Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-05-1998 Staff Reports
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 AGENDA ITEM 8 Cs MEETING DATE: AUGUST 5,1998 CITY MANAGER: ✓L. 011,4 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: gory- SUBJECT: Amending Resolution No. MV -160 making Aloha Ave./Komina Ave. a three -way stop intersection RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to adopt the amending Motor Vehicle Resolution No. MV -160.1 designating the intersection of Aloha AveiKomina Ave. as a three -way stop intersection. REPORT SUMMARY: The attached amended Motor Vehicle Resolution, if adopted would establish a three -way stop intersection at Aloha Ave./Komina Ave.. Presently, the intersection is a two -way stop intersection with stop signs controlling south -bound Aloha Ave. and east -bound Komina Ave.. The proposal would add north- bound Aloha Ave. as a stop controlled leg of the intersection, eliminating any confusion of right -of -way. FISCAL IMPACTS: Approximately $100.00 in labor and materials for the City to install the signs and markings to add this leg of the intersection as a stop controlled segment of street. Funds for this expense would come from the Traffic Control Budget. ADVERTISING, NOTICING, AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The Resolution would not be adopted and the intersection would remain as is. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: A work order will be issued to install the sign and markings. ATTACHMENTS: Motor Vehicle Resolution. 0 JUL -21 -1998 15:40 CITY OF SARATOGA /ADMIN. 409 868 1280 P.02/02 RESOLUTION NO. MV-160 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF SIXTH STREET AND OAK STREET; KOMINA AVENUE AND OAK STREET; THIRD STREET AND OAK STREET; KOMINA AVENUE AND ALOHA AVENUE; ALOHA AVENUE AND KOMINA AVENUE; VICKERY AVENUE AND ALOHA AVENUE AS STOP INTERSECTIONS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The following intersections in the City of Saratoga are hereby designated a stop intersections: NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION Sixth Street All vehicles traveling on Sixth Street southeast bond shall stop before entering Oak Street. Komina Avenue All vehicles traveling on. Komina Avenue northwest boudn shall stop before entering Oak Street. Third Street All vehicles traveling on Third Street southeast bound shall stop before entering Oak Street. Komina Avenue All vehicles traveling on Komina Avenue southeast bound shall stop before entering Aloha Avenue. Aloha Avenue All vehicles traveling on Aloha Avenue' southwestbound shall stop before continuing straight or entering Komina Avenue. Lomita Avenue All vehicles traveling on Lomita Avenue northwest bound shall stop. before continuing straight or entering Aloha Avenue. This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Sarartoga at a regular meeting held on the second day of October, 1985, by the following vote: AYES: Councilrnenbers Callon, Hlava and Mayor Clevenger NOES: None Councilmembers Fanelli and Moyles 1 4 .4t. ABSENT. MAYOR ATTEST: C07_ City Clerk TOTAL P.02 c'c /�J1. 9/47 ALOHA l•- KOMIOA STef' II it,/-4/x t ejc 5T0 _TJ 11') r_K. a L T /so/9 7 1;2 i ie oif T t 0 4:9 3 1- y°./ c, S ep a Ula cLe G( re er .5; 6se ih seece`yi yelaZ,. ie 5` 1 44 "i G UI.' /'eS QYIS'i, lc° 41-11 y r .Si .04/ 'f/aWC SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 942 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 5, 1998. CITY MANAGER: r1 r ORIGINATING DEPT: OFFICE E CITY MANAGER Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Renewal of Animal Licensing Agreement with The Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley. RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement with the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley for licensing services. REPORT SUMMARY: The Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, San Jose, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and the Town of Los Gatos executed a one year contract from July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998, with the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley to provide animal licensing services. In preparation for this year's renewal, the Humane Society has recommended several changes to the existing Animal Licensing Agreement. City Attorney Mike Riback has reviewed the proposed changes and found them to be legally acceptable. These changes include the following: 1. Section 2, Term: The existing contract requires the participating Cities of Campbell, Santa Clara, San Jose, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Saratoga and the Town of Los Gatos (City Unit) to renew the agreement annually. The proposed language does not require the jurisdictions to go through this exercise every year, but instead contains an escape clause. 2. Sections 6(E),11 12, Withdrawal: The original language gave the cities a very limited amount of time to react to the withdrawal of one or more jurisdictions. Therefore, the language has been changed to reflect that a minimum 30 day prior written notice shall be given to the Humane Society and each city before a jurisdiction may withdrawal from the contract. This will allow The Humane Society and the City Unit enough time to coordinate the effective date of withdrawal, and the resulting increased Unit Charges.. 3. The only other change reflects the addition of the City of Cupertino to the contract. FISCAL IMPACTS: The formula utilized to develop the Humane Society's operating costs for licensing services remains unchanged. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The City of Saratoga would be required to contract for animal licensing services with a separate provider, and would loose the economies of scale'derived from participating in the joint animal licensing contract with other jurisdictions in Santa Clara County. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: A copy of the signed agreement will be forwarded to The Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley. ATTACHMENT: 1. The Humane Society Animal Licensing Agreement Among the Cities of Milpitas, Santa Clara, San Jose, Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Saratoga and the Town of Los Gatos. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 o3"7 AGENDA ITEM gut MEETING DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 CITY MGR.: /bffWf ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS PREPARED BY SUBJECT: Hakone Gardens Restrooms, C.I.P. No. 9704 Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion Recommended Motion(s): Move to accept the project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. Report Summary: All work on the Hakone Gardens Restrooms project, C.I.P. No. 9704, has been completed by the City's contractor, Pascon, and inspected by Building and Public Works staff. The final construction contract amount was $91,801, which is 2.6% above the awarded contract amount of $89,510. The increased cost was due mainly to miscellaneous upgrades and modifications to the original restroom plan. In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one year maintenance/warranty period, it is recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the construction contract so that the requisite '30 day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims by subcontractors or material providers may commence. Fiscal Impacts: The ten percent retention withheld from previous payments to the contractor will be released 30 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion assuming no Stop Notices are filed with the City. The adopted budget contains sufficient funds to cover the entire cost of the construction contract. Follow Up Actions: Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract and release the contract sureties and retention thirty days thereafter. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Attachments: 1. Notice of Completion. c Recording requested by, and to be returned to: City of Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed to be performed under the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on the 5th day of August, 1998. Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: September 17, 1997 Contractor's Name: Pascon Contractor's Address: P.O. Box 188, Saratoga, CA 95071 Description of Work: Hakone Gardens Restrooms, C.I.P. No. 9704 This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information or belief, and as to those matters that he believes to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on 19 CITY OF SARATOGA BY: Larry I. Perlin City Manager ATTEST: Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk Gov. Code 40814 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 3 6 AGENDA ITEM 5g q MEETING DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 CITY MGR: i ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS PREPARED BY: 41 SUBJECT: Final Map Approval for Tract No. 7424 (3 lots at Peach Hill Road), Owner: Dimanto /Ablamis. Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to adopt Resolution No. SD 88- 005.01 granting final map approval of Tentative Map Application No. SD 88 -005 for three lots at Peach Hill Road. 2. Move to authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Report Summary: Attached is Resolution No. SD 88- 005.01 which, if adopted, will grant final map approval for three lots located at Peach Hill Road. 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 88 -005, have been completed or will be completed concurrent with development of the three 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 $71,389 in Engineering Fees and $9,315 in Park Development Fees required for this subdivision. Follow Up Actions: The signed map will be released to the subdivider's Title Company for recordation along with recording instructions. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The final map must either be approved or rejected by the City Council. If the map is rejected, it would be returned to the subdivider with findings as to why the map was rejected. Attachments: 1. Site Map. 2. Tract Map. 3. Resolution No. SD 88 005.01 granting final map approval. 4. Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 88 -005 approving the tentative map with conditions. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Lisa Welge DATE: 10/26/88 PLNG. DIR. APPRV APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SD 88 005; Peach Hill Madrone Hill Roads APPLICANT /OWNER: Heiss /DiManto APN: 517-22-077, 517-23-035, 0 5, 36 037 IAX "7 Nflii....,t,"t‘tt 4/..,„ ma. 71 1 1 i ARM 111 VIMNIMb Al III millioviiioailsoo, 6 .......1__. 4, 11111 K Virlfillt c, .11.. f -.,1„ 7///.1.11 1 e 4 1 0 0 alt, w imx,:.• is f 7: 1 4 1 k r iiir tt._.....v.it% y 4i, .7'. igh4IN 10 I �1.0%.0 II .4411 r 0 Ell SubJecT Rzoccitl 1i 001 9a11111111 r n 1 111:1 Amill wrior t. I how i Iry 4 r N O•o �w 2G /.G 33919 30 .OS) 3 F ..0 00 N'O'3 /O "E 2/ STAKE lBO OO Cr :e +2 9. 9'E f.. •ai POST F6. 2. J^ l i.2' 1 NJZ•o STAKE E i ':.."4- 5'03 4 0 .W TRACE OF OA 1411E TRAEE 0 LOT J 1 Off^ I 1 ASSOCIATES PROJECT N,. 224.1 FUT'O E ID 6.204 ACRES o 4.617 ACRES l9ECR 270,245 SQ. FT. GROSS w 201,115 SQ. FT. GROSS LIRE 252,449 S0. FT. NET n 200,526 SO. FT. NET 1 RADIAL BEARING TABLE QA s 08 5 44 °44°46' 1B' 2 5 34 °007" E 5 27 E Q B 5 53 0607 E a 0 PRIVATE DRIVE" 7- FUTURE R•J200' P3. E.,PSS E., EAE. CENTER 8 S APPROKIMATE RACE OO ST CR 6.4 6 5 59 5153" B S SOCI AT E PRJJEC NO 2241 PC L. 2 O N 9 I 0 B 26b7W b r�PM 42 M 24 s R• l0 DD' V l EASEMENT DI MANTO et al 20.)9 l y 1"REU589$QFT a';', t 11 r 11 6= 116 °ST Sfi j 24 FEET WIDE PRIVATE DRIVE" J w''�L•6s li 1 SE I R I S TO LOTS 192 AND PS.E.,PS AND EAE- NP 4j] n•ao.00• -M- 17 8118 6• II] °00'00" 39 POa /3 .J" SO'FA A 116.3]' .,q p.�i 2.. SE `INE� SPECIAL SEWER NOTE N AREA. a,925 S0. FT I I 3i M', 8•15200' D SANITARY SEWER LATERALS WITHIN 1 I 5: sim l7 x 6: zz•Jr.o" W I N PRIVATE DRIVE and /Ar P. S. S.E. TO BE P /65.71 1 :.15 Border ,y, I 1 N a O LOTS I MAINTAINED BY FUTURE OWNERS OF N2 4 46]1 ^E h tiA �o 7 130 N u LOTS I AND 2 AND NOT BY WEST °l I 'S! "w /a,p oo 00" "I VALLEY SAN DISTRICT. ���y M1 2 a,. 41.10• L=10. ♦T' 0 +'1020 8:6000• ']1" N 4� lo'PSE 0.lI 6:24.46 .E 4. ti ('S• S26 W B 3 E. L 23 95' �R• 73 00' SB•4B� 46.2l• A• 8.60•.' ]9 L: SS �1 i 6.2900'00" BASIS OF BEARI EA4Ex r FOR to P L l n F6. 2.1 STAKE THE BEARING OF N 89 3 9 '10 w B s. E. 2 00 .e, 330 56 PARCEL 2 ON TTHAT BOUNOART SE B SLOPE HR• 4\ S /'00 30' t 53 556 RIGHTS- 216-4 -17 BIB RECORD OF SURVEY AS RECO O \0 /I S x °oe's1 "E I BOOK 21 6 OF MAP S, PA GES 17 ED N 61 4I'46'W N�O• a.. `T 13 .69' REC 18, S AKEN CO UNTY )Uf s N 05 U'o9 W I RECORD WAS TAKEN A T HE B o q 62.50' ,.1, OR Fl_. :(2,.: BASIS OF BEARINGS AS SHOWN h M1 /1 S 1 5 sl h OR J HEREON. 6. ii i, ,wv 3 01. 1s10 V 7'-/ II 8:100 V .r. I, L 6 :6 .00' 00°^ 12 \L •11.05' b'' at E D 362 I I"SS "W 01 S O E R F 1 ,Z .2 S 00 o SECTION LINE L. ;;;;G T 1CC�1• N LEGEND and NOTES ,P y I o! Yoxu4EXT FOUND 1 IRCN PIPE UNLESS NOTED I J� •V 1 k N O 3 IRDN PRE SET 1L3 2,1., I NO. 7424 .;‘P. `rf 11'1- "J 8.61.9+8• �Y ACT P.S.E. P.S.E. .E. DENOTES PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT T d4 ••4. j „p° L 6 ,1 110 'x )06” S' 01, 1 1 1 [A. E DENOTES EMER6EMS• ACCESS EASEMENT EASE BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL I AS SHOWN ON P a 1 1 I I I' o r.3. s. e. DENOTES •WIHDYC sAxlruT SEWER EASEMENT /(r O O? I THAT PARCEL MAP AS RECORDED IN o h \q/ I C' DENOTES DISTINCTIVE BORDER BOOK 473 OF MAPS, PAGE 24 ,AND LYING G 'S� I S E.' DEMOTES SLOPE EASEMENT WITHIN THE P O CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA CO. PROPOSED OEDK<TI01+ 0 FOR DSTREET SD PURPOSES H CALIFORNIA a z P s;ob DA)i.E S n a t J M H W I INC. N /O r" 1 f• ALL 0I YP SIOMS 2 t lI I �4 /0' 5.40• j ARE SHOWN IN FEET AMO DECIMALS TNEREOf. THE D1s *Ixcn vE CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNER S,., V 4 S o :\4"4 4 n,= I e M `o /l J Z BORDER INDIC•TES 1 DAR APPRO R 10.. 24 F 19 YAP SAN JOSE LAMD SUBDIVIDE BY T N PLANNERS i 9 ACRES'. SCALE 1 60 AUGUST 1995 e $N[[7 2 Of 2 SKITS JxN. L3168 TO\ I I SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 3 39 AGENDA ITEM 6 MEETING DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 CITY MGR: Isar, ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS PREPARED BY: 16�Cd SUBJECT: Final Map Approval for Tract No. 8561 (2 lots at Madrone Hill Road), Owner: Dimanto /Ablamis. Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to adopt Resolution No. SD 88- 005.02 granting final map approval of Tentative Map Application No. SD 88 -005 for two lots at Madrone Hill Road. 2. Move to authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Report Summary: Attached is Resolution No. SD 88- 005.02 which, if adopted, will grant final map approval for two lots located at Madrone Hill Road. 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 88 -005, 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 $52,683 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 88- 005.02 granting final map approval. 4. Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 88 -005 approving the tentative map with conditions. I c I f w REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Lisa Welge DATE: 10/26/88 PLNG. DIR. APPRV APPLICATION NO. 8 LOCATION: SD Peach Hill Madrone Hill Roads APPLICANT /OWNER: Heiss /DiManto APN: 517 -22 -077, 517 -23 -035, 036 037 Atk A AP w irii...,t 1 1 .1..t-til l ii im llat41 '14 1I 21� )0 Mills it IIIII III .K a '�o 1 b oa° ali, ∎,1111 4ietel 1 NIERIZINE1 II( Olnifiri V 41ip t !!!!1111711114011111111! ,,,x al Mil% ,00;;;;I 4 V vo a opogio 11 aimitlailA r 3 i 11 0 1 4.P.01 A i c-R 1 IL 51 Zr cl l. I 00 M 91-1. wii-4--- If myel lialid ma 1 lopr Ai NEW 1 '410 1:0! w ;7 re PROPOSED LOT LINE B CENTERLINE N NERUNE OF AN EIUSTING OF SSE. B"E E E DRIVE P.S.E., 40ET RIGHT OF W FOR \..STRT EE PURSES �D (80011 E397 O 4191 O 4 .t CENTERLINE ANO .1 p4 T I WWWATE ACE OF !I A• O 50 tt 12979 ✓�'�w 0 4 BERROCAL FAULT ER S IS•n w 1� p, �O 7 P., 4FARY S ASSOCIATES T21 �'60N IJ 9 B PROJECT NO 2x1.I /�E- \e! sa SLDfPE l\ R1 T xT 2 3 W I o ROPOSED uEOICA10N FOR 19 E er.. K L, E \J' C 1 y I �ci 1 _�C/ S R gPO5 p fa IT r w., ,I �10 NS AC 6301 SA FU 303, e DETAIL x4.0',{ A ,T D "ms \J4pJ` 9 )A y BOROERTIVE LOT 2 A a OF p 40 E''q1 O A q y E D S SYEMT TO v 2.95 ACRES tp l .RE.:ID,1 1: so Fr A_c: p1 eonoen YF tER \"�N VI S.4 SS eD� ri BR 5900P 3ST I28 633 SO. FT a r cE e G�tOSS 5'B _2 .D I I a` H Z t P °S e z ti w e� a iy �.r e. J rg r E S p0 St REE ti y i I I NIT I SO. FT. .1'` o p. E e i t 46 -F \T o .F\ D P d O 1 10 P.S E. i o g 10' PS.E M1 r. 3 9' �A I E A.E. ANO Il P BB SLDPE T 5)s.�° �ss� Y AREA I,n3 sort i t a g o" %°,'r PRIVATE 1 f/' 1 °P zuz 2)ID „a o. 0 •a 1 s q DRIVE i o s �B° Z p p o.___ -1 :y� a�,o'� 'o P ry, sr m y J 5 E�1 �',j E T• 94 444,5 a 7%, I l lFif AH E 5 ,i .ty. 4 /D i• L.A4. ;u— I LOT LINE IS r L OF 24 FOOT WID c �..4 .J�_ PRIVATE DRIVE FOR LOTS 1, 2, A 3J 'E R 1200' p PSE AREA:: S u 0 '�,6 c EA SD FTAND 3 AND P. S.E, PS.S.E. 9 E.A.E P p fw u R,uoo )p P.S.fE. 7 -571 .0.96 If) P i:cils r "�'�i`1M1'66/ BI EE DETAIL „.a• EASEMIENT LIMITS OF PRIVATE DRIVE: P.SE., P.SS.E. W uF°: =3200' AND LEA E 'E �W °;ypayj HT..- 3200 R- i' LEGEND B NOTES AREA: Rs SO F2 5 Y1'� LOT I •',TlAT YONUMENT FOUND!',” IRON PIPE UNLESS NOTED 1 DISTINCTIVE BORDER 0 IRON PIPE NET IL S 2))11 0 qtr V I„ y 1 p1 5.26 ACRES ,'1 PSE DENOTES PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT W 229,009 S0. FT. GROSS j DENOTES SLOPE EASEMENT y by 215,966 S0. FT. NET 2 E.AE DENOTES EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT DENOTES PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER FASENFNT DENOTES DISTINCTIVE BORDER Oa DENOTES RECORD °IYEMION .Y 05.99 I• I ..5 1 *P. 3 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER INDICATES THE BOUNDARY OF LAND SUBDIVIDED BY THIS NAP. `p, pG_ i. 010 E ANOP.T BT 11PPR0111 NI1TELY 12.637 ACRES 1. 330.56 HSE3 "ENT TO 19 TRACT NO. 8 5 61 5 'T",::611:‘ 2 S 2"• 3" PER R/S 218 PIT GONE -PM 473 P 24 Dlp r 20 6.51 NOT RESET MISSING 2 .3" THIS MAP TO CORRECT S E BEING A SUBDIVISION OF ALL OF PCL.3 AND A PORTION OF PCl.2 OF ;MIBSI PN AND WILL SET 5 /5'08 z THAT RECORD OF SURVEY AS RECORDED I N E ,,)q 2"; IN BOOK 218 OF MAPS, PAGES 17 AND IS, AND PCL.2 CORNER RE ESTABLISHED OF PARCEL MAP AS RECORDED IN BOOK 473 OF MAPS, PAGE 24 I: 202 OR 3031 I BY REFERENCE FROM AND LYING WITHIN R/S 218 P 17 SPECIAL SEWER NOTE CITY OF SARATOGA,SANTA CLARA CO. BASIS OF BEARINGS SINITARY SEWER MaNS AND CALIFORNIA LATERALS WITHIN PRIVATE J M H W E I S S I THE BEARING OF N 32'15' 00"E FOR THE DRIVE AND P.SSE TO BE I ILL l� MAINTAINED BY FUTURE OWNERS LA CENTERLINE OF MADRONE HILL ROAD, AS OF LOTS 12 B 3 AND NOT CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND P SAN JOSE LANNERS SHOWN ON THAT RECORD OF SURVEY AS BY WEST VALLEY SANITATION RECORDED IN BOOK 218 OF MAPS, PAGES DISTRICT. 17 AND 18, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS WAS TAKEN THE BASIS OF BEARINGS SCALE I". 