.70 12 4/17/85 $172.00 $153.02 $154.16 13 4/17/85 $18.00 $5.24 $3.04 14 4/17/85 $142.10 $121.30 $107.04 15 4/17/85 $222.00 $170.76 $87.44 16 4/16/86 $2,376.44 $3.04 17 4/15/87 $10.00 18 4/15/87 $50.00 19 (VPD #2) 4/19/89 20 (VPD #3) 4/19/89 21 (VPD #4) 4/19/89 22 4/17/91 23 5/1/91 24 8/3/94 25 7/1/97 26 7/1/97 27 7/1/98 28 7/1/98 I 29 7/1/98 (1) Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 21 merged to create Zone 24. (2) Zone detached on 5/20/92. (3) Zone detached in FY 96 -97. (4) Zones 14 18 merged to create Zone 27. LLA- HISTORY SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT HISTORY ZONE DATE FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY CREATED 88 -89 89 -90 90 -91 91 -92 92 -93 93 -94 94-95 95 -96 0 (7C) 4/16/80 $21.66 $21.66 14.64 $73.56 $49.72 $72.64 (1) 1 4/16/80 $113.54 105.94 $95.12 101.54 $62.20 $90.32 $77.68 $33.88 2 4/16/80 $29.66 $32.00 $34.62 $36.50 $5.98 $18.15 $118.68 $40.04 3 4/16/80 $23.06 $46.82 $13.14 $15.36 $25.80 $45.21 $25.26 $32.52 4 4/16/80 $1.86 $1.86 $1.60 $2.10 $23.84 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 4/16/80 $4.98 $4.98 $6.24 $6.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 4/16/80 $10.60 $10.60 $8.62 $8.58 $0.00 $0.00 $25.40 $52.50 7 (7R) 4/16/80 $2.64 $2.64 $3.78 $4.26 $6.88 $0.00 $10.88 $0.00 8 (VPD #1) 4/16/80 $330.36 $117.20 $0.00 $133.36 $0.00 $0.00 (1) 9 5/4/83 $113.74 $157.20 $136.74 $144.82 $138.82 $161.30 $169.92 $201.02 10 4/18/84 $234.70 $435.80 $348.74 $385.38 $371.12 $326.17 $442.58 $337.98 11 4/18/84 $8.04 $8.76 $9.58 $10.72 $11.32 $15.48 $19.02 $13.86 12 4/17/85 $168.04 $188.04 $209.84 $222.60 $242.42 $203.01 $380.00 $307.22 13 4/17/85 $3.60 $3.60 $3.70 $3.16 $0.00 $0.00 $3.46 $11.24 14 4/17/85 $114.48 $152.48 $137.56 $148.72 $192.74 $110.10 $264.58 $193.40 15 4/17/85 $83.76 $126.18 $102.60 $100.72 $98.90 $227.39 $202.04 $146.92 16 4/16/86 $3.22 $3.22 $59.88 $40.56 $45.16 $42.58 $54.40 $40.80 17 4/15/87 $7.70 $7.70 $8.72 $8.66 $0.00 $5.06 $25.20 $213.18 18 4/15/87 $6.08 $135.18 $154.56 $164.94 $88.10 $0.00 $0.00 $104.50 19 (VPD #2) 4/19/89 $1,851.00 $1,520.30 $5,243.00 $6,969.76 $13,620.00 (1) 20 (VPD #3) 4/19/89 $6,412.00 $6,414.00 $14,092.00 $18,770.62 $21,252.35 (1) 21 (VPD #4) 4/19/89 $0.00 $977.78 $2,933.00 $5,406.00 $14,385.56 (1) 22 4/17/91 $36.00 $0.00 $13.21 $22.58 $21.68 23 5/1/91 $110.00 (2) 24 8/3/94 $0.00 $0.00 25 7/1/97 26 7/1/97 27 7/1/98 28 7/1/98 29 7/1/98 (1) Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 21 merged to create Zone 24. (2) Zone detached on 5/20/92. (3) Zone detached in FY 96 -97. (4) Zones 14 18 merged to create Zone 27. LLA- HISTORY SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT HISTORY Preliminary ZONE DATE FY FY FY FY CREATED 96 -97 97 -98 98 -99 99 -00 0 (7C) 4/16/80 1 4/16/80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $51.26 2 4/16/80 $1 8.48 $23.00 $24.92 $46.76 3 4/16/80 $24.66 $38.40 $18.22 $21.32 4 4/16/80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 4/16/80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 4/16/80 $0.00 $50.50 $50.92 $46.69 7 (7R) 4/16/80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 8 (VPD #1) 4/16/80 9 5/4/83 $175.58 $136.14 77.08 $130.96 10 4/18/84 $337.48 $287.66 $287.66 $287.66 11 4/18/84 $9.38 $35.74 $26.84 $19.30 12 4/17/85 $285.98 $207.12 $207.12 $215.00 13 4/17/85 (3) 14 4/17/85 $70.18 $69.78 (4) 15 4/17/85 $145.12 $127.30 $127.30 $127.30 16 4/16/86 $30.42 $60.96 $53.34 $34.31 17 4/15/87 $210.50 $35.68 $20.76 $46.07 18 4/15/87 $64.28 $64.24 (4) 19 (VPD #2) 4/19/89 20 (VPD #3) 4/19/89 21 (VPD #4) 4/19/89 22 4/17/91 $9.96 $33.74 $11.36 $18.09 23 5/1/91 24 8/3/94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 25 7/1/97 $262.26 $0.00 $0.00 26 7/1/97 $207.10 $0.00 $297.44 27 7/1/98 $64.24 $125.36 28 7/1/98 $229.94 $356.60 29 7/1/98 $70.34 $0.00 (1) Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 21 merged to create Zone 24. (2) Zone detached on 5/20/92. (3) Zone detached in FY 96 -97. (4) Zones 14 18 merged to create Zone 27. LLA- HISTORY SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 AGENDA ITEM 6 MEETING DATE: June 2, 1999 CITY MANAGER: OAT/ ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services DEPT. HEAD: G &AI 0 SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 1999 -00 and 2000 -01 Draft Budget RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): 1. Conduct the Public Hearing to receive input on the Fiscal Years 1999 -00 and 2000 -01 Budget. 2. At the close of the Public Hearing, direct staff to return on June 16, 1999 for the adoption of the Fiscal Years 1999 -00 and 2000 -01 Budget, incorporating all changes which the City Council directs. REPORT SUMMARY: The Saratoga City Council received the Fiscal Years 1999 -00 and 2000 -01 draft Budget on April 30, 1999, and began reviewing the document format and assumptions at the May 5 City Council meeting, and reviewed revenue projections on May 11. Expenditure projections will be reviewed at this June 2 City Council Meeting. Staff is recommending that a number of changes be incorporated in the draft Budget which were not yet included in the document that was distributed on April 30. Below is a summary of these recommended changes. 1. Changed City Attorney program title to Legal Services /Risk Management. 2. Updated personnel allocated to each program on detail program pages. 3. Restated the Ten Year General Fund Trend chart (page 19) to group revenues and expenditures as the City currently groups the them. 4. Changed title of Administrative Analyst in Human Resources program to Human Resources Analyst. 5. Increased revenue in LLA by $2,800 for donation from Rotary Club for Horseshoe Drive landscape project. 6. Moved $55,500 for LLA Horseshoe Drive project from FY 1999 -00 to current fiscal year. 7. Moved one -half of cost for upgrading the dais at the Community Theater ($7,500) to Zoning Administration. 8. Reduced ABAG general liability insurance from $75,000 to $71,365. 9. Reduced Police Services contract by $8,999 based on revised estimates received from the County. 10. Reduced vacant Park Maintenance Worker II position to Park Maintenance Worker I, for savings of $6,650 in salary and benefits. 11. Eliminated Public Works Services Manager position and added a Park Maintenance Worker I and an Administrative Analyst in the City Manager's Office, for a net cost of $19,429 in salary and benefits. 12. Moved $8,555 Prides Crossing traffic study in Public Works Engineering from current fiscal year to FY 1999 -00. 13. Moved $98,103 Quito Road Sidewalk project (project #9501) forward one year from the current year to FY 1999 -00. 14. Upgraded Office Specialist I position in Public Works to Office Specialist II for a cost of $3,200 in salary and benefits. 15. Increased Public Works Engineering by $8,000 for updated speed surveys and accident rate calculations. 16. Increased Traffic Control supplies by $3,000 for City -wide directional signs. 17. Added $1,500 to City Manager's Office for staff training. 18. Increased Animal Control by $3,950 for Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley. 19. Increased Teen Services budget by $1,000 for Safe Ride program. 20. Added $3,900 to City Clerk's Office for specialized training of the Office Specialist II and City Clerk. 21. Added $100 to City Clerk's Office mileage reimbursement. 22. Increased City Manager to new pay rate, for total salary and benefits cost of $5,700 23. Assumed performance -based step increases for eligible employees on their anniversary dates assuming an "above standard" performance evaluation, for a total cost of $46,170. 24. Refined the overhead allocation, primarily to update the vehicle replacement schedule and to allow the General Fund to pay for the replacement of the Civic Theater HVAC system and Community Center /Senior Center roof, rather than allocating it to the operating programs. 25. Increased Facility Maintenance budget by a net cost of $12,659: a) Increased full -time staff by one Custodian (salary and benefits approximately $38,479) b) Reduced maintenance services contract by $20,300. c) Reduced part-time wages by $5,520. Attached are revised summary pages which include these recommended changes. These pages can be inserted into your copy of the draft Budget document. A complete final Budget document will be printed and distributed to the City Council after final adoption of the Budget on June 16. Note that the property tax distribution chart which was reviewed at the May 11 City Council meeting is included at page 29a. Also note that page 37b contains a list of proposed capital project additions, although these projects have not yet been programmed into the draft Budget. FISCAL IMPACTS: The total fiscal impact of the above mentioned changes on fund balance compared to the fund balance indicated in draft Budget which was distributed earlier is summarized below: Budhear 2 Cumulative FY 1998 -99 FY 1999 -00 FY 2000 -01 Total General Fund $85,385 ($254,665) ($193,005) ($362,285) Other Funds ($34,227) $115,281 $20,633 $101,687 Total City -wide $51,158 ($139,384) ($172,372) ($260,598) ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: This notice of Public Hearing was published in the Saratoga News on May 19, 1999 as required by law. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): A public hearing will not be conducted to receive input on the Fiscal Years 1999 -00 and 2000 -01 Budget. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Direct staff to return on June 16, 1999 for the adoption of the Fiscal Years 1999 -00 and 2000 -01 Budget, incorporating all changes which the City Council directs. ATTACHMENTS: Letters and memos concerning budget requests from: County of Santa Clara Sheriff's Office regarding projected staffing hours (funds included in revised budget). Paula Reeve regarding contract animal control services provided by Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley (funds included in revised budget). Saratoga Community Parade regarding parade sponsorship (funds included in revised budget). SASCC regarding custodian staffing level (funds included in revised budget). Paula Reeve regarding City -wide trash collection day (requires City Council discussion). Revised summary pages to Fiscal Years 1999 -00 and 2000 -01 Draft Budget Budhear 3 County of Santa Clara t Office of the Sheriff 55 West Younger Avenue San Jose, California 95110-1721 (408) 299-2101 Laurie Smith Sheriff May 18, 1999 City of Saratoga Larry Perlin 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Contract City Hours Dear Mr. Perlin, The projected investigation hours for the past three years has been 2,000 hours. The actual hours expended in the 96/97 budget were 2,280.5 and 97/98 was 2332.5 hours. This year based on current hours used we project 2,203 hours. The arrest and prosecution of these individuals; the time spent developing each case to include the court process has increased the hours expended. It is my recommendation we increase the projected investigation hours to 2,400. To better serve our contract cities, we should establish a Westside Detective Division. The unit would be responsible to handle all contract city cases to include; juvenile cases, follow up and filing of complaints with the District Attorney's Office. The unit would consist of 1 sergeant and 3 deputies. The sergeant would be responsible for the supervision of the unit, and the time would be billed by the percentage we currently bill the contract cities, 8% Los Altos Hills, 28% City of Saratoga, and 48% City of Cupertino. One deputy would be assigned to handle cases for the City of Saratoga and the Town of Los Altos Hills. The other two deputies' would handle cases for the City of Cupertino. The Sheriff's Office Detective Division would continue to handle domestic violence, sex crimes, and homicide cases due to the specific training that is required. This year we project 544 hours of investigation time for these cases. The following is a break down of detective hours for the past two fiscal years: Fiscal Year: 96 97 