60' AUGUST 1995 N AS SHOWN HEREON. ON. SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS 3061 J MN }IBg I MAY-13-199B 11:M L i I T u 1M1 -11 UUff 1 CONTRACT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SD 88- 005.02 AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1998, by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter called "City and Murray H. Woods 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 Peach Hill Road and Madrone Hill Road situated in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California; and WHEREAS, a final map of SD 88- 005.02 has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga for presentation to the Council for its approval, which map is hereby referred to and by said reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, Owner and Subdivider has requested approval of said final map prior to the completion of improvements of all streets, highways or 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 reP ared by JMH Civil Engineering, Inc. Civil Engineer, P approved the offices of the roved by the City Engineer and now on file in PP Y Y Clerk of said City and /or the City Engineer's Office of said City, and MAY -13 -1998 11:05 c 1 I Y Ur bHKH I UUH -mat., I VI1V 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 and in consideration of the City accepting all of said dedications after the hereinafter agreed to covenants on the part of the Owner and Subdivider have been complied with and in accord with Government Code Section 66462(a) of the State of California, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. Subdivider at this cost and expense shall construct all of the improvements and do all of the work hereinafter mentioned, all in accordance with and to the extent and as provided in the above mentioned plans and specifications on file in the office of said City, for the construction of said improvements, in, for, or appurtenant to said subdivision, and 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 PIHT 11 UD ur anrcn r uun ..wr 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 all events at least $56,700.00 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 total amount of said bond to be in the sum of $567,000.00 and also a good and sufficient surety bond in form to be approved by the City 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 the said Subdivider, the amount of said bond to be Five Hundred Sixty -seven Thousand Dollars ($567, 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 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 I'IH1 1J 177C 1J. *UJ t.11 1 yr ..+rn�iva..r 4 Subdivider, his agents, subcontractors, or employees. Subdivider 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 employee 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 the City Attorney, and Subdivider shall at all times during the entire term of this agreement maintain the same in full force and effect, which policies shall insure the City of Saratoga, its Councilmen, officers, boards, commissions and employees against loss or liability for bodily injury and 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 1'IH7 11 100 1, i i i ur J1 i uun 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 on Subdivider to acquire any right -of -way for, and /or to construct, any out -of -tract storm sewer drainage pipe lines and appurtenances which' might reasonably be necessary to drain said subdivision and carry storm waters from said subdivision to natural drains, Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by City and as a 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 in -tract storm drain lines and facilities constructed or to be constructed by Subdivider within or outside 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 lie, Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by City and as a condition precedent to the recordation 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 Thirty -five Thousand One Hundred Twenty -two Dollars 35,122.00) to be applied by City to the payment of expenses to be incurred by City for engineering and MHY 13 177U 11;10b L 1 I T ur bMKM I uuH •+uv 6 inspection services to be performed by the 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 final map, and at that time accept said offers of dedication. 9. Should the Subdivider and Owner hereinabove referred to not be the same person, firm or corporation, then this agreement shall only be effective upon both the Subdivider and the Owner separately executing the same, and wherever the term Subdivider is 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, and 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. MHY 11-U0 L I I I ur 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand the day and year first above written. CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney By: P4. /6 Subdivider By: (Owner, if different from Subdivider) TOTAL P.08 RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -005.3 RESOLUTION APPROVING NODIPICATION OF TENTATIVE NAP To ALLOW THE PILING OF A PHASED FINAL NAP 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 map modification approval of five lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -88 -005 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed modification to an approved subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the modified subdivision and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated September 9, 1992, being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received the Categorical Exemption prepared for this modification to an approved project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said modified 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 to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the modified tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated January 1988, and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: Acknowledged. 1. All conditions and requirements of Resolution SD -88 -005 shall remain in full force and effect. Acknowledged. 2. Lots #4 and 5 shall be recorded as Phase 1 and lots #1, 2, and 3 recorded as Phase 2. Acknowledged. 3. Timing of required improvements shall be determined by the City Engineer as deemed necessary for each phase of the development. No work on either phase shall take place until a Final Map has been recorded and permits issued for that phase. Acknowledged. 4. Construction access shall be limited to the streets accessing each individual phase, i.e. Phase 1 shall be accessed via Peach Hill Road and Phase 2 via Madrone Hill Road. File No. SD- 88- OO5.3; Madrona Hill i Peach Hill Roads Acknowledged. 5. Subdivision level improvements shall be limited to road construction and providing necessary public health and safety services and utilities. Individual lot development shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission on a case -by -case basis at the time an application for Design Review approval is made. Design Review applications shall be required for each lot. Acknowledged. 6. The City Arborist shall prepare a tree preservation plan for each phase of the development prior to the issuance of any grading, building, and /or demolition permits. This plan shall address only those trees affected by the subdivision improvements. Tree preservation plans for individual lots shall be prepared at the time Design Review applications are made. Security provided. Prior to Final Map approval pp City, in a form acceptable to the Planning Director, in an amount deemed sufficient by the Planning Director, pursuant to a report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. This security shall be released at the time subdivision improvements are accepted by the City, upon the City Arborist's finding that all tree preservation measures have been properly followed. Acknowledged. 8. No ordinance protected tree shall be removed without obtaining a tree removal permit to do so, with the exception of any tree located within the proposed road right -of -ways. These trees may be removed once a Final Map is recorded and proper grading, building and /or demolition permits are issued. Acknowledged. 9. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Acknowledged. 10. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the 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. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Pile No. SD-88- 005.3; Sadirons Hill a Peach Hill Roads Section 2. Conditions must be completed by October 23, 1992 1 or October 23, 1993, if a third and final one -year extension to the map is granted, or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 9th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, FORBES, MORAN NOES: FAVERO ASSENT: CALDWELL Chair, P1 ing Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted: Signature of applicant Date memo.pc\88-005 I I RESOLUTION NO. SD -88 -005 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF DiManto APN 517 -22 -077, 513 -23 -035, 036, 037 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 map approval of five (5) lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -88 -005 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 plans 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 10/26/88 being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the (Negative Declaration) prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. 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 to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated January, 1988 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: N/A 1. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. Provided on Final Map. 2. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 25 ft. half- street on Madrone Hill Rd. and Peach Hill Rd. Provided on Final Map. 3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required. Provided o Improvement Improve Madrone Hill n 4 1 Road and Peach Hill Road to City Standards. Plans. (Deferred Improvement Agreement, DIA) 6 SD -88 -005; Peach Hill and Madrone Hill Roads 5. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Provided on Improvement Drainage Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed Plans, to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following: a. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. b. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. c. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. Provided on Improvment 6. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using a Plans. designed section with a minimum of 2 -1/2" asphalt concrete on 6 1..„ inch aggregate base from Piedmont Road and Peach Hill Road to within 100 ft. of proposed dwellings. Slope of access road shall not exceed 15% without adhering to the following: a. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 17% shall be surfaced using 4" P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4" aggregate base. Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. b. Access roads having slope in excess of 17 -1/2% are not permitted. Note: The minimum inside curve radius shall be 21 ft. The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft. Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. Acknowledged. 7. Preservation of rock walls may require quire slopes steeper than 17- i/ 1/2% and width narrower than 18 ft. in some locations. Acknowledged. 8. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches. Acknowledged. 9. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared r to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base. Acknowledged. 10 Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the City Engineer. Acknowledged. 11. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. Acknowledged. 12. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. Acknowledged. 13. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. 7 SD -88 -005; Peaah Hill and Madrone Hill Roads Acknowledged. 14. Obtain Encroachment Permit from the Department of Engineering for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City street. Plans submitted and 15. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: approved. a. Storm Drain Construction. b. Access Road Construction. f Fees Paid. 16 Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. N/A 17. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required' improvements marked "D.I.A." All securities is Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. provided. 19. Submit satisfactory evidence of access from Mendelsohn Lane to Evidence provided. subdivision. Acknowledged. 20. Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall be provided with access roads and driveways with an all- weather surface capable of sustaining the weight of fire apparatus, 35,000 lbs., prior to the issuance of any building permits. Acknowledged. 21. The required fire hydrant installations shall be tested and accepted by the fire district prior to the issuance of any building permit. Acknowledged. 22. Driveways shall meet City standards with minimum 14 ft. of width with 1 ft. shoulders. Provide a minimum of 21 ft. inside turn radius. Acknowledged. 23. Provide 15 ft. of vertical clearance over all driveways and access roads, removing all limbs, wires, or other obstacles. Acknowledged. 24. Cul -de -sac shall meet City minimum standards for radius. Acknowledged 25. Property is located in a potentially hazardous fire area. Prior to issuance of building permit remove combustive vegetation as specified. Fire retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on the building plan. (City Ord. 16- 20.210 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix E). Acknowledged. 26. Construct driveway 14 ft. minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using double seal coat 0 S or better on 6" Aggregate Base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope of driveway shall not exceed 12 1/2% without adhering to the following: 8 SD -88 -005; Peach Hill and Madrone Hill Roads a. Driveways having slopes between 12 1/2% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 1/2" of A.C. on 6" of aggregate base. b. Driveways having slopes between 15% and 17% shall be surfaced using 4" of PCC concrete rough surfaced on 4" Aggregate Base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length. Note: Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. Acknowledged and 27. Construct a turn- around at the proposed dwelling site having a shown on Improvement 32 ft. inside radius. Other approved type turn- around must meet requirements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on Plans. plans. Lots 3 and 4 shall be provided with on -site fire truck turnarounds that are within 150 ft. of all portions of the exterior walls of the first floor of any buildings. Acknowledged. 28 Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at proposed building site or as required by the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. Provided on Improve 29. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required. ment Plans Plans are to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. Acknowledged and 30. Fire hydrants in all hazardous fire areas as designed pursuant approved by Fire to the Saratoga City Code shall be located so that no part of any residential structure shall be further than five hundred Department. feet from at least one hydrant and the fire protection system shall be so designed and charged with water under pressure so that each hydrant for residential fire protection shall deliver no less than 1,000 gpm of water. Water storage or other availability shall be such that for any one hydrant of the system, the 1,000 gpm minimum shall be maintained for a sustained period of two hours (Ordinance No. 14- 30.040(c). An exception from this condition is made for Lot #4, per the following criteria: a. A 10,000 gallon gravity flow tank for fire protection and a 2 -1/2" wharf hydrant, both located as per Fire Chief. b. System to be reviewed and approved by the Central Fire Protection District prior to issuance of building permits. c. System to be monitored and inspected annually by the Central Fire Protection District. d. Installation of the Early Warning System connected to the Saratoga Fire District (per Section 16- 60/16 -60 -E) 9 SD -88 -005; Peadh Hill and Madone Hill Roads e. Subdivision to be served by hydrants flowing 1,000 gallons per minute. f. House on Lot #4 to be fully sprinkled in accordance with Central Fire District standards. Acknowledged. 31. Developer to install 3 hydrants that meet Central Fire District's specifications and as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Hydrant to be installed and accepted prior to issuance of building permits. Provided on Improve- 32. Construct three (3) passing turnouts 10 feet wide and 40 feet ment Plans. long as required by Fire Department. Details shall be shown on plans. Acknowledged. 33. Access roadways for Fire Apparatus (20 feet of unobstructed` width) required per Section 10.207, 1979 Uniform Fire Code. Exceptions to this conditions only to be allowed as approved by the Fire Chief. Eucalyptus trees on access road from Madrone Hill to be saved if possible. Acknowledged. 34. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. i Acknowledged. 35. Existing septic tank(s) must be pumped and backfilled in accordance with Environmental Health standards. A bond should be posted to ensure completion of work. Contact the District Sanitarian for final inspection upon completion. Acknowledged. 36. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water. Acknowledged. 37. In accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District ordinances 85 -1 and 87 -3, the owner shall show any existing well(s) on the plans. The well(s) shall be properly registered with the District and either maintained or abandoned in accordance with District standards. Improperly constructed or abandoned wells can be a hazard and may be a source of groundwater contamination. We request that wells be sealed in accordance with District standards unless they are to be used for the proposed development. In this case, they should only be used after proper testing and inspection. Please call Mr. David Zozaya at 265 -2600, ext. 382 for information regarding permits and the registering of or abandonment of any wells. We request written confirmation from the developer or his engineer regarding the existence of any wells and their proposed disposition. Geotechnical Plan 38.. Geotechnical update and plan review The project geotechnical` Review .eubmtteC consultant should inspect current site conditions, review the recommendations given in the existing subdivision geotechnical reports and modify /update the geotechnical recommendations (as 10 a SD -88 -005; Peadh Hill and Madrone Hill Road needed) for the proposed development. The consultant should also review and approve the geotechnical aspects of all development plans. The results of the geotechnical update and plan review should be submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map. 39. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigations As recommended by the Acknowledged. project geotechnical consultants, supplemental geotechnical investigations and /or recommendations for final design parameters for residential foundations and retaining walls should be completed prior to final design of homes and retaining walls. The results of this additional work should be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Geologist prior to issuance of building permits for individual lots. Acknowledged. 40. Geotechnical Field Inspection The project geotechnical consultants should inspect and approve all site preparation and grading, all excavations for residential foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of concrete and /or steel and all excavations for site drainage improvements. Letters describing the results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project should be submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final approval. Acknowledged. 41. House locations and driveway designs to be reviewed and approved by Saratoga Fire District. Acknowledged. 42. Design Review Approval required on project j prior to issuance of permits. Scenic impacts of homes on viewshed shall be reviewed at the time of design review. Easement on Final 43. Landscape buffer requried to be placed on Lot #3 along driveway Map. and in scenic easement. Scenic easement on Lot #3 (approximately 100 ft. by 20 ft.) to be shown on Final Map with restriction on removal of trees. Acknowledged. 44. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. Acknowledged. 45. Design of new or rehabilitated retaining walls along the minimum access road serving Lots 1 -3 shall be stone or a material similar in appearance as approved by the Planning Director. fi\ Acknowledged. 46. No lots can be resubdivided. This information shall be recorded against the title so subsequest owners of th property will be aware of this restriction. (4� Applicant shall record a use restriction agreement for the Agreement provided. preservation and maintenance of the rock work including the walls lining the access s road, the stone foot bridge and turn 11 it SD -88 -005; Peach Hill Madrone Hill Roads around area. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these condition within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed 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 ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 26th day of October, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Guch, Harris, Kolstad, Burger, Tappan NOES: None ABSENT: Tucker, Siegfried ATTEST: Cha Planning Comm sion La4 Secretary, lann n g Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted: Signature of Applicant Date 12 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. D°°t AGENDA ITEM 65 ii) 1 MEETING DATE: August 5, 1998 CITY MANAGER. t ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Third Amendment to Weed Abatement Agreement RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Approve amendment. REPORT SUMMARY: The attached letter from the County Fire Marshal's Office explains their need to adjust weed abatement program fees. Staff believes that this request is reasonable and will enable us to continue a valuable program. FISCAL IMPACTS: None upon City. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of agenda. FOLLOWUP ACTIONS: Staff will return signed agreement to County. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): County would be unable to continue program. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Fire Marshal with amendment to agreement. 1 County of Santa Clara G Un Environmental Resources Agency 7. Fire Marshal's Office Santa Clara County Fire Department AaTt I County Government Center, East Wing I Q 70 West Hedding Street, 7th Floor 1 18 Q' San Jose, California 95I 10 -1705 TA CN' (408) 299 -3805 FAX 279 -8537 June 26, 1998 Mr. Larry Perlin City Manager City Manager's Office City of 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Proposed Amendment to Adjust Weed Abatement Program Fees Dear Mr. Perlin,.. Santa Clara County began providing weed abatement services to local jurisdictions in the late 1970's in order to address the issue of.public fire safety'in a cost effective manner. Since then, we have been fortunate to create partnerships with twelve jurisdictions and one private corporation to provide timely weed and brush abatement services and thereby reduce fire danger. The economy of scale employed by this Program and our efforts to keep administrative costs to a minimum have allowed us to provide these services to your residents at minimal cost. In fact since 1983 we have only requested one Program fee increase. That increase was implemented for the 1996/1997 weed abatement season with the full support of our jurisdictional partners. In 1996 we set the Program fees at 120% of the weed abatement contract costs, and further agreed to maintain. that fee for a period of two years. Now in 1998, it is time to revisit the Program fees and make adjustments to cover the actual costs of implementation and administration of the Program for the upcoming 1998/1999 season.— Beginning with the start of the 1998/1999 weed abatement season in September 1998 we propose to raise our Program fees to 130% of the weed abatement contract costs. This increase will cover the increased costs of the Program administration. A proposed amendment to our agreement for weed abatement services is provided in Attachment A. Our Program administrative costs have risen for several reasons. First, we will have experienced two successive salary and benefit increases since the 1996/1.997 weed abatement season. These increases reflect the negotiated labor union contract costs. In addition, we have reclassified our weed abatement entry level supervisor position in order to provide the appropriate level. of management administration necessary.to.continue efforts to further streamline the weed abatement process and maintain cost effectiveness and minimize staff turnovers. Our two weed abatement vehicles which are ten years old also need replacement this upcoming year, and the new,vehicles.will be more costly. F. Gage, Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh, James T. Beall Jr., S. Joseph Simitian Board of Supervisors: Donald G g g p County Executive: Richard Wittenberg 8.017 In response to comments received from the public, and in an effort to streamline our Program we have decided to reduce the time a parcel remains on the Program from four years to two years. On a county -wide basis, this results in a 48% reduction in the number of parcels on the Program. However, we anticipate the Program will abate nearly the same number of parcels county -wide on an annual basis. Costs would only be incurred by the property owner if they choose not to maintain their property according to the minimum fire safety standards and the County provides weed abatement services. In keeping with the procedures of the current Program, if a property owner provides their own abatement, they are not assessed a fee for our inspection services. For your reference we have provided Attachment B which summarizes the number of parcels inspected, number of parcels abated and the average cost per parcel including Program fees for weed abatement services in your jurisdiction for the 1996 and 1997 seasons. Attachment C provides an accounting of the Weed Abatement Program on a county -wide basis for the same period of time Even with the proposed fee adjustment, we believe the benefits realized by the economy of scale still allow our services to be competitive. Please let us know if we can provide any assistance as you carry the amendment forward to your City Councils for approval. Considering our desire to provide uninterrupted service, we suggest the approval process by your Council and our Board of Supervisors be completed this summer. Please return (3) three signed copies of the amendment to my attention by September 1, 1998. If you do not wish to continue contracting with the County for weed abatement services, we would appreciate being notified of your decision by August 1, 1998 so that we may inform our Board of Supervisors and make any necessary adjustments to the Weed Abatement Program. We anticipate our Board will take action on the amendments August 18, 1998. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at (408) 299 -3805 ext. 207. We thank you for your support will look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Q -C Sa ders, Deputy Fire Marshal Attachments Attachment A: Proposed Amendment Attachment B: Jurisdictional Summary Attachment C: County -wide Summary cc: Richard Wittenberg, County Executive Leode G. Franklin, Director Peter Ng, Financial and Administrative Services Manager Lauren Harvey, Management Analyst I 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Sp O• AGENDA ITEM .411■ MEETING DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: Quarry Creek Wetlands Mitigation Project Capital Project No. 9109) Authorization to proceed with grading work Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to authorize staff to proceed with the grading of the mitigation site on the West Valley College Campus by approving a contract with Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc. of Cupertino.. Report Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council's authorization to proceed with grading work in connection with the Quarry Creek Wetlands Mitigation Project, Capital Project No. 9109. In summary, the proposed project involves regrading and replanting the lower, most northerly end of a grassy peninsula between two converging creeks east the baseball field and north of the tennis courts (see attached plan). The grading involves the excavation of approximately 2,500 cubic yards of dirt from the site. Over time, seasonal flooding of this area will allow the existing wetland area confined within the creek banks to expand into the regraded area resulting in the creation of 0.6 acres of new wetland habitat to mitigate for the 0.6 acres of wetland habitat lost when the Quarry Creek landslide repair project was performed in 1988. In 1996, City staff performed an environmental review of the project and determined that the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA as a Class 4, (Minor Alterations to Land), and a Class 8, (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) exemptions. Staff and the City's environmental consultants, H.T. Harvey Associates, are working closely with the College to accomplish the project this year. At this tune, staff has obtained the necessary permits from the State Department of Fish and Game, has permission from the College to start work, and has obtained quotes for the grading work from two contractors, who have sucessfully worked for the City previously, Stevens Creek Quarry and Klassen Tractor Service, at $12.30 per cubic yard and $20.00 per cubic yard, respectively. In order to complete the grading prior to the start of the fall semester, Stevens Creek Quarry is ready to begin work at the site as early as the week of August 1e Because of the relatively short window of time available to perform this work, and in order to take advantage of the low price offered by Stevens Creek Quarry which needs the dirt for another project in which they are involved, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to issue a construction contract to Stevens Creek Quarry to proceed with work on the project. Fiscal Impacts: Funding for this work exists in Fund 700 (Quarry Creek Trust) and is programmed via Capital Project 9109. Although the adopted budget only contains $2,500 for the project in F.Y. 98 -99, this is because expenditures which were expected to occur in F.Y. 97 -98 did not materialize due to delays in securing the necessary clearances from regulatory agencies. Thus, those unspent funds reverted to the Fund balance and are available to be reprogrammed into the current year's budget during the year end carryover process which will occur in September. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Staff would not be authorized to issue a construction contract to Stevens Creek Quarry. In that event, the opportunity to complete this project this fiscal year could be missed. Follow Up Actions: 1. A construction contract in the amount of $30,750 will be issued to Stevens Creek Quarry. 2. Plans for the planting of the wetland area, hopefully utilizing college students and other volunteers will be finalized by the City's consultants. Planting would be scheduled to occur in the fall, just prior to the start of the next rainy season. Attachments: 1. Project Report by H.T. Harvey Associates. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Quarry Creek Buttress Surface Revegetation 4 West Valley College Off -Site Mitigation Existing Conditions 6 Site Grading 8 Site Planting 10 Maintenance 10 West Valley College Participation 11 Monitoring 12 Literature Cited 13 FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2 West Valley College Mitigation Site 3 Figure 3 Quarry Creek Buttress Area 5 Figure 4 West Valley College Mitigation Site Vegetation Map 7 Figure 5 West Valley College Mitigation Site Grading and Revegetation 9 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Quarry Creek: Effects of Feral Cats on Mitigation Site H. T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION This conceptual document briefly outlines proposed mitigation for impacts to riparian habitat and areas within the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) which occurred along Quarry Creek in Saratoga, Santa Clara County (Figure 1) in 1988. At the impact site the construction of a compacted soil buttress filled 0.6 acres of riparian habitat. CDFG typically requires compensation for impacts to riparian habitat at a ratio of 3:1; thus 1.8 acres of replacement mitigation is proposed as compensation for the Quarry Creek buttress impacts to riparian habitat. Ideally the project would install all required mitigation on -site at the buttress. However, the revegetation of the buttress surface will only provide for 0.6 acres of mitigation credit: Therefore, the project canvased several locations in Saratoga and found sufficient acreage at West. Valley College (Figures 1 and 2). This 1.2 acre site, in addition to the revegetation of the buttress surface, would provide for a 3:1 mitigation of the original impacts. The filling of 0.6 acres of creek channel also filled areas within the jurisdiction of the USACE, i.e. within the limits of Ordinary High Water (OHW). Typically the USACE requires that impacts within their jurisdiction be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1. The project proposes to create a new area within USACE jurisdiction at the off -site mitigation area on West Valley College campus. This of site mitigation is proposed since the Quarry Creek area has no suitable locations for constructing this type of mitigation. This conceptual plan is intended to provide a broad outline of the proposed mitigation and thereby allow CDFG, USACE, West Valley College, and other interested parties to evaluate the mitigation actions proposed. The mitigation approach has been discussed with the Saratoga City Council on October 6, 1993, with the President of West Valley College and the Dean of the Biology Department, and with the CDFG. All parties indicated their preliminary approval of the general project approach. Their formal approval of the project is hereby solicited, based on their review of this conceptual plan. 1 H. T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES 1:5".'7.-......-,..c 41 .oe.A o 0. AY t A p l .r. y,I ?1 i o �y� =-2". L i 1 1......,•:.:5 4 1 3 NE ,NF.w y. An`A ao em 6 LA'. 7 R 1 L"'•:' 1 E g S R I. vu Ar owpN 1' c 4 Nr°.°r4� i y.. tt I .11 .04 D ,p., 0 0.7 DM. r E S =.A. "pi, �O L w w i A°®.. r. r is C t,e uN A Y a.,1n a wuA .v eme.... i San o v A ..,DO..:,t °i W Inc, .„,,„„0„„ Francisc.i 1 F I y on Y .Y iNeav t MNatn ow. of 'P .o a ct. %-..........1- It.- ys.ns c c yi 41ENIIIV a d Bay amsc° I P O Space o o G a.:_ DA. 2fi iiiii2 J r j JCA DVtL MY. A i y I cr. t M l --s 1 p,..,-,e P uc T a'. G T 0 O•Lea RAIN tM RAMC. p AV. Dr a S.r.l°e. x 10 Q Fr. .o., 3 r- i`? ti cov r i 0 a° �j„�r BLUE 4 1./±t% w `886<Q. .n r �Fa Club l i I o wAF �Y! HI LLS 0 I I J� 010 MiNS D NMDMD 19 G X p. :3 --I Q A c R I n a g I j� Monterey Project Vicinity J o W M t 1 11 Q f Kr rM air t7L 1' V ti ,a C n, t R a I ,n A4t y MA V. 4 E 1 g L wwY O i ii �3• 471 CT. p 1 Galin Im. A �,wA' :no. 4e la(-7, "'sr' ��R4 4 4p w -.1..'-‘,..". dgI 1 R �3' u .wAN Av. 'C's 1�l� DtANrn A hu,waa C- a q y°s r+\ t i F var PIE��' W I ire,. d os 4 N.. R i C° 4 .DYCt A. t g 2 c r'- ii o lc 4R EY f NERAMAAN AV. E C 'a C "Rr r 7 t R j x N v. I. s F I o r, 4 EDEN .D. r s'AA.°a 4t 0 i p t Av L o,.w. l.' I �k s M MEeE b. I w r v. i N cw' km... Quarry Creek 4 J g aM. („4'..) J i S A R A T 0 I t Buttress Site al ...r sDaty e/ F fi e NI al, t,t. x I c G 4 �p� 1, o, \0 b 6 I W o \i y i d �Z� 1 I4 ...w w wo os p i aD. `g t. F I `R r 4 V. r. A' I `•°"Alta v" }tD'r Y 4 O Q a 3 'b w 'I� I i 7 VFSS� R f o F W. i q 4 y !IS 4.� I A r. a l r i 1 'y. co p ..w.A� e I w �gy��'r•OF` AtR RY 4.771' r S .'A f 'ma) I wr. }4�' 7 I 1 1 1,...•. �D [qw tPA! a... mamas s.N.s A. O k t rL,�, O Av. t 1 M I s u,..nn e 4. 1 West Valley ,N College t 1 i lilt Mitigation Site e t± I n p 11 wv. v p� •wa n,,, p C ;O '1( i 1 2 5 Nr A N ci fl. T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS 0 loop feet 45 Mik I Mik Quarry Creek Regional Map 0 k !Kilometer 0 SOD 1000 Meters 1 Melers appro.. File No. 450 -06 I Date 2/9/94 I Figure 1 H. T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES W EST VALLEY COLLEGE Administration I Computer Services Computer/Reading/Writing/ 11 14000 fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070-5698 Administration of Justice 2 Admissions 8 Records 3 ESL labs Ibp 408/867-2200 Applied Arts Sciences Division 10 Counseling 9 MS 10 lecture Roll 10A Dance Studio 188 NORTH PARKI LOT Art Design lab I3E Disabled Student Placement HOCKEY h ELD Art Gallery iE and Services 17 A labs 13) Educational Transition/ T EA Ad ult Reentry 17 ASB Offices /j Audio Visual 164 Extended Opportenities•EOPS 7 Baltic Room r 1 I Q Board Room Financial Aid 3 11 PA L a 1 f i IA Fine Arts Division 13 s a G 1111 PRACTICI soccEe' Bookstore 6( Gymnasium 18C FIELD D Business Education Division 4 Gymnasium lli 0 t iBB,B► Y (main) 1 1 c Bus iness Services 1B Health Center ��t� t� i Cafeteria 6B language Arts Division 15 i' SOFTBALL Campus (enter la P 6 LA 10 lecture Hall 154 I t Carlson House 5 learning Services 15 J tdA Chancellor IA library 1 5 O Lao (hild(ore(enler 8 Locke�Rooms 184 ....i lig I Community Education 12 Music 13C Personnel IA so to is. Physical Education Division 18 DI PARKING LOT #2 SO �9' PE 2 lecture Hall P r d POOL VOUEYBA L i f q IB r-- S!0(L',40 O f l r..f -1.