97 98 98 99 Projected Hours: 2,000 2,000 2,000 Westside Hours: 2,036 2,105 1,659 Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, James T. Beall, Jr., S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Richard Wittenberg Detective hours break down con't Fiscal Year: 96 -97 97 -98 98 -99 HQ Detective Hours 245 228 *544 (DV, sex crimes, homicide) Actual Total Hours: 2,281 2,333 *2,203 Currently Beat unit (84S2), the swing shift Saratoga Traffic unit is committed to 6 hours a day and per agreement is a relieved beat, which provides the city with 24 hours per wee k for 52 weeks. The total hours contracted for are 1,248 hours. The total cost for these hours is currently $115,115.52. It is my recommendation that we increase this beat 4 hours a day, which would result in an additional cost of $42,329. This would total $157,445. This would provide service 40 hours per week, which would result in 1,706.9 hours. This beat would not be a relieved beat and the officer would not be replaced for vacation, sick leave or training leave. If the city desired a fully relieved beat it would be 2,080 hours at a cost of $191,860. Requests for additional traffic surveys and citizen complaints dictate that these hours be increased. Note: Domestic violence hours were not tracked separtely but combined with assaults for fiscal years 96/97 and 97/98. For example; 97/98 reflect 121 hours for assaults and 98/99 reflect *26 hours for assaults. DV was tracked separtely for 98/99 and projected to be 298 hours. Projected hours through end of fiscal year SA R�� 440.91,5,:; ©0 A D A L( A At 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 1200 s g' 0' COUNCIL MEMBERS: Incorporated Octobar lbo Evan Baker Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey Jim Shaw To: Larry Perlin, City Manager Nick Streit From: Paula Reeve, Analyst Subj: Response to your request for my opinion concerning the Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley `s letter to Mayor Shaw asking for $3,949.50 to pay for wildlife services. Recommendation I recommend granting the Wildlife Center's request for funding beginning in FY99 /00 (Attachment 1). My reasoning is that the agency's letter was not received by the City until mid -fiscal year, and therefore had not been included in the FY 98/99 budget. Based upon the request, however, this amount has been considered as an expense in the FY 99/00 Animal Control Program budget. Background I initially spoke with Chris Arnold, the Executive Director of the Humane Society, to clarify whether the Wildlife Center is a legitimate agency, and to learn more in general about the provision of wildlife services throughout the County. Ms. Arnold explained that until 1993, the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley had maintained a division of staff and volunteers who handled sick, injured and abandoned wildlife. After the Humane Society closed its entire wildlife department, these same staff members formed the Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley during 1994. Chris was strongly in favor of the City compensating the Center for the wildlife services it provides to Saratoga. The Wildlife Center's letter also helped to clarify that the Humane Society is not sheltering and caring for wildlife pro bono, as originally assumed by the members of the West Valley Animal Control Program. Part of this misconception stemmed from the Humane Society's monthly report (Attachment 2), which includes a statistic for wildlife listed under the heading, Information Calls (Calls for Services Not in Contract). As a result, the representatives from the West Valley Cities naturally assumed that the Humane Society was also sheltering these animals, since they had never indicated anything to the contrary, until the recent letter from the Wildlife Center. Printed on recycled paper. In actuality, the Animal Services Agreement with the Humane Society provides for pick- up of various domestic animals and injured wildlife, and sheltering services for only abandoned, impounded, lost or stray domestic animals. Consequently, no contract provision exists to shelter and care for injured wildlife. Since 1994, unbeknownst to the Animal Control Program representatives, the Humane Society had been picking up wildlife from the West Valley Cities, and temporarily housing the animals at their Santa Clara shelter until the Wildlife Center staff arrived to transport the animals back to their facility for care. I subsequently spoke with Deborah Champion, the President of the Board of Directors of the Wildlife Center, and the author of the Wildlife Center's request letter. I relayed my conversation with Chris Arnold to her, and she confirmed that the Center had in fact been footing the bill for county -wide wildlife services over the years. Ms. Champion based her request to the City for $3,949.50on last year's statistic of 123 animals that the Center received from Saratoga, which breaks down to a very reasonable unit cost of $32.10. She further explained that due to increasing expenses, the Wildlife Center can no longer continue providing assistance to agencies that do not contribute funding. So far, the Wildlife Center has managed to exist with the help of one paid staff member, and numerous volunteers. Many of the volunteers are currently paying for food, medication, and even veterinary attention to rehabilitate the wildlife in their care. The Center's main focus is to rescue, rehab and release wildlife back into nature. Their facility is the only one of its kind between Palo Alto and Morgan Hill, and presently handles about 5,000 animals per year. The obvious conclusion is that a provision for wildlife services needs to be included in the Animal Control Program. Ms. Champion and I discussed the concept of incorporating the Wildlife Center's services into a County -wide Animal Control Program which may be developed as a result of the Humane Society gradually withdrawing from all of its field, sheltering and licensing contracts. She is very interested in participating in a new program, particularly if it is instituted on a county -wide basis. Conclusion Under ordinary circumstances, I would be opposed to paying for any service for which the City did not contract. In this particular instance, however, the service the Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley has provided can be justified as a necessary component of the City's Animal Control Program. Now that the matter has been brought to our attention, the City has an opportunity to show good faith, to build a rapport with the agency, and to possibly include their services in a county -wide joint effort at a later date. Attachments: 1. Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley, February 22, 1999 letter 2. Humane Society Report WILDLIFE CENTER OF SILICON VALL Attachment 1 xtv, J February 22, 1999 Mayor Jim Shaw City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Shaw: For the past five years, our organization has been providing wildlife care services to your city and many others. Since we are severely underfunded, I am writing to request a proportionate money contribution from each of the eight major cities we serve. The Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley (WCSV) is a 501(c)3 non -profit organization that provides high quality care to local injured, sick and orphaned wildlife and then releases them back into the wild. Our organization was formed when the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley closed its entire wildlife department in 1993. Since its inception, WCSV has cared for over 20,000 wild creatures, including both common and endangered species. Our center is the only facility of its kind between Palo Alto and Morgan Hill. WCSV rehabilitates twice as many animals as the center in Palo Alto and twenty times as many as the center in Morgan Hill. We currently handle about 5,000 animals per year. Wildlife taken in includes everything from hawks, falcons and owls to fawns, bobcats, coyotes, foxes, rabbits, opossums, squirrels, waterbirds, songbirds and hummingbirds. We also offer education programs and advice to members of the public on how to deal with a variety of wildlife problems, from ducks in their swimming pools to owls in their attic. Our volunteers field thousands of these calls from the public each year. Our volunteers have also assisted wildlife victims of oil spills and botulism outbreaks. The San Jose Parks Department has graciously leased us our current site for the past five years for $1.00 per year. With the coming of the new San Jose municipal golf course, we will be moving from our current location. We are currently working with the City of San Jose to fund this relocation effort. The County of Santa Clara is making a site on Penitencia Creek Road available to us. As an organization, we must increase our funding. We have only one paid staff member where other centers treating half the numbers of wildlife we care for have four or five paid staff. Many of our home care volunteers have to pay for the food, medications, and even veterinary costs themselves while they rehabilitate the wildlife. The food and medications alone can cost a volunteer hundreds of dollars a month. Most wildlife centers subsidize this cost, but we do not have the funds. We are asking each city we service to contribute to funding their proportionate share of our operation. At this time we receive no ongoing financial support. Wildlife Rescue of Palo Alto, which cares for less than 3,000 animals per year, has contracts with the City of Palo Alto and the City of Mountain View to care for their injured and orphaned wildlife. Mountain View pays $12,500 per year for the care of 400 animals. With our projected budget of $131,650, we are asking the cities to contribute 60% of that budget, or $78,990. Memberships and private donations will fund the other 40%. Based on future projections and the number of animals we have received from Saratoga in the past, we are asking •a for a minimum 1 66 1 6' 1 o? J 2650B SENTER ROAD SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95111- 1121 408.283.074 197 /0 With the transition involving the Humane Society of Santa Clam Valley I believe that our services are more necessary than ever. At present, the Humane Society acts as a twenty-four hour drop off point for many of the wildlife that come into our care. Members of the public drop off these animals and our volunteers transport them the next day to our center. With the potential elimination of this drop off.point, it will be incumbent upon our center to set up other drop off and transport locations for the convenience of the public. Our Board of Directors has developed a five year strategic plan as a blueprint for our future course. Phase One involves this move to Penitencia Creek or other site prior to the fall of 1999. In Phase Two, we hope to obtain funding through corporate sponsorships to build a permanent state of the art center. We have spoken with Mr. Norman of the San Jose County Parks, Recreation Neighborhood Services Department about the possibility of obtaining land at one of the planned future San Jose city parks for this new center. I am enclosing copies of our newsletters, some pictures of our "patients," our brochure, and some copies of news articles about our center. There has been great concern from the public that we might have to close our doors. As a result of the continued widespread concern, the media have been contacting us and are planning to do follow -up stories on our fate. To reiterate, the Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley is requesting $3,949.50 per year as your contribution to our efforts. I will be happy to provide documentation on animal tallies, budgets or anything else you should require. Very truly yours, 1te,°/ //42/2 Deborah Champion President, Board of Directors 2 70 /dic cc: Larry Perlin, City Manager Evan Baker, City Council Stan Bogosian, City Council John Mehaffey, City Council Nick Streit, City Council CITY', OF