� �SfEreA Planetarium rn 1 uJ 3N J Z d ;Is Plant Operations 21 ___...ca so �Be Police 19 D� President 1( r' lq C �l�r m 1 SM Science Mathematics Div. 20 D3 rn r .ton is Snack Bar W Z U a O I Cr r Social tu e l Science Division IS C J O Las t• 601 ek, 1 rn T to io. FBA r cxn uceG l t� Student Activities bF Tr ae 6 COURSE 1 d Student (enter 9 I NnI— Student Job Placement 9 1 6A 6 6B GOIr 1 LTA' I Ca Teacher Resource (enter IbE p,.,. a,; DRIVING Television Studio lrsg I RAxcf ���f li n �D Theatre 138 Theatre Arts 134 j' g1l Transfer /Career (enter 9 0q f Tutorial Services 11)3 BUS STOP ik, I 1 I T ENNIS c r ln 'v�' I L� Warehouse 21 Warehouse Annex p I 21A v"-- o l 0 II II u I! I easroau I Wrestling Weight Trainin RE PARKING LO PARKING U B T B4 LOT e3 r d I I� L T1 II1j±L J J Dail paid par without ermil II O X0 y I I U El Il II II I' L oeailoble aril in ois #3 d acs. III 1 c...;=-,--:, �o Foots (accessible so cars) u U I rr n e �P �'1 J �7I I 7-----, Restricted Staff Parking Miti Sit a F RUITVALE AVENUE= 6 Handicapped Perking 1 I 23 -4 Re.. I /93 1 Emergency Blue Phones z7 Police H.T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES j a ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS r a West Valley College Mitigation Site y 's File No. 450 -06 I Date 2/9/94 J Figure 2 QUARRY CREEK BUTTRESS SURFACE REVEGETATION The compacted soil buttress was constructed in 1988 and reaches approximately 1,400 feet from near Quarry Creek's crossing of Quarry Road upstream to the creek's confluence with a small tributary (Figure 3). The vegetation which occurred within the area impacted by the construction of the buttress consisted of an overstory dominated by mature coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and California bay laurel (Umbelhilaria californica) and an understory comprising toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis var. consanguinea), and coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica). Much of the buttress surface has been naturally revegetating in the intervening seven years since the original impact occurred. Coyote brush continues to grow vigorously in most areas, and jim brush (Ceanothus oliganthus var. sorediatus) is recolonizing portions of the side slopes. This natural recolonization in concert with the planting of approximately 150 coast live oak seedlings and willow cuttings will result in satisfactory revegetation of the riparian corridor over time. The heavy winter rains of early 1995 damaged the buttress and caused deep gullying in several locations. This damage was repaired in the summer of 1995. The repair work was concentrated along the channel bed and most revegetation along the side slopes was left intact, however, some of the naturally revegetating areas were denuded. Following repair work all disturbed areas were seeded with a native grass mix and jute mesh was placed on most exposed soil areas. Following that site repair work the City planted approximately 150 coast live oak along the buttress to reinforce natural revegetation and to reduce visual impacts to neighbors. These seedlings were installed on 20 -30 foot centers along both sides of the creek within the buttress area shown on Figure 3. The seedlings were 5 gallon stock. Some willow cuttings (30 -50) will also be installed near two natural seeps along the lower end of the buttress. These cuttings will be installed in the winter of 1995 -96. It is expected that the oak seedlings will require weeding and truck watering for a maximum of 2- 3 years. It must be recognized that the buttress surface is compacted fill and that tree survival may be relatively low. Predation by deer could also affect tree survival. If herbivory proves to be a significant problem then deer cages may be installed. Dead trees will be replaced annually during the maintenance period. The planting efforts described above are designed to reinforce, but not replace, the natural revegetation of the buttress that is already occurring. As -built planting plans will be prepared in early 1996 for this site. 4 H. T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES i \s. Legend: 4t11:::::::'::.. I •10t.:::::, 0 •.:::::::i:•.N:::::::::::::::::.:::... •••:.i,i1 N .04 :.iiiiii:•'i'?::::•••• I N: Z:91i ilii i i :iSilgb i iiiii:::;::: S. t 4 44 0tlik::::;::x 4 1 -1\- .7 4 131i Drainage Direction) ta j u i o o g l Culvert r t f 1- Contour ed o r i u e r d ki!: Buttress Area -N.. s". ••::::::::::::ft:iiii::::MIgNii:i4N::::,.. M,;::::::::i:i:iiii:ii1::::::::::14••:::..... ::::::::::::igi::::ft:::::::;::::::::::::!!t;::•:••:!•*:;:::::::..„--- •4/4/i?), 580 ......:.:•::::::::::...iimm:::..::::::;:iv:::*;;,...,...,::,;;;::::..„..., ..:::::::::::,.:%:imiim.:.;:i• •N4:: s•••..........,.._ :':iii:i.:..:-gi$:iill::•Q::§:::::::;.;:::::1* 560 .i:4::••::•.. ......,:iiii•::::::::•::::::::::ii:-..ii:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::!:•*::::::::Sij::::::i.,:,. •••••":::::4:::::•,:iii::::::::.i.::::::::::::::::::::••::::::::::.,14iif•:::iii:,:•. .s •••••:•:::::::0::::::N.::::::::.:::::::::::::::::',::::::•::::*.ii.i::::::::,... .,::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::4,s,::::::::::... ..:::::::::::N 4 44::::::::.:.., ...f.:4.,....0::::::::ki::•r.,.*:::::::.. 520 N .....•'''...1.1:ii:%::::::::::.0.0N:j.*:'.ii:....,... N.. ••:•:•*.t.<L4t:i::4ii,.. s•- s. 500 N. .f.ii?'':.k.ii,•&*7.A4::',.:iii.•'"'---- .•'•::::tiii::::::.!;:::::::::::::S•1;:::::::::.ri4pS:'::::::::::,,,, •:••,•::ii:Miii•:::.ig.1:i:!i.0:::::::N•i•ki.4., 4 80 S:.i N„.......•- 4 P .N. '.:':•::::::':.t:::i.M.•::::.M.:::::6::::.::::::g.:::::::::::::i.iitlINN.::::::.%•'•::::::x...,.• S. ••••-----_____o.::::4,::::::::w.::::::::::::.i::::::::::::::::::::.::.4*:;:::::::::::::::::;::„::: B. ----,.....:::::•,:iiii:::::o.::::::::::00.ii.,::!::i.swi!::.*:,,,;:ii?,,.. gioki::ikiw.:::•*„ 0 :3\ cc. to S. --..,.4. i z s. 0 o C. MI 0 50 100 150 200 ft. Rt c#1 ECOLOGICAL lI. 7: HARVEY& CONSULTANTS T c4 c) n rry Buttress Ar 1 e 2 18/95 FileQNuoa. Figure 3 ce, WEST VALLEY COLLEGE OFF -SITE MITIGATION EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed off -site mitigation area on the West Valley College campus is on a raised peninsula at the confluence of Vasona Creek and an unnamed creek (Figure 2). The majority of the peninsula is raised 6 -10 feet above the channel bottoms of the two creeks, and has gentle side slopes. There appears to be flow in Vasona Creek throughout the year, whereas the unnamed creek appears to flow only after rainfall. Vasona Creek flows are confined to a 4 -5 foot wide low flow channel except following rainfall. The channel bottoms are relatively flat, and at the confluence there is a broad marsh. A reconnaissance level survey by H. T. Harvey and Associates of the creek determined that the OHW level coincides with the toe of the slope around the perimeter of the peninsula. OHW was mapped onto the site plans (Figure 4). The upper surface of the peninsula has one large valley oak (Ouercus lobata) towards the southern end, and several small valley and coast live oak saplings are scattered across the remaining surface. The majority of the peninsula's upper surface is covered with non native grasses. The side slopes of the peninsula are fully vegetated as they approach the adjacent creeks. The vegetation on the side slopes comprises native plant species (coast live oak, valley oak, coyote brush, toyon, poison oak) as well as invasive non native species (french broom [Cytisus monspessilanus], periwinkle [Vinca major], and Himalayan blackberry [Rubus procera]). The contours of the existing vegetation on the site were mapped (Figure 4) by biologists from H. T. Harvey and Associates to guide the development of a grading plan that minimizes damage to native vegetation. The site is located within the San Ysidro Soil Series. The surface soil (13 -26 inches deep) in this series is a light brown medium acid loam, the subsoil (16 -20 inches thick) is a brown slightly acid clay, and the substratum is a clay loam over stratified moderately fine textured gravelly alluvium. This soil series is considered appropriate for irrigated fruit trees, vineyards, dryland hay and pasture. The site's surface soil was sampled around the perimeter of the peninsula and on its upper surface. For the most part the soil was found to be a sandy clay. Wildlife use of the proposed mitigation area is relatively low due to the sparse vegetation, the predominance of non native grasses, and the College's mowing of the area for fire prevention. Wildlife use in the dense riparian vegetation adjacent to the mitigation site is relatively high. Grading of the peninsula, if conducted according to the grading plan (Figure 5) will minimize disturbance of native vegetation and will not have a significant impact on wildlife in the area. 6 H. T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES a .......,...flow Unn .00' `••••••;;24: Drai 5. I age ft. •%Pro,,,,, 0 30 60 -3B5 '*4- r ,7.' ,zzie,-/ t-op 0 v 4 'Or9 N. .::::::::,6. I .U.]:iiii:,...*%, j cS ctic.' 0: 395 :::::::::::::::,:::::;::::::::::::::.77'•--..,...... „,:R: I '''''iiA 0 0 ,,...,:.:M*Mniiii:::::NiV:::::Eliii:.;h:..., 0 ......li'.'iniii:g2E::.iftii&i::,.:%:„... '....::'ii:i::::::::::iii:::Noi...ift:!:::::0::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::m:::::::::::::::::::::.::„::„.„„,..."*-.. i ......,.......„.„„„„„:„.:„..:4„....x....•••• :;,ip:::::::i:iii:::::::::::::::: :....:iia .:::08f*JR::::::.'.. byy "'.:::::::::::::::::::::::0:::::::::::::::::::iiiiiii,:,..::::;::. 4 Vasorja Creek .....4 htnii:: N..... o %..s.... Z. ...N 7 00., S. N Legend ''':::i:i*:::::*:*::::::§i:.P.::,:i..*:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,:::::::::::::i::::.*;:::::::::::,.::::::::,:.,;::: n. •.::::::::::::::i:::::::::::::i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::*:::::*:::::::v::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. :::::::::::::::::::::1 Vegetation to be Protected r Vegetation to be Removed 1 o e"•,. Drainage t'"71 r Ordinary High Water Line A Elevation Contour H.T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES Rt ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS Cel Co) C) West Valley College Mitigation r) Site Vegetation Map "-i ty: tn File No. 450-06 I Date 12/18/95 I Figure 4 The proposed mitigation area was unofficially posted as a "Wildlife Sanctuary" several years ago. Although there is no firm legal protection offered by the posting it may discourage disturbance of the area. Use of the site as a formal mitigation area recognized by CDFG and the USACE would legally protect the site from disturbance in perpetuity. Feral cats are common throughout the campus' riparian corridor and are the subject of considerable public debate. Attachment 1 to this document is an analysis of the feral cat situation relative to this project. SITE GRADING The project proposes to grade the site according to the grading plan (Figure 5). Grading should commence, and be completed, in the spring or summer of 1996. A 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required from CDFG for site grading. Since the grading will not extend into USACE jurisdiction permits from that agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board will not be required. The goal of the grading design is to excavate 0.6 acres of the peninsula to elevations within the limits of OHW and thereby compensate for the filling of streambed at the Quarry Creek buttress. It will be necessary to grade several areas around the perimeter of the peninsula which support non native shrubs and coyote brush. In those vegetated areas grading will be minimized (approximately 0.14 acres) to avoid unnecessary vegetation removal. The majority of the vegetation in the creeks next to the site will remain undisturbed. Figures 4 and 5 show the areas to be graded, vegetation to be protected, vegetation to be removed, and the pre grading and post grading position of OHW. Grading will stop at the drip line of the majority of the native oaks growing on the peninsula's side slopes. However, it will be necessary to remove some small native oak saplings growing on the parts of the peninsula surface that will be excavated or filled during grading. The native trees to be removed during grading are as follows: Species Diameter at breast ht. No. Removed Coast live oak 5" 2 3° 5 1 Valley oak 5" 2 3 -4" 16 Total 26 Staff biologists will flag all vegetation -to- remain prior to grading to ensure that excess disturbance does not occur. Biologists will also monitor the site during grading to protect sensitive areas. 8 H. T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES 0 -•:ii 1../nn ....wage 0 30 60 ft. ••••ceei.. 0... ,ss5 ....;4,.. t. Am t A•111111•111111111•111 AIIIIIII,11111•1111111111111111 tt c AIIIIIIIMINE•111111111•••• "N, r.. 7'. 1 :.,....,*.X. 1111 111 1 1111••••111110111 'if '.;;..4.1. 4...:k •1111111111•111117 7 ::::::i:ft: ...7 i...11. limmu:::::::::•....*:::iirumismIwe ..4..Y.1%r -^,q...c.ree,i&.....-<'Lt"---... N '',.•„111.1mmei::::MAili:::!filimmmuniF t imimi:':; i O t numitommomm ;T. 1 NeimommasTEN \R•111111111111111! Legend -.1 "'Mt .../h. 1 (0 O- VA Cut Area No Grading f'. Drainage t r High Water Line rarl Existing Elevation Contour Ro 011W Post-Grading/ vit ECO LOGICAL 0 7: HARVEY C• Toe of Cut cn 0 rv..r....... PI n L J anting Area West Valley College Mitigation 1: Site Grading and Revegetation *-3 tl*: File No. 450-06 1 Date 12/18/94 ll Figure 5 cel t Grading will be restricted to the dry period of April 15 through October 15 (unless otherwise I authorized by CDFG) to avoid sedimentation of the creeks during grading. It is estimated that 0 500 cubic yards of soil will be excavated from the end of the site nearest the confluence of the creeks. Topsoil will be stockpiled and respread evenly across all cut areas. Excavated subsoil will be removed and disposed of off -site. When grading is completed any minor fill areas will be lightly compacted and exposed cuts will be lightly tilled. All side slopes, fill slopes and cut slopes will be no steeper than 3:1. The final restoration design will indicate any additional measures necessary to stabilize the bare soil slopes after grading is completed. These measures may include seeding with native grasses, placement of straw or jute mesh, installation of silt fences and other appropriate techniques. Pre- irrigation of seeded grasses may be conducted in early fall to germinate the grasses and establish some groundcover before the rains start. Public access to the area would be discouraged for approximately 1 year to minimize disturbance of the soil and groundcovers.. 1 SITE PLANTING The area available for planting including both the excavation and ungraded areas, totals 1.2 acres. The site's soils are considered fully suitable for revegetation with little or no soil amendment required. The entire mitigation site will be planted with native trees and groundcovers. The native trees will include coast live oak and valley oak on 16 foot centers across the majority of the site and native willow Salix laevigata, Salix lasiolepis) around the lower edge of the site. The entire site will be seeded with a commercially available mixture of native grasses and wildflowers to reduce erosion and establish a groundcover. I The native oaks will be planted using acorns and the willows will be installed using cuttings. Acorns and cuttings will be collected locally. Since in some years oaks produce minimal crops of acorns there is a chance that nursery stock will be used. The preference, however, is to use acorns if a sufficient supply is available. Acorns would be installed in October January and the cuttings in January. Installation is anticipated in late 1996, early 1997. Details on the installation techniques and layout will be provided in the final revegetation plan. MAINTENANCE The site is designed to require relatively little maintenance over time. During the first 2 -3 years the trees will need to be weeded 3 -4 times per year and hand watered during the summer. Water faucets are located next to the site so hoses and watering cans should be sufficient to water the trees. Dead trees will be replaced annually. 1 io H. T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES Annual mowing of the area between the tennis court pathway and the dripline of the large valley oak on the peninsual will be conducted to reduce fire hazard both to the mitigation plantings and the College. This is not expected to significantly effect habitat values on the site. WEST VALLEY COLLEGE PARTICIPATION The success of this mitigation project will necessitate close involvement by the College in the planning and maintenance phases of the project. Expenditures by the College should not be required by the project, but their consent will be required for the following items: 1. Use of adjacent water faucets to irrigate plantings (the City could pay water fees if requested). 2. Permission to access the site during construction with heavy equipment and with workers and some equipment during maintenance. 3. Commitment to preserve the revegetation area in perpetuity, and to not access the area with heavy equipment that could damage the plantings. There are also significant opportunities that the project presents to the College, which already uses the marsh and riparian corridor as an outdoor lab and study area. Staff and students in the Biology and Park Management Departments will be able to conduct field tours and studies in the restoration area. Practical restoration skills could also be developed if students participate in planting and maintaining the site. Dr. Greg Rose of the Biology Department has expressed interest in creating an aquatic site on the lower end of the mitigation area. It is probable that there are other opportunities as well, that will be discovered as project design and implementation proceed. 11 H. T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES MONITORING As part of the final revegetation plan a detailed monitoring plan for the buttress revegetation area and the West Valley College mitigation site will be developed. As -built plans will also be prepared for each site The final goal for the sites is to establish a native woodland on the sites that will support a wide variety of wildlife species commonly found in Santa Clara County. Specific intermediate goals to be applied to the site during the first 5 -10 years of plant establishment will be described in the final plan. Intermediate goals will include survival, percent cover, height, and others as needed. 12 H. T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES Literature Cited Bacon, E. 1994. "Hey, buddy, can you spare a can of tuna Stanford University Campus Report. 26:1,7. Stallcup, R. 1991. "Cats: a heavy toll on songbirds a reversible catastrophe". Pt. Reyes Bird Observatory. Spring- Summer 1991. pp. 8 -9. 13 H. T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES ATTACHMENT 1 QUARRY CREEK: EFFECTS OF FERAL CATS ON MITIGATION SITE The riparian zone adjacent to the mitigation site on West Valley College supports a relatively diverse bird population. Species composition in the campus' riparian zone changes throughout the year. For example, wintering Cedar Waxwings, Varied Thrushes, and American robins eat berries from the toyon, blackberry and other shrubs during fall and winter. Warblers that winter in the area, such as Yellow romped and Townsend's Warblers forage in the tree canopy for insects, spiders, seeds, small fruits, and occasionally, nectar. During spring and summer, other species such as the Orange- crowned Warbler may nest in the low shrubs and trees. Dark -eyed Juncos and Rufous -sided Towhees scratch on the ground and in leaf litter for insects and grubs. Woodpeckers such as the Nuttall's Woodpecker, Acorn Woodpecker and Northern Flicker glean insects from the bark of trees. Raptors such as Sharp- shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawks have been seen in the area. Coveys of California Quail are reported to have frequented the area in the past, but were not observed during site visits by project biologists. Feral house cats are reported to be abundant in the area, and several (5 -10) feral cats were observed during site visits by project biologists. Feral cats in this area probably eat small rodents such as the California mouse, deer mouse, California vole, western harvest mouse, Botta's pocket gopher, house mouse, and cotton tailed rabbits. These cats' diets are also being supplemented with cat food periodically left by some individuals. Feral cats can have a pronounced effect on some bird species (primarily ground nesters) and small mammals. The cats on the West Valley College campus may be responsible for the absence of California Quail, which is a ground nesting species, as well as rabbits, and they certainly kill some of the other bird species. However, without extensive surveys and monitoring it is not possible to accurately estimate the size of the feral cat population, its growth rate, or the extent of cat predation on local bird populations. The potential effect of feral cats on bird populations is a controversial topic as is evidenced by a recent article (Stallcup 1991) in the Winter 1991 -92 Point Reyes Bird Observatory Newsletter and subsequent response letters. Stallcup estimated that 44 million domestic cats could be killing over 4.4 million songbirds per day and recommended measures to control their population. Conversely, attempts to remove some 2,000 feral cats from the Stanford University campus were met with stiff opposition and ended with the formation of a "Cat Network" where the cats were captured, neutered and fed by volunteers (Bacon 1994). It is understood that a similar program to capture, neuter and release feral cats has been started on the West Valley College campus with funding by a local citizen. There is a significant question about the legality of re- releasing such cats after capture. In addition, the program raises safety issues and is not consistent with the comprehensive wild animal policy adopted in 1993. The establishment of additional riparian woodland in the mitigation area will provide additional habitat for a number of avian and mammal species that already occur in the area. This may 1 H. T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES fi slightly increase the prey base for feral cats but the great majority of the species attracted to riparian woodland would survive in spite of the cats. This conclusion is borne out by the fact that the existing riparian woodland supports relatively healthy bird populations in spite of the presence of numerous feral cats. Although it would be ideal to have a riparian area devoid of feral cats it is not practical to establish that as a goal of this project. This project will support efforts to work towards reducing, and perhaps ultimately resolving, the problems presented by feral cats. It has been observed that even where an aggressive cat removal program is implemented new cats may move in from adjacent areas to fill the vacant niche. A more practical approach would focus on all, or at least some, of the following: 1. West Valley College develops an educational program to reduce "cat dumping" and feeding of feral cats. This would include the placement of signs on campus indicating that such activities are not allowed, in conformance with current college policy. 