SARATOGA 1998 :1 1- 1999:— 1::: 'FISCAL. -I 'JUL AUG SEP OCT.' NOV *DEC: -JAN --FES 1- :MAY ANIMAL CONTROl.: Types of Responses J Priority 1 Dangerous Animals 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 8 Seriously Injured 2 2 4 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 24 Police Assists 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 3 1 12 Subtotal 5 6 6 3 5 2 1 3 7 6 44 Priority 2 Confined Strays 15 5 6 9 2 3 4 1 6 1 52 Priority 3 Dead Animals 32 28 27 23 29 10 17 6 9 4 185 Sick and Injured (Non-Critical) 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 6 Subtotal 32 29 27 23 29 11 19 6 11 4 191 Priority 4 Bites and Quarantines 2 4 3 1 3 1 5 0 2 3 24 Humane Cases (Contract) 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 Follow Up N/A 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Humane Calls N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nuisance Complaints 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Patrols/on View 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 9 Stray Patrol 2 1 2 4 2 3 6 3 7 2 32 Public Service 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 Owner Warnings 3 3 5 4 4 6 1 3 1 5 35 Subtotal 9 16 13 10 12 10 14 8 12 11 115 Grand Total 61 56 52 45 48 26 38 18 36 22 402 To al Responses Dogs 12 18 17 13 12 13 13 10 17 13 138 Cats 16 7 4 14 7 4 7 3 9 5 76 Other 33 31 31 18 29 9 18 5 10 4 188 Grand Total 61 56 52 45 48 26 38 18 36 22 402 Information Calls (Calls for Services bloWontracl) C jWildlife 14 19 16 46 14 12 55 35 3 234 LiCensing 3 0 2 4 23 4 0 3 0 2 41 ,i 41 Shelter 27 26 19 11 57 19 21 19 27 16 ct W:',';'= 242 l' Code Enforcement 7 9 6 9 29 17 2 9 0 0 c r 88 Other Agencies 5 2 5 0 6 4 17 12 27 5 83 Miscellaneous 5 3 5 3 7 0 1 1 0 Total 67 54 56 43 168 58 53 99 89 28 al r 715 rr 1..... SARATOGA py R C4 April 7, 1999 p g Mr. Larry Perlin City Manager T City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue /10° Saratoga, Calif. 95070 Dear Larry: As follow up to our telephone conversation in February, I am writing to COMMUNITY ask that this letter be forwarded to the City Council members to request that the City be a Major Sponsor of the Saratoga Community Parade. Our PARADE Major Sponsors will be those who assist with a contribution of $1500 or more. We are working hard to keep our costs down, but we desperately need the City's financial support to insure the success of the parade as an ongoing, valuable community activity. I was encouraged by our conversation, that the City supports sponsorship of the parade and would again be willing to support in kind needs for permits, insurance, etc. As we indicated last year, the 1999 parade theme is dedicated to the celebration of the 15th anniversary of the Sister City program. We have, therefore, asked our mayor, Jim Shaw, to serve as Grand Marshall along with the Mayor of Muko Shi, Japan. The Steering Committee is extremely active and the parade plans are well on course. As always, the parade will be held on the first Sunday in October. This year that will fall on October 3r We also hope that the other members of the council will participate as VIP entries. They will be contacted at a later date concerning participation by our entry committee and VIP Chairman, Don Wolfe. I_would.be happy to_attend a meeting -to-answer questions if the Council wishes when they hear and consider this request for the City to be a Major Sponsor. Thank you very much for your help, Larry. I can be reached at (408) 255- 7217. Sincerely, f s Susan Brandenburg LETTER SENT TO: Mr. Jim Shaw, Mayor v. p OG4 4 Mr. John Mehaffey co 7$' Mr. Evan Baker y SAS CC Mr. Stan Bogosian, Vice Mayor D P.O. Box 3033 p J SARATOGA, CA 95070 9 O (408) 868 -1257 G 0 0 ,C) Mr. Nick Streit March 31, 1999 14076 Sobey Meadows Court Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Member Streit, I am writing this letter on behalf of the many senior residents of Saratoga who enjoy the programs and services the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council provides at the Saratoga Senior Center and the Adult Care Center. In recent months, there has been quite a bit of discord over the change in janitorial services currently being implemented. As of April 1, 1999, the janitors who clean the Community Center and the Senior Wing of the Community Center, will be replaced by a janitorial service that will arrive in the middle of the night and clean the entire building. As a cost cutting effort, this new arrangement makes sense but for the seniors at our Center, it does not. Although, helping the seniors move tables, chairs and other heavy equipment was not an official part of their job description, the janitors often did, as a courtesy to the seniors and because they knew we did not have the staffing capacity to do so ourselves. We realize how fortunate we were to have had their assistance and now do not know how we will function without it. It is the hope of the SASCC Board of Directors and the seniors who utilize our services, that the City might agree to subsidize the current janitor's salary so that he may work one hour per day for the Senior Center and Adult Care Center. The current janitor, "Joe is familiar with all the classes, events and routines and would be the ideal person to fill this role. He would only be needed for short 15- minute increments during the day, _which would satisfy our needs sufficiently. We hope that the City Council will seriously consider this request. If you have any questions or would like more information, please feel free to call me at 868 -1253: Respectfully, 7 1) 7 Mary i n Richards Executive Director SASCC" Caring for and serving the needs of Saratoga Area Seniors- OgIUW ©0 D A rg 0 Ce, A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 'age COUNCIL MEMBERS: Incorporated October 22, 1956 Evan Baker May 4, 1999 Stan Bogosian John Mehaffey Jim Shaw Nick Streit To: Larry Perlin, City Manager From: Paula Reeve, Analyst Subj: Response to Council's request for information about instituting an Annual Clean- up Day in the City. I receive about fifteen requests per year from Saratoga residents asking to have the Clean- up Day Program re- instituted, and am unaware of the number Council gets. Often times the caller compares the level and frequency of events provided in bordering cities, which are held either annually or bi- annually, and have different restrictions on the types and sizes of materials that can be placed at the curbside. The most important contrast, however, is the various funding sources used to pay for these programs. For example, the City of Campbell and the Town of Los Gatos use reserve accounts, whereas the City of Santa Clara's program, which runs over a million dollars per year, is paid for with General Fund money. If Saratoga chooses to implement a program, the cost would most likely be passed on to the rate payers. I I Green Valley Disposal Company's General Manager, Phil Couchee, and I discussed establishing an annual Clean-up Day in the City of Saratoga. He estimated that an annual event would run approximately $35,000, give or take a few thousand dollars. The cost for each event is determined by the tonnage and labor factors. Tonnage drives the cost, as the quantity of material collected determines the amount of labor required. Mr. Couchee suggested that the cost for Saratoga's program could be distributed to the residential sector (consisting of 9,000 customers generating 14,559 cans), on an "equivalent can basis." Using this formula, for example, "one can" customers would pay 20 cents extra per month, "two can" customers, 40 cents per month, and "three can" customers 60 cents per month. The Town of Los Gatos is holding its Clean -up Days on May 21s and 28 Green Valley Operations Manager Phil Couchee has offered to take staff and Council members on a tour to view the neighborhoods and to explain how the program works. Please have those who are interested contact me at 868 -1267. Printed on recycled paper. PLEASE INSERT THE FOLLOWING PAGES 15 -42 IN YOUR BUDGET BOOK SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL sip EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM gPB MEETING DATE: JUNE 2, 1999 CITY MANAGER: it :ow ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Agenda for City Council Retreat RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Direct staff accordingly. REPORT SUMMARY: I have developed the attached draft agenda for the City Council Retreat scheduled for Saturday, June 19. Please note that this is Father's Day weekend so if there are any second thoughts about havin g the retreat on this day, please express them at next week's meeting. I have attempted to select topics that I believe are worthwhile for reflective dialogue based on feedback I have received from individual members of the City Council over the past several months, as well as issues that I, as the City Manager, believe ought to be discussed. The retreat is intended for the Council's benefit however, so the Council should set the agenda and direct staff accordingly. Also attached is information about Geoff T. Ball of Los Altos, a highly recommended and experienced retreat facilitator among other things. Over the past two weeks, I have interviewed a number of candidate facilitators over the phone and have been most impressed with Mr. Ball and his credentials. I strongly recommend the use of a facilitator to get the most out of the retreat, and I believe Mr. Ball would perform exceptionally well in this capacity for us. His total fee will be in the $1,500 range, which is only slightly higher than the typical fee for this type of service. Of the facilitators I interviewed, I received verbal quotes from between $800 to $4,000, with the majority in the $1,000 to $1,500 range for the services I anticipate we will need. There are sufficient funds available in the current budget to pay for this cost as well as the additional costs associated with the retreat, roughly $500 for the conference room, food and beverages for the day. FISCAL IMPACTS: As noted. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. The retreat will be noticed as an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Depends on Council's decisions. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The retreat agenda and arrangements will be finalized. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft retreat agenda. 2. Information about Geoff T. Ball, Ph.D. Draft Agenda Saratoga City Council Retreat Saturday, June 19, 1999 9:00 AM -3:00 PM The Inn at Saratoga 20645 Fourth Street Saratoga 1. Council /Staff Relations El How are they? How should they be? 0 What if anything needs to be done to make them what they should be? 2. Council /Commission Relations El How are they? 0 How should they be? CI What if anything needs to be done to make them what they should be? 3. Bettering Community Input and Involvement II To what extent should the community be involved in the decision making processes of the City? How can the City better draw the community into its decision making processes, particularly early on? 4. Building a Better Sense of Community 0 What should the City be doing to overcome the many jurisdictional boundaries which divide the community? 1 How might the City better avoid and resolve conflicts with and between governmental entities and community groups within Saratoga? 5. Balancing Community Growth with Community Preservation 0 To what degree are change and growth compatible with the community's desire to preserve its character? 0 How could /should the City attempt to shape future change and growth to preserve the community's character? 6. Planning Ahead 0 What are the City Council's priorities over the next two years? 0 What are the City Council's goals beyond the next two years? 