2. College develops and enforces regulations against "cat dumping" and feeding of feral cats. 3. College encourages long -term efforts to continually live trap and neuter feral cats in the riparian zone. These cats would then be released into more suitable areas or placed for adoption after taming. 4. College formally establishes wildlife preserve area in all or part of the riparian corridor on campus with explicit objectives and regulations for the area. 2 H. T. HARVEY ASSOCIATES All, U24 C) R 1 3D ti-- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM (r) 1 MEETING DATE: AUGUST 5, 1998 CITY MANAGER: W' ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Landscaping Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 Approval of Engineer's Report and Confirmation of Assessments for FY 98 -99 RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, direct the City Clerk to tabulate the ballots and report the results. Afterwards, move to adopt the Resolution ordering the improvements and confirming the assessments for FY 98 -99. REPORT SUMMARY: At your meeting, you will conclude the public hearing originally opened on June 17 to consider the proposed assessments for the LLA -1 for FY 98 -99. The notice of the public hearing was previously published in the Saratoga News and in addition, property owners within certain zones of the district were mailed separate notices along with a postcard ballot and other information required by Proposition 218. At the June 17 hearing, the City Clerk reported the preliminary results of the balloting for each of the four zones in which a vote is being conducted. These preliminary results are summarized in the attached table (Attachment 1). Because less than half of the property owners within Zones 27 and 28 returned their ballots, the City Council decided to continue the public hearing to allow additional time for those property owners who did not return a ballot to do so. Thus, property owners within these two zones now have until the close of the hearing on Wednesday to return their ballots, or to change a ballot already submitted. At the close of the hearing, the Council must act on the results of the voting, however it turns out, since the deadline for transmitting the final assessment roll to the County Auditor is Monday, August 10. A copy of the staff report for the June 17 meeting is attached. The preliminary assessment schedule attached thereto is still valid except for the figures for Zone 30. It does not appear likely that the one property owner in that proposed zone will change his mind with respect to being annexed into the District, so it appears Zone 30 will need to be dropped from the final assessment schedule. The Resolution the Council will need to act upon at the close of the public hearing will be presented to you at the meeting. The City Attorney's office is drafting the Resolution in such a way that it will accommodate all possible outcomes of the voting in Zones 27 and 28. If the voting in Zone 27 goes against the proposed assessment of $80.84, it will be recommended that the City Council approve a reduced assessment of $64.24 which would allow for a continuation of the landscape maintenance of this area at an acceptable, albeit reduced, level reflecting the $514.60 which would not be collected to sustain the full level of service throughout the year. Next year, it would be necessary to again try to increase the assessment in this Zone through another ballot process. However if this were to be turned down again at that time, then the City Council would need to seriously consider abandoning Zone 27 and terminating the landscape maintenance therein. Of more concern is the balloting in Zone 28, the Kerwin Ranch Landscape District. The 16 property owners in this new zone are being asked to approve an assessment of $229.94 for FY 98 -99 to continue the maintenance of the perimeter landscaping installed by the developer along Fruitvale and Saratoga Ayes. and maintained by the developer through June 30 of this year, (see attached letter dated July 20). If the voting in Zone 28 goes against the proposed assessment, the City Council will be faced with the hard choice of deciding whether to terminate the landscape maintenance of this area, or absorb it into the City's maintenance program at an annual cost of roughly $3,500. Hopefully, the results of the balloting in Zone 28 will forego the need for the City Council to consider these alternatives. In addition to confirming the assessments for FY 98 -99 for the LLA -1, the City Council is also being asked to award a one year extension of the monthly landscape maintenance contracts to the firm currently providing these services. A more detailed discussion of this is contained in the companion staff report which appears next on your agenda. FISCAL IMPACTS: This ultimately depends on the results of the balloting in Zones 27 and 28, and whether the City Council decides to assume responsibility for any of the costs of landscape maintenance not currently covered by the City. Beyond this, the costs associated with servicing the remainder of the District are recovered by the annual assessments levied against the properties in the District: ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: As noted above. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The City Council must adopt the Resolution ordering the improvements and confirming the assessments for FY 98 -99. If this is not done, the assessment roll will not be able to be transmitted to the County Auditor by August 10 and the revenues needed to support the District's activities in FY 98 -99 will not be collected. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: A copy of the Resolution and the assessment roll will be transmitted to the County Auditor by August 10. ATTACHMENTS: Preliminary tabulation of ballots as of June 17. Staff report from June 17. Letter to Kerwin Ranch property owners dated July 20. t 1998 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PROPOSITION 218 BALLOT TALLY BALLOTS NUMBER OF ACTUAL VOTES UNDELIVERED ZONE POTENTIAL VOTES SUPPORT OPPOSE OR UNSIGNED 27 31 6 7 2 28 16 3 4 0 29 60 29 7 5 30 1 0 1 0 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: JUNE 17, 1998 CITY MANAGER: t ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD: t► SUBJECT: Landscaping Lighting Assessment District LLA -1: Public Hearing and tabulation of ballots to consider proposed assessments for FY 98 -99 RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Conduct the required public hearing. At the close of the hearing, direct the City Clerk to tabulate the ballots and report the results. Afterwards, direct staff accordingly. REPORT SUMMARY: At your meeting, you will be conducting the required public hearing to consider the proposed assessments for the LLA -1 for FY 98 -99. The notice of the hearing was published in the Saratoga News. Additionally, property owners within certain zones were mailed separate notices of the hearing along with a postcard ballot and other information required under Proposition 218. The zones for which ballots will be counted and the reasons for the balloting in these zones are as follows: Zone 27 (Cunningham Place /Glasgow Court Landscape District) This is a new Zone created by merging the current zones 14 (Cunningham Place) and 18 (Glasgow Court) which the Council ordered last year. Eventually, zone 10 (Tricia Woods) will be combined into the new zone as well so that all three zones will share equally in the cost of maintaining the landscaping along the east side of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road between Miljevich Dr. and Blauer Dr. However, until zone 10 retires its accumulated deficit from prior years, it will remain as a separate zone. The ballot issues which the property owners in the new zone 27 are voting on are: 1) whether to approve an increase in next year's annual assessment from $69.78 and $64.24 for zones 14 and 18 respectively, to $80.84 for the combined zone 27; and 2) whether to authorize a maximum annual assessment of $120 in FY 99 -00 along with a 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent years, above which only higher future proposed assessments would need to be voted on. Zone 28 (Kerwin Ranch Landscape District) This is a new zone proposed to be annexed into the District to pay for the cost of landscape maintenance along the Fruitvale and Saratoga Ayes. frontages of the Kerwin Ranch subdivision. Although the subdivider agreed to waive his right and the rights of successor owners in the subdivision to protest annexation into the District, the passage of Proposition 218 effectively voided this waiver. For the past year, the landscape maintenance costs have been funded from the proceeds of a cash bond posted by the subdivider for this purpose. However the proceeds of the cash bond will be exhausted at the end of this month. The ballot issues which the property owners in the new zone 28 are voting on are: 1) whether to approve an annual assessment for FY 98 -99 of $229.94; and 2) whether to authorize a maximum annual assessment of $300 in FY 99 -00 along with a 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent years, above which only higher future proposed assessments would need to be voted on. Zone 29 (Tollgate Landscape Lighting District) This is a new zone proposed to be annexed into the District to pay for the cost of landscape maintenance and lighting along Tollgate Road just above Congress Springs Road. Presently these services are managed by the Tollgate Homeowners Association, however the HOA Board would like to annex their development to the District primarily to ensure that all property owners within the Tollgate area contribute to the costs of maintenance and operation. Not surprisingly, not everyone contributes when "the hat is passed around" and this is an ever increasing source of frustration for many of the Tollgate area property owners. The ballot issues which the property owners in the new zone 29 are voting on are: 1) whether to approve an annual assessment for FY 98 -99 of $70.34; and 2) whether to authorize a maximum annual assessment of $100 in FY 99 00 along with a 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent years, above which only higher future proposed assessments would need to be voted on. Zone 30 (Saratoga Oaks Center Traffic Signal) This is a new zone proposed to be annexed into the District consisting of a single commercial property known as Saratoga Oaks Center located on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road opposite Pierce Road. The purpose for the zone is to have the property owner share 25% of the costs for the maintenance and operation of the traffic signal controlling the Saratoga Sunnyvale/Pierce intersection from which the property is accessed and benefits. This is one of only three traffic signals in the City which partially controls access to and from private properties and it seems only reasonable that the property owners benefiting from these signals should share in these maintenance and operating costs. Obviously however since there is only one property in the proposed zone, the property owner will ultimately decide whether the zone is created. If the property owner either fails to return his ballot or votes against the assessment proposal, the property cannot be annexed into the District by the City. The ballot issues which the property owner in the new zone 30 is voting on are: 1) whether to approve an annual assessment for FY 98 -99 of $1,665; and 2) whether to authorize a maximum annual assessment of $2,000 in FY 99 -00 along with a 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent years, above which only higher future proposed assessments would need to be voted on. Copies of the materials mailed to the property owners in the above zones are attached. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council should direct the City Clerk to tabulate and report the results of the balloting. Only those ballots returned by the close of the hearing will be counted. Since the proposed assessments are the same for all properties in any one zone, each ballot within each zone is given equal weight. Thus, voting will be determined by simple majority of the ballots cast within each zone. After the results of the balloting are reported, the Council should direct staff accordingly. This could range from proceeding with the preliminary assessments for each zone as proposed in the Engineer's Report, to adjusting some of the assessments downward, to canceling some of the assessments altogether. Depending on what the Council directs, the Resolution confirming the assessments for FY 98 -99 will be prepared, and the Engineer's Report amended as necessary, for your meeting on July 1. FISCAL IMPACTS: None at this time. Eventually, the costs associated with administering and servicing the District will be recovered by the assessments levied against the properties in the District. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: As noted above. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The public hearing would not be held. In that event, the renewal process for the assessment district could not proceed. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Depending on Council's decisions, the Resolution confirming assessments for FY 98 -99 will be prepared and the Engineer's Report amended as necessary for the Council meeting of July 1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notices mailed to property owners. 2. Preliminary assessment proposals as per Engineer's Report. 3. History of LLA -1 assessments. 4. Majority Protest Procedures for LLA -1 adopted via Resolution No. 97 -21 on May 21, 1997. CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TIME: 8:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1998 PLACE: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA NOTES: 1. THE AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT CHARGEABLE TO THE ENTIRE DISTRICT IS $57,620. 2. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE ENCLOSED WITH THIS NOTICE: A LETTER FROM THE CITY MANAGER A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF INTENTION (RESOLUTION NO. 98-05.3) INFORMATION CONCERNING DURATION OF ASSESSMENTS, REASON FOR ASSESSMENT, BASIS OF ASSESSMENT CALCULATION, AND SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEDURES ASSESSMENT BALLOT TO BE RETURNED, INDICATING THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR YOUR PROPERTY :Duration of Assessments Assessments may be levied annually at a rate not exceeding that described under Rules for Spreading Assessment (Exhibit 1 enclosed herein), until 1) this entire district is dissolved or the within referenced parcel is detached from the district by City Council action, or 2) a proposal to increase assessments, beyond those allowed in the Rules for Spreading Assessment, is approved by vote of the affected property owners. Reason for Assessment This assessment is proposed to be levied to provide the work and improvements described in Exhibit "A" attached to the Resolution of Intention enclosed herein. This work specially benefits the parcels assessed therefor since 1) the work is adjacent to the neighborhoods within which said parcels are located, and results in a) helping to identify, distinguish and enhance these neighborhoods, including the entrances thereto; b) helping to improve the quality of life in these neighborhoods by reducing the potential for graffiti, eliminating dust and litter, providing sound attenuation, eliminating the potential for blight, and providing added security and safety through lighting and an added City presence; and 2) in the absence of this assessment district, the work and improvements would not be otherwise accomplished by the City. Basis of Assessment Calculation The amounts of the proposed assessments have been calculated in accordance with the Rules for Spreading Assessment (Exhibit 1 enclosed herein). Summary of Assessment Ballot Procedures The enclosed ballot should be completed by indicating support for or opposition to the proposed assessment and the proposed Rules for Spreading Assessment (copy enclosed), and should-be mailed or hand delivered to the address printed thereon, to arrive no later than the close of the public testimony portion of the public hearing, Wednesday, June 17, 1998. At the public hearing, the City shall tabulate the ballots. The City shall not impose any assessment in any zone where the number of ballots received in opposition to the proposed assessment exceeds the number of ballots received in support of the proposed assessment, weighing these assessment ballots by the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed upon the identified parcel for which each ballot is submitted. In the absence of a negative vote, the City may impose an assessment that is less than the proposed assessment amount. Any owner of property subject to an assessment may, prior to the conclusion of the public testimony portion of the public hearing, submit, change or withdraw an assessment ballot with the Clerk. In the event that more than one of the record owners of an identified parcel submits an assessment ballot, the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed upon the identified parcel shall be allocated to each ballot submitted in proportion to the respective record ownership interests or, if the ownership interests are not shown on the record, as established to the City's satisfaction by documentation submitted by those record owners. EXHIBIT 1 RULES FOR SPREADING ASSESSMENT The amounts to be assessed against the assessable lots or parcels of land to pay the estimated cost of the improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental thereto, shall be based upon the estimated benefits to be derived by the various lots or parcels of land within the assessment district. The assessment for administrative costs shall be spread equally to all of the lots or parcels of land located in the assessment district. The assessment for cost of improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof, in