0 How can staff best help the Council to achieve these priorities and goals? May -26 -99 11:15A Ball Talley 650 941 1498 P.02 :Sr.. i ri t i/ r ii 'V iN foe I, t "There is method and, yet, 110 magic- except the magic of a group of people seeing they can accomplish more by working together than they can achieve alone." C Wall Waster 3acilitator, Trainer and Conflict jffanager. Geoff Ball works in a variety of settings with a wide range of clients in situations that are often complex and involve varying numbers of people from small working groups to large conferences and public meetings. Geoff coined the phrase 'Group Memory' and was an integral part in the development of "Group Graphics," a technique that uses large wall charts to enable people to see the big picture and relationships among diverse elements. Group graphics has also been proven to be very powerful in that it allows people to feel heard and validated as the thought/ idea is being translated to the "charts." He uses a computer in conjunction with a technographer to enhance the capabilities of groups working together to produce high quality results in a condensed period of time. Geoff is a certified test administrator and interpretor of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator assessment tool which has proven to be powerful in team building. In addition to his facilitation and consulting work, Geoff and Jerry Talley recently formed EdgeWise Consulting LLC to focus on company building with small and medium sizes companies. Prior to working as a facilitator, he worked with pattern recognition and data analysis, while at the Stanford Research Institute Geoff developed one of the first interactive data analysis computer systems. Geoff received his formal education at Harvard University (B.A.) and Stanford University (M.S. and Ph.D.). He has taught Cybernetics Systems at San Jose State University, and Communications /Management Skills at the University of San Francisco. He is published in technical and professional journals, and is on the board of Aikido West. l ?ARTIAI. C1.IENT LIST corporate: Apple Computer. Silicon Valley Bank. San Diego Gas Electric. EPRI. Prometheus Development, QuikStop Markets. Syntex. cities and counties: Beverly Hills. Danville. Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, ,Menlo Park, Millbrae. Newark (Ca). San Jose. San Mateo. Woodland. and counties of San Mateo. Santa Clara. and Yolo. higher education: University of San Francisco. Dominican College. ERIC Clearinghouse, government agencies: Governor's Office of Planning and Research. California Public Utilities Commission. California Seismic Safct Commission. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. United States E.P.A. school districts: Morgan Hill, Palo Alto, Ravenswood. Sequoia. San Francis() and the Offices of Education in Santa Clara, Alameda. and San Mateo Counties. associations and non -profit agencies: San Mateo County Expo Center. Planned Parenthood, United Way. American Heart Association. foundations: Packard. Hancock. Compton. SF Education Fund. Sierra Health. state task forces: Restructuring California Public libraries. California Council on Partnership. regional agencies: Metropolitan Transportation Commission. BAAQMD. Geoff Bail Associates: /64 Main Srreer, Suite 210. Los Altos, CA 94022. Ph: 415 -941- 1497: Fax: 415 941 1498: email: t hha1I@aol.ro,n May -26 -99 11:16A Ball Talley 650 941 1498 P.03 WHAT I BELIEVE I BRING TO A PROJECT Experience of over 20 years as a facilitator and process consultant, in various settings for a wide range of clients in situations that are often complex, technical, conflictual, multi jurisdictional, and involve varying numbers of people from small working groups to large conferences an g P g d s. ublic meetin P 2 Mastery level competence as a facilitator in these varied settings. I have a broad knowledge of various participation tools, conceptual process models, approaches and the skills to implement them. This includes the ability to empower others to be effective group leaders both through the design of the process for a workshop and by coaching and train ing them for the specific event. I am told by others that I have an unusual ability to integrate and summarize ideas; in seeing the specifics in their context; and in being able to pull things together. The tools that I use in doing this include: Group graphics, system diagrams of various sorts and 'WorkMaps' 'j de told many people that the all of which enhance the ability of people to work together. Sometimes quite sim- one day with you saved us six ple graphics enable disputants to 're- frame' their conflict and to develop a way of months of struggle. resolving it. Other times graphics provide the 'icon hooks' that allow people to i Jim Greene, former 'resident, review large numbers of alternatives in relationship to each other. united Way o/ San fjJirgo I am told that have excellent listening and reflecting skills- that I hear 'in back of' what is being said. My wide ranging inter eof/ is very sensitive to the individual needs ests combined with experience with varied clients and situations en- of a group and his con /lid resolution kills are ables me to discern underlying issues and to be a 'quick study' on a excellent. topic. John 'Dean, 9resident and CIO Silicon valley .044 My background training in artificial intelligence, system theory and an interest in complex issues when combined with the need for group efficiency as well as effectiveness has led me to explore ways that technology can support collaborative work. I use a Macintosh computer with a color LCD projec- tion panel to project the computer screen onto a large viewing surface for a working group. The computer greatly assists in such tasks as priority setting, agreement drafting, and testing 'your skilled facilitation of our two retreats this year alternative "what if's" using a spread sheet. resulted in our addressing in the most constructive pos- si6le way issues which could no longer be ignores Much of my experience has been working in chaotic and con Your leaders/rip was firm, impartial and tempered by flictual situations. During this time I have developed helpful ya Ja 9arrnrr skills in the conflict resolution arena using both facilitation Jonn, drown, Clifton) and ntc(Deoitt and mediation. I believe that my ability to stay calm and centered in the midst of conflict and chaos in a profession- al setting has been of considerable help to groups I've worked with. Mr desire is to be 'easy ro work with.' to make my interaction with the client as effective and efficient as possible. This is due to my solid commitment to outstanding results and to a project that has air' as parr oj'rhe work. Geoff Ball, Ph.D. May -26 -99 11:16A Ball vie Talley 650 941 1498 P.04 CITY OF PLEASANTON J s J J V.E,3 December 5, 1995 Geoff Ball Geoff Ball Associates 164 Main Street, Suite 210 Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Geoff: Thank you so much for your assistance in facilitating our Council Priority Workshop. As you know, we have tried unsuccessfully to set Council priorities on four separate occasions over five years. Two of the sessions were with consultants and two were facilitated by staff. Following the completion of your day -and -a -half workshop, however, we now have the first step of setting the priorities for the next year and the first step of a process to annually set and revise goals. I fi rmly believe that your pre- workshop interviews and your ability to keep the Council focused resulted in our first draft set of priorities. Your skills in facilitating open discussion, listening to all participants' interests and helping to make sure all had the opportunity to be heard were excellent. Your flexibility and creativity in developing and utilizing alternative facilitation approaches prior to and during the workshop were superior. Thanks for your help. We look forward to working with you to complete this process in January. Sincerely, Deborah Acosta City Manager 123 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 520 PLEASANTON, CA 94566 -0802 (510) 484 -8000 FAX (510) 484-8236 May -26 -99 11:17A Ball 4 e Talley 650 941 1498 P.05 /6, Silicon Valley Bank 2254 North First Street San Jose. CA 95131 March 24, 1994 Dear Sir: Please accept this Ietter as my highest recommendation of Geoff Ball in regard to the management consulting work he has done for Silicon Valley Bank over the past year. The senior management team at the Bank and I have worked closely with Geoff in his role as facilitator, and can unequivocally attest to his professionalism, integrity and ability. He has the rare ability to direct, is an excellent listener, and takes the time to fully understand the dynamics of a situation before attempting Geoff is very sensitive to the individual needs of a group and his conflict resolution skills are excellent. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Geoff, in his roles as consultant and facilitator, would be a valuable resource to your organization. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (408) 383 -5490 Si -rely, John f Dean Presi ent and Chief ecutive Officer (Member FDIC) May— 26 -99 11:17A Ball Talley 650 941 1498 P.06 SANTA CLARA COUNTY T OFFICE OF EDUCATION G,Ilren B. Wilcox, MM. SWpwinrendene September 25, 1997 Mr. Geoff Ball Geoff Ball Sr Associates 164 Main Street, Suite 210 Los Altos CA 94022 Dear Geoff, Just want to take a moment to let you know how thoroughly pleased I was with your facilitation of our Board of Education retreat on September 13th. This particular Board retreat was the best we have had in three- and -a -half years. I also want to tell you how much I appreciate your efforts leading up to the retreat. Your understanding of the issues that we face was enormously helpful and your ability to create problem- solving strategies around those issues was most effective. In my nine years of superintendency, you are the most effective facilitator with whom I have worked and I did want to let you know. Thank you for your flexibility, tenacity, insight and expertise. Most sincerely, Colleen B. Wilcox, Ph.D. County Superintendent of Schools and Board of Education ,Uex Santis Maria Y. Ferrer T. V. Ilo Anna K. Kune +ndrea Leiderman Mark Webster Roger W. Wert 1290 kidder Park Drive San Jose. CA 95131 -3398. Phone -108.453.6 500 E -mail: http: /www /sccoe.kI2.ca.us 1 i9umpnm for Children. Schools. '4 Cummurun In ritual yrpnurcmr• Fvphnet May -26 -99 11:17A Ball Talley 650 941 1498 P.07 Newtithing Group T: 415- 274 -2761 Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3700 info@newtithing.org F: 415 -274 -2756 San Francisco, CA 94111 -4107 www.newtithing.org May 5, 1999 To Whom It May Concern: From: Claude Rosenberg* Re: Performance of Geoff Ball as Facilitator This is to indicate that I employed Geoff Ball on two occasions that totalled four full days, one in 1998 and one in 1999. On both occasions, the participants numbered 16 to 18, most of whom had not known one another before. Also on both occasions, we were starting from scratch, hoping we would be able to set numerous goals that would require fairly complicated solutions that, frankly, I held low probabilities for success. Fortunately, the opposite occurred, and it was Geoff Ball's facilitating that made this happen. Geoff s organizational abilities are amazing. He was able to draw from all participants, yet force understandable focus. His computer capabilities are super efficient. Somehow he was able to provide computer printouts at each break that always made sense and that clarified issues and possible solutions. It was a pleasure to work with Geoff in every way, and I cannot imagine how anyone could surpass his skills or his positive attitudes and leadership. Hence, judging from my personal experiences, Geoff Ball warrants the very highest accolades possible. He will always be my first choice. if I can answer any questions about Geoff, you may contact me (phone 415 954 5441) Very truly yours, Claude Rosenber *(Founder and former Chairman of RCM Capital Management, now Dresdner/RCM Capital Management; Founder and former Chairman of The RREEF Corporation; and Founder and current Chairman of Newtithing Group. "Advancing A Breakthrough In Charitable Giving"