Zones 1 through 7B, 9 through 12, 15 through 17, 22, and 25 through 30, as described in Resolution No. 98 -05.3, shall be spread equally to all of the lots or parcels of land located within each said respective zone of the assessment district. The assessment for cost of improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof, in Zone 24, as described in Resolution No. 98 -05.3, shall be spread as follows: Costs related to street lights and street trees shall be spread to all the lots or parcels of land located within said zone, proportional to usable parcel area. Costs related to the Village Parking District (VPD) parking lots shall be spread to all the lots or parcels of land in commercial use located within said zone, proportional to the number of parking spaces existing in the VPD parking lots that are assigned to each parcel within said zone, rounded to the nearest one tenth (0.1) of a parking space. Spaces shall be assigned by adding the total number of spaces in the VPD parking lots and the total private spaces existing on assessable parcels, distributing this sum proportionally by weighted building area, and deducting the number of private spaces, if any, from the resulting number for each parcel. Weighted building area shall be defined as actual building area multiplied by a factor dependent on parcel use, as follows: Retail 1.0; office /service 0.5; restaurant 2.0. Zones 0, 8, 13, 14, 18 through 21, and 23 have been either detached or merged with other zones. A portion of Zone 4 was redesignated Zone 26 in 1997. Notwithstanding the above, the assessment levied for Fiscal Year 1998 -1999 for each parcel in Zones 2, 3, 6, 11, 16, 22, 25, and 26 shall not exceed the amount indicated in Table 1 attached hereto, and the assessment levied for Fiscal Year 1999 -2000 for each parcel in Zones 27 through 30 shall not exceed the amount indicated in Table 2 attached hereto. In subsequent years, the maximum assessment for each parcel in said zones shall be the amount calculated by multiplying its maximum assessment for the previous year by 1.05. I TABLE 1 MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 MAXIMUM ZONE ASSESSMENT 2 50.00 3 60.00 6 75.00 11 50.00 16 90.00 22 50.00 25 $325.00 26 $475.00 TABLE 2 MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 -2000 MAXIMUM ZONE ASSESSMENT 27 $120.00 28 $300.00 29 $100.00 30 $2,000.00 04 SARq� 444 1- D azuw ©0 o et," MOM sv, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 L IF, og COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian April 28, 1998 Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. Wolfe Subject: Landscaping Lighting Assessment District Renewal for FY 98 -99 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed with this letter is important information pertaining to the renewal of the City's Landscaping Lighting Assessment District for the fiscal year commencing on July 1, 1998, (FY 98 -99). The City is required to send you this information since you are the owner of property within one of the Zones of the District for which the City has preliminarily determined that it may be necessary to increase the assessment for next year over the current year's assessment. Along with this letter, you will find the following information: A Notice, which among other things, indicates the date and time for the Public Hearing on the assessment proposal. A copy of Resolution No. 98 -05.3, adopted by the City Council on April 21, otherwise known as the "Resolution of Intention A postcard ballot required by the passage of Proposition 218 in November, 1996. Additional information about the proposed assessment also required by Proposition 218. After reviewing the enclosed materials, it is extremely important that you mark your ballot and return it to the City by the close of the Public Hearing on June 17 regardless of whether you support or oppose next year's proposed assessment. To simplify things for you, the ballot is pre stamped and pre addressed. Only those ballots returned in time will be counted to determine whether the proposed assessment for next year will be levied, and whether the City will continue to administer on your behalf the services provided through the assessment district which directly and specially benefit your property. The City will cease to administer these services in your Zone if the number of ballots returned in opposition to the proposed assessment exceed the number of ballots returned in support of the proposed assessment for your Zone. In that event, the responsibility for administering these services could be turned over to your homeowners association if one exists, or to any third party duly authorized to act on behalf of all of the property owners within your Zone. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this information and for returning your ballot. If you have any questions about these materials or the assessment district in general, please call my office directly at (408) 868 -1216. Sincerely, W ail A P4444,./ Larry I. Perlin City Manager Printed on recycled paper. To: Members and friends of Tollgate Homeowners' Association From: President, Tollgate Homeowners' Association The contents of this letter you have received from the city of Saratoga is the formal follow up to our earlier request for your input on landscaping and maintenance. Please read the contents carefully and send in your formal vote for or against the city assuming the duties of maintaining our common area at Big Basin Way and Tollgate. The dollar amounts (around $70 per year) are estimated at this point, and future increases will allow for inflation so that we do not have to vote on the assessment district issue each and every year. The vast majority of our members voted in favor of this assissment method, and I endorse it personally in that the burden will shifted off us individually. We can always terminate the contract if that is our wish in the future. Thanks for your prompt return of the ballot. Gary Engelking, President THA RESOLUTION NO. 98-05.3 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 98 -05, "A Resolution Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1998- 1999," for City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1, adopted on March 18, 1998, by the City Council of said City, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the Engineer of said City has prepared and filed with the Clerk of this City the written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 98 -05, which said report has been submitted and preliminarily approved by this Council in accordance with said Act; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1. In its opinion the public interest and convenience require and it is the intention of this Council to order the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 1998 -1999 pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by reference incorporated herein. 2. The cost and enses of said improvements, including the maintenance p g ance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable upon the assessment district designated as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1," the exterior boundaries of which are the composite and consolidated areas as more 1 G particularly described on a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said City, to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in the district and of any zone thereof and the general location of said district. 3. Said Engineer's Report prepared by the Engineer of said City, preliminarily approved by this Council, and on file with the City Clerk of this City is hereby referred to for a full and detailed description of the improvements and the boundaries of the assessment district and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the district. 4. Notice is hereby given that Wednesday, the 17th day of June, 1998, at the hour of 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, be and the same are hereby appointed and fixed as the time and place for a hearing by this Council on the question of the levy and collection of the proposed assessment for the construction or installation of said improvements, including the maintenance and servicing, or both, thereof, and when and where it will consider all oral statements and all written protests made or filed by any interested person at or before the conclusion of said hearing, against said improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and any zone therein, the proposed diagram or the proposed assessment; to the Engineer's estimate of the cost thereof, and when and where it will consider and finally act upon the Engineer's report, and tabulate the ballots. 5. The Clerk of said City be, and hereby is, directed to give notice of said hearing by causing a copy of this Resolution to be published once in the Saratoga News, a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and by conspicuously posting a copy thereof upon the official bulletin board customarily used by the City of Saratoga for the posting of notices, said posting and publication to be had and completed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing specified herein. 6. The Office of the City Engineer be, and hereby is designated as the office to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein, and may be contacted during the regular office hours at the City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, or by calling (408) 868 -1216. 2 Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 21st of April, 1998, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: Councilmembers Bogosian, Jacobs, Moran, Shaw and Mayor Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None AIF// Mayor Attest: City Clerk MSR:dsp April 6, 1998 \W PD\MNRSW\273\RES98 \ORDLLA.98 3 I Exhibit A DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS The design, construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities, and public lighting facilities for the lighting of any public places, including traffic signals, ornamental standards, luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances, .including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements; and the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. r MSRdsp Much 28. 1997 1: \W►PMNRSW1273\RES971EXMLA97 Supplement to Exhibit A City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 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, 1111 and 1800. Zone 6 Sarahills Lighting District) Provides for streetlighting in the Sarahills residential neighborhood; Tracts 3392 and 3439. Zone 7 (Village Residential Lighting District) Provides for streetlighting in four separate residential neighborhoods surrounding Saratoga Village. Includes all or a portion of Cunningham Acres, La Paloma Terrace, Mary Springer #1 and #2, McCartysville, Saratoga Park, Williams and Tracts 270, 336, 416, 2399, 2502, 4477, 5350, 5377, 5503, 5676, 6419 and 6731. 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. I Zone 16 (Beauchamps Landscape District) Provides for landscaping and lighting of the Prospect Road entrance to the Beauchamps subdivision; Tract 7763. 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 neighbo',rhood (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. Zone 30 Provides for 25% of the operational costs for the traffic signal at the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road /Pierce Road intersection. I I ZONE 27 BALLOT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 RECORD OWNER(S) SIGNATURE(S) EXISTING ASSESSMENT 69.78 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT 80.84 SUPPORT PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OPPOSE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ZONE 27 BALLOT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 RECORD OWNERS) SIGNATURE(S) EXISTING ASSESSMENT 64.24 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT 80.84 SUPPORT PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OPPOSE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ZONE 28 BALLOT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 RECORD OWNER(S) SIGNATURE(S) EXISTING ASSESSMENT 0.00 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT 229.94 SUPPORT PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OPPOSE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ZONE 29 BALLOT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 RECORD OWNER(S) SIGNATURES) EXISTING ASSESSMENT 0.00 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT 70.34 SUPPORT PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OPPOSE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ZONE 30 BALLOT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 RECORD OWNER(S) SIGNATUREIS) EXISTING ASSESSMENT 0.00 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT $1,665.00 SUPPORT PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OPPOSE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT CITY OF SARATOGA LLA 1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 98 -99 ZONE I ZONE2 ZONE3 ZONE4 ZONE5 ZONE6 OF PARCELS 29 85 176 693 113 64 FACTOR 0.0079 0.0232 0.0481 0.1893 0.0309 0.0175 (1) EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES $146.46 $429.27 $888.83 $2,687.58 $438.23 $248.20 (2) Public Works Dlr. 28.15 82.52 170.86 672.75 109.70 62.13 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 49.18 144.14 298.45 1,175.13 191.62 108.53 Office Specialist II 35.14 102.99 213.26 839.70 136.92 77.55 Park Maint. Leadworker 33.99 99.62 206.27 Park Maim. Worker II 2001 BENEFITS $43.94 $128.78 $266.65 $806.27 $131.47 $74.46 (3) Public Works Dir. 8.45 24.75 51.26 201.82 32.91 18.64 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 14.75 43.24 89.53 352.54 57.48 32.56 Office Spedalist II 10.54 30.90 63.98 251.91 41.08 23.26 Park Maint. Leadworker 10.20 29.89 61.88 Park Maim. Worker II 4010 GENERAL CONTRACTS 4011 LEGAL SERVICES $3.96 $11.61 $24.04 $94.65 $15.43 $8.74 (4) 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES $48.74 $142.86 $295.80 $1,164.72 $189.92 $107.56 (5) Engineer's Report 48.74 142.86 295.80 1,164.72 189.92 107.56 New Parcel Charge 4014 REPAIR SERVICES 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $1,320.00 $1,320.00 $1,320.00 (6) 4040 ADVERTISING $3.96 $11.61 $24.04 $94.65 $15.43 $8.74 (7) 4022 WATER $600.00 $250.00 $725.00 (8) 4023 POWER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,978.00 $1,965.00 $2,396.00 (9) Controllers Streetlights 9,978.00 1,965.00 2,396.00 SUB -TOTAL $2,167.05 $2,294.12 $3,544.36 $14,825.86 $2,755.49 $2,843.71 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $216.71 $229.41 $354.44 $1,482.59 $275.55 $284.37 (10) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,383.76 $2,523.53 $3,898.79 $16,308.44 $3,031.04 $3,128.08 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES $1,650.00 $330.00 $2,200.00 $19,450.00 $7,825.00 (11) CARRYOVER FROM FY 97 -98 $936.00 $75.00 ($1,508.00) $22,602.60 $9,935.35 ($131.00) (12) TOTAL TO ASSESS ($202.24) $2,118.53 $3,206.79 ($25,744.16) ($14,729.31) $3,259.08 CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED (13) CARRYOVER TO FY 99 -00 $202.24 $25,744.16 $14,729.31 (14) NET TO ASSESS ($0.00) $2,118.53 $3,206.79 $0.00 ($0.00) $3,259.08 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ($0.00) $24.92 $18.22 $0.00 ($0.00) $50.92 (15) MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT $50.00 $60.00 $75.00 (16) LLA9899P CITY OF SARATOGA '1.LA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 98 -99 ZONE 7A ZONE 7B ZONE 9 ZONE 10 ZONE 11 ZONE 12 OF PARCELS 470 292 48 9 250 9 FACTOR 0.1284 0.0798 0.0131 0.0025 0.0683 0.0025 (1) EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES $1,822.74 $1,132.43 $242.41 $45.45 $1,262.55 $45.45 (2) Public Works Dir. 456.26 283.47 46.60 8.74 242.69 8.74 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 796.98 495.15 81.39 15.26 423.93 15.26 Office Specialist II 569.49 353.81 58.16 10.91 302.92 10.91 Park Maint. Leadworker 56.26 10.55 293.00 10.55 Park Maint. Worker II 2001 BENEFITS $546.82 $339.73 $72.72 13.64. $378.76 13.64 (3) Public Works Dir. 136.88 85.04 13.98 2.62 72.81 2.62 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 239.10 148.54 24.42 4.58 127.18 4.58 Office Specialist II 170.85 106.14 17.45 3.27 90.88 3.27 Park Maint. Leadworker 16.88 3.16 87.90 3.16 Park Maint. Worker II 4010 GENERAL CONTRACTS 4011 LEGAL SERVICES $64.19 $39.88 $6.56 $1.23 $34.14 $1.23 (4) 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES $789.92 $490.76 $80.67 $15.13 $420.17 $15.13 (5) Engineer's Report 789.92 490.76 80.67 15.13 420.17 15.13 New Parcel Charge 4014 REPAIR SERVICES 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $540.00 $405.00 $900.00 $900.00 (6) 4040 ADVERTISING $64.19 $39.88 $6.56 $1.23 $34.14 $1.23 (7) 4022 WATER $2,005.00 $700.00 $1,065.00 $275.00 (8) 4023 POWER $5,775.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 (9) Controllers Streetlights 5,775.00 SUB -TOTAL $9,062.87 $2,042.68 $2,953.92 $1,181.67 $4,094.77 $1,251.67 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $906.29 $204.27 $295.39 $118.17 $409.48 $125.17 (10) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $9,969.16 $2,246.94 $3,249.31 $1,299.84 $4,504.25 $1,376.84 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES $16,530.00 $5,120.00 (11) CARRYOVER FROM FY 97 -98 $22,918.12 ($2,873.06) ($451.00) ($3,150.00) ($2,208.00) ($1,156.00) (12) TOTAL TO ASSESS ($29,478.96) $0.00 $3,700.31 $4,449.84 $6,712.25 $2,532.84 CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED ($1,860.93) ($668.79) (13) CARRYOVER TO FY 99-00 $29,478.96 $0.83 (14) NET TO ASSESS ($0.00) $0.83 $3,700.31 $2,588.91 $6,712.25 $1,864.05 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ($0.00) $0.00 $77.09 $287.66 $26.85 $207.12 (15) MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT $50.00 (16) LLA9899P CITY OF SARATOGA LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 98 -99 ZONE 15 ZONE 16 ZONE 17 ZONE 22 ZONE 24 ZONE 25 OF PARCELS 41 55 200 863 124 15 FACTOR 0.0112 0.0150 0.0546 0.2357 0.0339 0.0041 (1) EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES $207.06 $277.76 1,010.04 $4,358.31 $9,689.22 $75.75 (2) Public Works Dir. 39.80 53.39 194.15 837.78 120.38 14.56 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 69.52 93.26 339.14 1,463.40 210.27 25.44 Office Spedalist II 49.68 66.64 242.34 1,045.69 150.25 18.18 Park Mains. Leadworker 48.05 64.46 234.40 1,01 1.44 4,902.33 17.58 Park Maint. Worker II $4,306.00 2001 BENEFITS $62.12 $83.33 $303.01 $1,307.49 $2,906.77 $22.73 (3) Public Works Dir. 11.94 16.02 58.25 251.33 36.11 4.37 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 20.86 27.98 101.74 439.02 63.08 7.63 Office Specialist II 14.90 19.99 72.70 313.71 45.07 5.45 Park Maint. Leadworker 14.42 19.34 70.32 303.43 1,470.70 5.27 Park Maint. Worker II 1,291.80 4010 GENERAL CONTRACTS 4011 LEGAL SERVICES $5.60 $7.51 $27.31 $117.86 $16.94 $2.05 (4) 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES $68.91 $92.44 $336.14 $1,450.43 $208.41 $25.21 (5) Engineer's Report 68.91 92.44 336.14 1,450.43 208.41 25.21 New Parcel Charge 4014 REPAIR SERVICES 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $2,880.00 $1,920.00 $900.00 $900.00 $3,800.00 (6) 4040 ADVERTISING $5.60 $7.51 $27.31 $1 17.86 $16.94 $2.05 (7) 4022 WATER $575.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $1,925.00 (8) 4023 POWER $0.00 $113.00 $0.00 $65.00 $18,064.00 $0.00 (9) Controllers 65.00 Streetlights 113.00 18,064.00 SUB -TOTAL $3,804.28 $2,501.55 $3,803.81 $9,316.96 $36,627.27 $127.79 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $380.43 $250.15 $380.38 $931.70 $3,662.73 $12.78 (10) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4;184.71 $2,751.70 $4,184.20 $10,248.66 $40,289.99 $140.56 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES $17,250.00 (11) CARRYOVER FROM FY 97 -98 ($2,369.00) ($182.00) $32.00 $453.00 $23,039.99 $3,655.00 (12) TOTAL TO ASSESS $6,553.71 $2,933.70 $4,152.20 $9,795.66 $0.00 ($3,514.44) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED ($1,334.55) (13) CARRYOVER TO FY 99-00 $3,514.44 (14) NET TO ASSESS $5,219.16 $2,933.70 $4,152.20 $9,795.66 $0.00 $0.00 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT $127.30 $53.34 $20.76 $11.35 N/A $0.00 (15) MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT $90.00 $50.00 $325.00 (16) LLA9899P I CITY Of SARATOGA LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 98 -99 ZONE 26 ZONE 27 SUBTOTAL OF PARCELS 94 31 3661 FACTOR 0.0257 0.0085 1.0000 (1) EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES $474.72 $156.56 $25,639.00 (2) Public Works Dir. 91.25 30.09 $3,554.00 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 159.40 52.57 $6,208.00 Office Specialist II 113.90 37.56 $4,436.00 Park Maint. Leadworker 110.17 36.33 $7,135.00 Park Maint. Worker II $4,306.00 2001 BENEFITS $142.42 $46.97 $7,691.70 (3) Public Works Dir. 27.38 9.03 $1,066.20 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 47.82 15.77 $1,862.40 Office Specialist II 34.17 11.27 $1,330.80 Park Maint. Leadworker 33.05 10.90 $2,140.50 Park Maint. Worker II $1,291.80 4010 GENERAL CONTRACTS 108.43 $108.43 4011 LEGAL SERVICES $12.84 $4.23 $500.00 (4) 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES $157.98 $52.10 $6,153.00 (5) Engineer's Report 157.98 52.10 $6,153.00 New Parcel Charge $0.00 4014 REPAIR SERVICES $0.00 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $11,700.00 $1,395.00 $30,200.00 (6) 4040 ADVERTISING $12.84 $4.23 $500.00 (7) 4022 WATER $3,600.00 $515.00 $14,435.00 (8) 4023 POWER $600.00 $38,956.00 (9) 1 Controllers 600.00 $665.00 Streetlights 0.00 $38,291.00 I SUB -TOTAL $16,700.79 $2,282.52 $124,183.13 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $1,670.08 $228.25 $12,418.31 (10) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $18,370.87 $2,510.77 $136,601.44 1 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES $70,355.00 (11) CARRYOVER FROM FY 97 -98 $18,381.00 $5.00 $88,005.00 (12) TOTAL TO ASSESS ($10.13) $2,505.77 ($21,758.56) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED ($3,864.27) (13) CARRYOVER TO FY 99 -00 $10.13 $73,680.07 (14) NET TO ASSESS $0.00 $2,505.77 $48,057.24 I PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT $0.00 $80.83 (15) MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT $475.00 (16) LLA9899P I 1 CITY OF SARATOGA LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 98 -99 ZONE 28 ZONE 29 ZONE 30 SUBTOTAL TOTAL OF PARCELS 16 60 1 77 3,738 1 FACTOR 0.0044 0.0161 0:0003 (1) EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES $61.79 $228.96 $3.88 $294.62 $25,933.62 (2) Public Works Dir. 15.46 57.31 0.97 $73.74 $3,627.74 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 27.01 100.10 1.70 $128.81 $6,336.81 Office Specialist II 19.30 71.53 1.21 $92.04 $4,528.04 Park Maint. Leadworker 0.01 0.02 $0.02 $7,135.02 Park Maint. Worker II $4,306.00 2001 BENEFITS $18.54 $68.69 $1.16 $88.39 $7,780.09 (3) Public Works Dir. 4.64 17.19 0.29 $22.12 $1,088.32 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 8.10 30.03 0.51 $38.64 $1,901.04 Office Specialist II 5.79 21.46 0.36 $27.61 $1,358.41 Park Maint. Leadworker 0.00 0.01 $0.01 $2,140.51 Park Maint. Worker II $1,291.80 4010 GENERAL CONTRACTS $0.00 $108.43 4011 LEGAL SERVICES $2.18 $8.06 $0.14 $10.37 $510.37 (4) 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES $139.77 $522.22 $8.68 $670.67 $6,823.67 (5) Engineer's Report 26.77 99.22 1 $127.67 $6,280.67 New Parcel Charge 113.00 423.00 7.00 $543.00 $543.00 4014 REPAIR SERVICES $0.00 $0.00 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $1,920.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $6,420.00 $36,620.00 (6) 4040 ADVERTISING $2.18 $8.06 $0.14 $10.37 $510.37 (7) 4022 WATER $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $15,635.00 (8) 4023 POWER $0.00 $38,956.00 (9) Controllers $0.00 $665.00 Streetlights $0.00 $38,291.00 SUB-TOTAL $3,344.45 $3,835.98 $1,513.99 $8,694.42 $132,877.55 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $334.44 $383.60 $151.40 $869.44 $13,287.76 (10) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,678.89 $4,219.58 $1,665.39 $9,563.87 $146,165.31 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES $0.00 $70,355.00 (1 1) CARRYOVER FROM FY 97 -98 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $88,005.00 (12) TOTAL TO ASSESS $3,678.89 $4,219.58 $1,665.39 $9,563.87 ($12,194.69) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED $0.00 ($3,864.27) (13) CARRYOVER TO FY 99 -00 $0.00 $73,680.07 (14) NET TO ASSESS $3,678.89 $4,219.58 $1,665.39 $9,563.87 $57,621.11 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT $229.93 $70.33 $1,665.39 $1,965.65 (15) MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT (16) LLA9899P I Notes for 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 Public Works Services Manager, 10% of Office Specialist II, 15% of Parks Maintenance Leadworker, and 10% of Park Maintenance Worker II. Wages are spread to each zone per the factor. 10% of wages for Parks Maintenance Leadworker are spread proportionately to landscape districts only. The remaining 5 plus wages for the Park Maintenance Worker II, are assigned to Zone 24 only. 3. Benefits are estimated at 30% of wages and are spread the same as wages. 4. Legal Services are fixed at $500 and are spread to each Zone per the factor. 5. Engineer's Report 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. 6. Maintenance Services are the proposed landscape maintenance costs for landscape districts as bid on April 7, 1998. 7. Advertising is spread to each zone per the factor. 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.Indirect Costs are determined from the City's Indirect Cost Allocation model and are spread to each zone per the factor. Preliminary estimate is 10% of direct costs. 11.Property Tax revenues are estimated annually for the original 7 Zones of the District. 12.Carryover from FY 97 -98 is calculated from the audited fund balance figures for FY 96 -97 projected through the end of FY 97 -98. 13.Carryover Not Assessed represents a portion of the negative carryover balances for those Zones in a deficit position. The amounts not assessed are covered by the available fund balance. 14.Carryover to FY 99 -00 represents the projected surplus for each Zone at the end of FY 98 -99. 15. Preliminary Assessment is the Net to Assess for each Zone divided by the number of parcels, except for Zone 24. 16.Maximum Allowable Assessment represents what the property owners in each Zone have approved via their assessment ballots. 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 29 7/1/98 30 7/1/98 (I) 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 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 30 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. L LA-HI STORY SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -I ANNUAL ASSESSMENT HISTORY Preliminary 1 ZONE DATE FY FY FY ,?i' CREATED 96 97 -98 98 -99 0 (7C) 4/16/80 1 4/16/80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 4/16/80 $18.48 $23.00 $24.92 3 4/16/80 $24.66 $38.40 $18.22 4 4/16/80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 4/16/80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 4/16/80 $0.00 $50.50 $50.92 7 (7R) 4/16/80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 8 (VPD #1) 4/16/80 9 5/4/83 $175.58 $136.14 $77.09 10 4/18/84 $337.48 $287.66 $287.66 11 4/18/84 $9.38 $35.74 $26.85 12 4/17/85 $285.98 $207.12 $207.12 13 4/17/85 (3) 14 4/17/85 $70.18 $69.78 (4) 15 4/17/85 $145.12 $127.30 $127.30 16 4/16/86 $30.42 $60.96 $53.54 17 4/15/87 $210.50 $35.68 $20.76 18 4/15/87 $64.28 $64.24 (4) 19 (VPD #2) 4/19/89 I 20 (VPD #3) 4/19/89 1 21 (VPD #4) 4/19/89 22 4/17/91 $9.96 $33.74 $11.35 23 5/1/91 24 8/3/94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 25 7/1/97 $262.26 $0.00 1 26 7/1/97 $207.10 $0.00 27 7/1/98 $80.83 28 7/1/98 $229.93 29 7/1/98 $70.33 I 30 7/1/98 $1,665.39 (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 I MAJORITY PROTEST PROCEDURES FOR SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT The following procedures have been adopted by the Saratoga City Council for the purpose of conducting this majority protest procedure. These procedures are intended to comply with Article XIIID of the California Constitution. Where no specific procedures are imposed by Article XIIID, these procedures comply with the requirements of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, other relevant statutory requirements, or basic principles of due process in order to ensure the integrity of the process. 1. The notice and ballot required by Article XIIID, Section 4(c) and (d) shall be mailed to all property owners of record subject to the assessment at least 45 days prior to the date of public hearing on the proposed assessment or increase in the assessment. The list of property owners of record shall be prepared by using the Santa Clara County equalized assessment roll as of the preceding March 15. 2. Ballots must be returned to the City Clerk. The ballots may be returned by persons other than the property owner. 3. Only original ballots, not copies, will be accepted. 4. The City Clerk may issue duplicate or replacement ballots to property owners (for instance where the original is lost or not delivered to the current owner) if the owner is able to provide sufficient evidence of ownership, such as a deed or property tax bill. In order to avoid multiple ballots being returned for a single property, the City Clerk shall maintain a log of all duplicate ballots issued. 5. Ballots may be returned until the close of the public hearing. Any person who has previously returned a ballot may withdraw his or her ballot or change his or her vote prior to the close of the public hearing, upon providing sufficient proof that he or she is the property owner of record or the authorized agent who cast the ballot. 6. The City Clerk may begin a preliminary tabulation of ballots prior to the public hearing as necessary to allow for a complete and timely final result at the public hearing. The tabulation shall be conducted by the City Clerk and any staff or contractors, as authorized by the City Clerk, necessary to complete the task. At the conclusion of the tabulation, the City Clerk shall certify the accuracy of the count. 7. All ballots received by the City Clerk prior to the public hearing shall remain 1 7. All ballots received by the City Clerk prior to the public hearing shall remain in the City Clerk's safe and shall only be accessible by the City Clerk and any staff and contractors authorized by the City Clerk. Individual ballots that are opened for counting prior to the close of the public hearing shall remain confidential until after the conclusion of the hearing and the certification of the results. Upon completion of the hearing, the ballots shall be public records and will be available for inspection by any member of the public. 8. The City Clerk shall determine the validity of all ballots submitted and shall exclude any invalid ballots from the final tabulation. The City Clerk shall accept as valid all ballots except those in the following categories: a. the ballot returned is a copy and not an original; b. the ballot does not have an identifiable yes or no vote; c. multiple ballots returned for a single property where no previous request for a duplicate or replacement ballot has been made; d. any other circumstances that reasonably demonstrate that the ballot has been tampered with or is otherwise invalid. The City Clerk's decisions shall be valid and binding. All invalid ballots shall be retained by the City Clerk. 9. The City Clerk shall have notice of the public hearing published in a newspaper of general circulation at least once, ten days before the date of the public hearing. 10. At the public hearing, the City Council shall hear any public testimony regarding the proposed assessment and accept ballots until the close of the public hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Clerk shall complete the tabulation of the ballots including those received during the hearing. If the number of ballots received at the hearing is such that it is not feasible to accurately tabulate the ballots that evening, the Council may continue the meeting until a subsequent date for the sole purpose of receiving the final tabulation. 11. Ballots shall be weighted as provided in Article XIII D, Section 4(e). 2 i 12. If the final tabulation of the ballots shows that a majority protest exists, the Council shall not impose the increased assessments. If no majority protest exists, the Council may adopt a resolution confirming the assessment for the following fiscal year. The resolution shall be forwarded to the County for inclusion on the county assessment roll. MSR:dsp F:\WPD\MNRSW\273\RES97\PROTEST.PRC 3 4 7' ‘s, ©2 gA D AlvoizA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868-1200 Ilega COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw July 20, 1998 Donald L Wolfe SUBJECT: Assessment Proposal for Perimeter Landscape Maintenance Services Dear Kerwin Ranch Property Owner, Earlier this year, you were mailed information concerning a proposal to levy an' annual assessment against your property for the purpose of maintaining the perimeter landscaping abutting the Kerwin Ranch.subdivision. This is the landscaping that was installed along the Fruitvale and Saratoga Ayes, frontages of your neighborhood by the developer of the subdivision. Up until this time, this landscaping has been maintained by the developer, however the developer's obligation, to maintain the landscaping expired on June 30. When the Kerwin Ranch development was originally approved by the City, it was anticipated that the responsibility for maintaining this landscaping would pass from the developer to the 16 property owners within the subdivision at the conclusion' of the developer's required maintenance period. This was to have been accomplished through annexation of the properties into the City's Landscaping Lighting Assessment District. In fact, the developer agreed to waive his right, along with the rights of the successor owners of the 16 lots within the subdivision, to be annexed into the District. However, Proposition 218, passed by the voters in November' 1996, appears to have nullified the developer's original commitment to the City. Instead, the property owners must now first approve their being annexed into .the District through a balloting process. The 'materials you were previously mailed included general information about the Landscaping Lighting Assessment District, the' balloting process, and the ballot, itself. The deadline for returning ballots was originally June 17. However since fewer than half of the property owners within the development returned their ballots by that date, the City Council decided to extend the deadline to Wednesday, August 5, at which time the City Council must complete the tabulation of the ballots. This will be done at. a Public Hearing scheduled for that evening at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Printed on recycled paper, Specifically, you are being asked whether or not you would like for the City of Saratoga,; through' its Landscaping Lighting Assessment District, to continue providing for the maintenance of the perimeter landscaping bordering the. Kerwin Ranch neighborhood through a private contractor. The annual cost to each property owner for the City to do this over the coming year is $229.94, an. amount which would be levied as an assessment against each property and added to the property tax bills. This cost not only covers the cost of the monthly maintenance contract, but includes the cost of water and ower for p f r irrigation: systems, and City administrative costs. These administrative costs amount to lees .than '$15 of the total. Additionally, you are being asked to approve a maximum annual assessment of $300 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1999, along with 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent years, above which only higher future proposed assessments'would need to be voted on. Because each property owner's assessment would be the same, everyone's vote will be weighted equally. Thus, the results of the balloting will be determined by simple majority of those voting. If the number of votes received in opposition to the assessment proposal exceed the number of votes received in support thereof, then the City Council will have no choice but to abandon this proposal.. In that event, the City would be unable to continue providing for the maintenance of these landscape improvements and it would be left up to the property owners to figure out for themselves how to accomplish the continuing maintenance assuming that is what is desired. The choice is completely up to you. Whatever your opinions, please register your vote on the assessment proposal and the continuation of these services by the City by completing and returning the enclosed pre- stamped postcard ballot by the close of the Public Hearing on August 5. Even if you previously returned your ballot, you are encouraged to do so again, particularly if you wish to change your prior vote. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue which directly affects your property. If you have any questions about this letter, the enclosed materials, or the postcard ballot, please call me directly at (408) 868 -1213. Sincerely -1,1,4t4d Larry I. Perlin City Manager enclosures Postcard Ballot Proposed budget (Assessment Schedule) for Zone 28 with explanatory notes `OF SARATOGA CITY KfekI/A RAAMH LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 98 -99 ZONE 28 ZONE 29 ZONE 30 SUBTOTAL TOTAL OF PARCELS 16 60 1 77 3,738 FACTOR 0.0044 0.0161 0.0003 (1) EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES $61.79 $228.96 $3.88 $294.62 $25,933.62 (2) 1 Public Works Dir. 15.46 57.31 0.97 $73.74 $3,627.74 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 27.01 100.10 1.70 $128.81 $6,336.81 Office Specialist II 19.30 71.53 1.21 $92.04 $4,528.04 Park Maint. Leadworker 0.01 0.02 $0.02 $7,135.02 Park Maint. Worker II $4,306.00 2001 BENEFITS $18.54 $68.69 $1.16 $88.39 $7,780.09 (3) Public Works Dir. 4.64 17.19 0.29 $22.12 $1,088.32 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 8.10 30.03 0.51 $38.64 $1,901.04 Office Specialist II 5.79 21.46 0.36 $27.61 $1,358.41 Park Maint. Leadworker 0.00 0.01 $0.01 $2,140.51 Park Mains. Worker I( $1,291.80 4010 GENERAL CONTRACTS $0.00 $108.43 4011 LEGAL SERVICES $2.18 $8.06 $0.14 $10.37 $510.37 (4) 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES 139.77 $522.22 $8.68 $670.67 $6,823.67 (5) Engineer's Report 26.77 99.22 1.68 $127.67 $6,280.67 New Parcel Charge 113.00 423.00 7.00 $543.00 $543.00 4014 REPAIR SERVICES $0.00 $0.00 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $1,920.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $6,420.00 $36,620.00 (6) 4040 ADVERTISING $2.18 $8.06 $0.14 $10.37 $510.37 (7) 4022 WATER $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $15,635.00 (8) 4023 POWER $0.00 $38,956.00 (9) Controllers $0.00 $665.00 Streetlights $0.00 $38,291.00 SUB -TOTAL $3,344.45 $3,835.98 $1,513.99 $8,694.42 $132,877.55 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $334.44 $383.60 $151.40 $869.44 $13,287.76 (10) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,678.89 $4,219.58 $1,665.39 $9,563.87 $146,165.31 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES $0.00 $70,355.00 (1 1) CARRYOVER FROM FY 97 -98 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $88,005.00 (12) TOTAL TO ASSESS $3,678.89 $4,219.58 $1,665.39 $9,563.87 ($12,194.69) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED $0.00 ($3,864.27) (13) CARRYOVER TO FY 99-00 $0.00 $73,680.07 (14) NET TO ASSESS $3,678.89 $4,219.58 $1,665.39 $9,563.87 $57,621.11 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT $229.93 $70.33 $1,665.39 $1,965.65 (15) MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT (16) LLA9899P Notes for 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 Public Works Services Manager, 10% of Office Specialist II, 15% of Parks Maintenance Leadworker, and 10% of Park Maintenance Worker II. Wages are spread to each zone per the factor. 10% of wages for Parks Maintenance Leadworker are spread proportionately to landscape districts only. The remaining 5 plus wages for the Park Maintenance Worker II, are assigned to Zone 24 only. 3. Benefits are estimated at 30% of wages and are spread the same as wages. 4. Legal Services are fixed at $500 and are spread to each Zone per the factor. 5. Engineer's Report 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. 6. Maintenance Services are the proposed landscape maintenance costs for landscape districts as bid on April 7, 1998. 7. Advertising is spread to each zone per the factor. 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.Indirect Costs are determined from the City's Indirect Cost Allocation model and are spread to each zone per the factor. Preliminary estimate is 10% of direct costs. 11. Property Tax revenues are estimated annually for the original 7 Zones of the District. 12.Carryover from FY 97 -98 is calculated from the audited fund balance figures for FY 96 -97 projected through the end of FY 97 -98. 13.Carryover Not Assessed represents a portion of the negative carryover balances for those Zones in a deficit position. The amounts not assessed are covered by the available fund balance. 14.Carryover to FY 99 -00 represents the projected surplus for each Zone at the end of FY 98 -99. 15. Preliminary Assessment is the Net to Assess for each Zone divided by the number of parcels, except for Zone 24. 16. Maximum Allowable Assessment represents what the property owners in each Zone have approved via their assessment ballots. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 30 t AGENDA ITEM (D 8 MEETING DATE: AUGUST 5,1998 CITY MGR.: %04/ Mil ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: Monthly Landscape Maintenance Services Award of Monthly Maintenance Contract Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to declare Diablo Landscape Management, Inc. of San Jose to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project. 2. Move to award a monthly maintenance contract to Diablo Landscape Management, Inc. in the amount of $4,090 per month. Report Summary: Bids for the Monthly Landscape Maintenance Services were opened on April 7. A list of the areas which will receive maintenance services are attached (Attachment 1). A total of six contractors submitted bids and a summary of the bids received is also attached (Attachment 2). The bid was broken down into four items. A bidder had the choice of bidding on all or any of the four bid items. Diablo Landscape Management, Inc. of San Jose, which is currently working for the City, submitted the lowest bids on all four bid items for a total of $4,090 per month. Staff has carefully checked the bid along with the listed references and has determined that the bid is responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids dated April 7. However, staff has experienced some past dissatisfaction with the quality of maintenance services provided by Diablo. Because of this dissatisfaction, staff held a meeting with Diablo to discuss the various problems with their past performance. The meeting concluded with a clear understanding that Diablo would need to provide a higher level of service in order for them to continue working for the City. Although Diablo was certain in it's ability to raise the level of service provided to the City, staff will closely monitor the future performance of Diablo to make certain the City continuously receives the level of service expected. It is therefore recommended that the Council declare Diablo Landscape Management, Inc. of to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project, and award the attached monthly maintenance contract (Attachment 3) to this firm in the amount of their bid. Fiscal Impacts: Funding for this work is programmed in the adopted budget in Activity 3025 (Medians and Parkways) Account No. 4515 (Maintenance Services), Activity 3030 (Parks/Open Space) Account No. 4515 (Maintenance Services), and Activity 3040 (Landscape and Lighting District) Account No. 4515 (Maintenance Services). The adopted budget contains sufficient funds to cover the contract. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Diablo Landscape Management, Inc. will not be declared the lowest responsible bidder and a monthly maintenance contract will not be awarded to that firm. The Council may make specific findings to declare another bidder to be the lowest responsible bidder, or reject all of the bids and direct staff to re- bid the entire project. However, staff does not believe that a lower bid will be obtained by re- bidding the project due to the competitive nature of the current bids received. Follow Up Actions: The contract will be executed and the contractor will be issued a Notice to Proceed. Attachments: 1. List of Maintenance Areas. 2. Bid Summary. 3. Monthly Maintenance Contract. REQUEST FOR LANDSCAPE SERVICES LL &A MAINTENANCE Please submit a proposal for maintenance of the following LL&A (Landscape, Lighting Assessment) Districts in the City of Saratoga. The scope of work and frequencies can be found in article H (Specific Conditions) of the Landscape Maintenance Specifications section in your Contract Documents. A. Zone #1 Manor Dr. Landscape District, Project 1782 Manor Dr. median strip and circle area. Along Sunnyvale/Saratoga Rd. up to railroad tracks. B. Zone #2 Fredericksburg Landscape District, Project 1780 Landscape parkway along Cox Ave. northside, between Glen Arbor Ct. and Rodeo Creek. C. Zone #3 Greenbriar Landscape District, Project 1781 Parkway landscaping along northside of Cox Ave. between Seagull Wy. And Southern Pacific railroad tracks. Landscaping on Guava Ct. along Southern Pacific railroad right of way. Landscaping along Goleta Ave. adjacent to the Azule Park site, and the 85 pedestrian overcrossing. D. Zone #9 McCartysville Landscape District, Project 1783 Landscaping along east side of Sunnyvale/Saratoga Rd. between Cox Ave. and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks. E. Zones #10 Tricia Woods Landscape District, Project 1785 14 Cunningham Place Landscape District, Project 1788 18 Glasgow Ct. Landscape District, Project 1792 Landscaping along east side of Sunnyvale/Saratoga Rd. between Miljevich Dr. and Blauer Dr. F. Zone #11 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape District, Project 1784 Median Landscape on Via Monte Dr. at Saratoga Ave. Corner Landscape area southside of Via Monte Dr. at Saratoga Ave. Median landscape on Via Arriba at Via Monte. G. Zone #12 Leutar Ct. Landscape District, Project #1786 Landscape area on Leutar Ct. adjacent to Southern Pacific railroad right of way. H. Zone #15 Bonnet Way Landscape District, Project #1789 Landscaping along soundwall on Bonnet Wy. Including small median island. L Zone #16 Beauchamps Landscaping District, Project #1790 Landscaped entrance to Beauchamps development at Beauchamps Ln. and Prospect Rd. J. Zone #17 Sunland Park Landscape District, Project #1791 Landscaping along eastside of Quito Rd. from McCoy Ave to just north of Baylor Ave. K. Zone #22 Prides Crossing Landscape District, Project #1796 Landscaping along south side of Prospect Rd. between Titus Ave. and Covina Ct. Landscaping along Cox Ave., both sides of the street, from Glen Brae Dr. to Saratoga creek. Landscaped area on Glen Brae Dr. adjacent to Congress Springs Park. L. Zone #27 Kerwin Ranch Landscape District, Project Landscaping along east side of Fruitvale Ave. starting at Wildcat creek and continuing onto Saratoga Ave. to Lisa Marie Ct. REQUEST FOR LANDSCAPE SERVICES ZONE #26 BELLGROVE LANDSCAPE DISTRICT. Please submit a proposal for the maintenance of the above mentioned LL&A (Landscape, Lighting and Assessment) District located in the City of Saratoga. The scope of work and frequencies can be found in article II (Specific Conditions) of the Landscape Maintenance Specifications section in your Contract Documents, with the exception of, INSPECTION OF PLAYGROUND AND PAR COARSE EQUIPMENT; Contractor will conduct weekly safety inspections of all Playground and Par coarse equipment while on the premises to conduct other maintenance tasks. Contractor will fill out and sign an inspection check list provided by the City, and fax a copy of that check list back to the city offices within 24 hr's of inspection. All safety questions or concerns are to be reported to the City either in person or by telephone immediately. REQUEST FOR LANDSCAPE SERVICES SARATOGA CIVIC CENTER Please submit a proposal for maintenance of the following landscaped area's surrounding the Civic Center complex in the City of Saratoga. The scope of work and frequencies can be found under article two (Specific Conditions) in the Landscape Maintenance Specifications section of your Contract Documents. Community Center! This includes the rear patio area located behind the building, as well as all landscaping surrounding the front and sides. Civic Theater City Hall; All landscaping surrounding these buildings, as well as the inner courtyard, and parking lot plantings. Warner Hutton House: All surrounding landscaping including, perennials and roses. REQUEST FOR LANDSCAPE SERVICES MEDIAN MAINTENANCE Please submit a proposal for maintenance of the following landscaped medians in the City of Saratoga. The scope of work and frequencies are as follows: Monthly weeding and irrigation check, quarterly pruning and clearance of shrubs and trees, applications of fertilizer and pre emerge herbicide twice per year (spring/fall), pest control as needed. In addition where applicable all traffic control measures must meet Cal -Trans requirements. Fruitvale Ave. (From San Marcos Rd. to Burgundy Wy.) Fruitvale Ave. (From Allendale Ave. to Saratoga Ave.) Allendale Ave. Saratoga Ave. (From Fruitvale Ave. to Quito Rd.) This median includes both sides at Dagmar Dr. Sunnyvale /Saratoga Rd. (From S.P. Tracks to Hwy.9) Prospect Rd. (From Titus Ave. to Saratoga creek) CITY OF SARATOGA BID SUMMARY: MONTHLY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES BID OPENING DATE: APRIL 7, 1998 DIABLO LANDSCAPING, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CARE, INC. NEW IMAGE LANDSCAPING CO. ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1. Zone 1 Manor Drive 1 LS N/A $110.00 N/A $198.00 N/A NO BID Zone 2 Fredricksberg 1 LS N/A $110.00 N/A $190.00 N/A NO BID Zone 3 Greenbrier 1 LS N/A $110.00 N/A $194.00 N/A NO BID Zone 9 McCartysville 1 LS N/A $45.00 N/A $580.00 N/A NO BID Zone 10 Trice Woods 1 LS N/A $150.00 N/A $586.00 N/A NO BID Zone 14 Cunningham Place Zone 18 Glasgow Court Zone 11 Arroyo de Saratoga 1 LS N/A $75.00 N/A $97.00 N/A NO BID Zone 12 Leuter Court 1 LS N/A $75.00 N/A $190.00 N/A NO BID Zone 15 Bonnet Way 1 LS N/A $240.00 N/A $393.00 N/A NO BID Zone 16 Beauchamps 1 LS WA $160.00 N/A $95.00 N/A NO BID Zone 17 Sunland Park 1 LS N/A $75.00 N/A $391.00 N/A NO BID Zone 22 Prides Crossing 1 LS N/A $75.00 N/A $579.00 N/A NO BID Zone 27 Kerwin Ranch 1 LS N/A $160.00 N/A $393.00 N/A NO BID TOTAL ITEM 1 $1,385.00 $3,886.00 N/A 2. Zone 26 Bellgrove 1 LS N/A $975.00 N/A $2,998.00 N/A $1,950.00 3. Saratoga Civic Center 1 LS N/A $690.00 N/A $823.00 N/A NO BID 4. Medians and Parkways 1 LS N/A $1,040.00 N/A $1,856.00 N/A NO BID CITY OF SARATOGA BID SUMMARY: MONTHLY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES BID OPENING DATE: APRIL 7; 1998 DMS HORTICULTURAL SERVICES SHIMADA LANDSCAPE, INC. GLM LANDSCAPES ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1. Zone 1 Manor Drive 1 LS N/A $322.00 N/A NO BID N/A NO BID Zone 2 Fredricksberg 1 LS N/A $580.00 N/A NO BID N/A NO BID Zone 3 Greenbriar 1 LS N/A $282.00 N/A NO BID N/A NO BID Zone 9 McCartysville 1 LS N/A $295.00 N/A NO BID N/A NO BID Zone 10 Trica Woods 1 LS N/A $460.00 N/A NO BID N/A NO BID Zone 14 Cunningham Place Zone 18 Glasgow Court Zone 11 Arroyo de Saratoga 1 LS N/A $60.00 N/A NO BID N/A NO BID Zone 12 Leuter Court 1 LS N/A $125.00 N/A NO BID N/A NO BID Zone 15 Bonnet Way 1 LS N/A $218.00 N/A NO BID N/A NO BID Zone 16 Beauchamps 1 LS N/A $110.00 N/A NO BID N/A NO BID Zone 17 Sunland Park 1 LS N/A $506.00 N/A NO BID N/A NO BID Zone 22 Prides Crossing 1 LS N/A $750.00 N/A NO BID N/A NO BID Zone 27 Kerwin Ranch 1 LS N/A $345.00 N/A NO BID N/A NO BID TOTAL ITEM 1 $4,053.00 N/A N/A 2. Zone 26 Bellgrove 1 LS N/A $2,666.00 N/A $2,494.00 N/A $6,500.00 3. Saratoga Civic Center 1 LS N/A $1,340.00 N/A $935.00 N/A $4,500.00 4. Medians and Parkways 1 LS N/A $1,600.00 N/A NO BID N/A NO BID CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES THIS CONTRACT, made this 5th day of August, 1998 by and between the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation, in Santa Clara County, California, hereinafter called the City, and Diablo Landscape Management, Inc. hereinafter called the Contractor. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared in the manner prescribed by law, specifications and other contract documents, for the work herein described and shown, and has approved and adopted these contract documents and specifications and has caused to be published in the manner and for the time required by law, a Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for doing the work in accordance with the terms of this Contract, and WHEREAS, the Contractor in response to said Notice has submitted to the City a sealed bid proposal in accordance with the terms of this Contract, and WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly opened, examined and canvassed the bids submitted and as a result has determined and declared the Contractor to be a lowest responsible bidder and has duly awarded to the Contractor a contract for certain work and for the sum or sums named in the bid proposal and in this Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I. WORK TO BE DONE: That the Contractor shall provide all necessary labor, machinery, tools, and apparatus; shall furnish all materials, superintendence and overhead expenses of whatever nature necessary to perform all of the designated work for the City of Saratoga in conformity with the specifications and other contract documents and according to such instructions as may be given by the Saratoga Director of Public Works or his authorized agent. ARTICLE II. CONTRACT PRICES Except as provided in Section IV B of the Specifications "Changes and Extra Work"), the City shall pay the Contractor according to the prices stated in the bid proposal submitted by the Contractor, which shall include all applicable taxes, for complete performance. of the work. The Contractor hereby agrees to accept such payment as full compensation for all materials and appliances necessary to complete the work; for all loss or damage arising from the work or from action of the elements, or from any unforeseen obstruction or difficulties which may be encountered d in the rosecuti p on of the work; incurred in and in consequence of the suspension or discontinuance of the work; as hereby specified; for all liabilities and other insurance; for all fees or royalties or other expenses on account of any patent or patents; for all overhead and other expenses incident to the work and expected profits; and for well and faithfully performing the work, all accordin g to the contract specifications, instructions, and the requirements of the City. ARTICLE III. PARTS OF THE CONTRACT: That the complete contract document consists of the following: 1. Notice Inviting Sealed Bids 6. Insurance Certificates 2. Bid Proposal 7. Prevailing Wage Rates 3. Contract for Public Works 8. City of Saratoga DBE 4. Hold Harmless Clause Requirements 5. Specifications In case of any conflict between this Contract and any other part of the contract, this Contract shall be binding. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed by its City Manager and its City Clerk thereunto duly authorized and the Contractor has executed these presents the day and year hereinabove written. AWARDED BY CITY COUNCIL: CITY OF SARATOGA: Date: ATTEST: CONTRACTOR: Diablo Landscape Management, Inc. City Clerk The foregoing Contract is By p��� approved as to form this day of TitleVice President /General Mgr. 19 License No. #637988 C27 Tax ID or SSN #94- 2499431 City Attorney Funds Verified: Finance Director Contract No. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: 3 0 5 2 AGENDA ITEM: L! MEETING DATE: August 5, 1998 CITY MANAGER: e.. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development PREPARED BY: James Walgru f ommunity Development Director SUBJECT: AZO -98 -001; CITY OF SARATOGA Consideration of proposed amendments to Article 14 and 15 of the Municipal Code Saratoga's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, respectively. Amendments would include revisions to the Building Floor Area and Average Site Slope definitions, the Building Floor Area Reduction requirements, the Administrative Design Review and Accessory Structure Review processes and the Sign Ordinance. New regulations are also proposed that would include a restriction on the number of wood burning fireplaces allowed in residential dwellings and the creation of creek protection setback criteria for new construction. Lastly, staff is proposing amendments to the Lot Impervious Coverage requirements to match the language of the Measure G initiative. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance amendments by introducing Ordinances by title only and waiving a second reading. REPORT SUMMARY: The Planning Commission reviewed the following proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments at their June 24, 1998 regular public hearing meeting. With some minor changes, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendments to the City Council. Councilmembers were presented with the amendments at their July 21 adjourned meeting. Having no additional changes, the Council scheduled the amendments for the August 5 hearing. The following are summary discussions of each proposed amendment. Attached to the narrative descriptions are the corresponding Ordinances prepared by the City Attorney. Floor Area Definition Staff is recommending to replace the current floor area definition with a more descriptive definition. The purpose being to clarify certain elements of the current language that are subject to frequent interpretative problems and misunderstandings. Specifically, the revised definition addresses attic areas and unenclosed areas. Floor Area Reduction In summary, a parcel's maximum allowable floor area is currently arrived at by: Determining the net site area; this excludes all property within a public or private right -of -way, within a Santa Clara Valley Water District easement or within an unstable soils classification as defined by the City's Ground Movement Potential Maps. Determining the average slope of the parcel and further reducing the net site area in accordance with the slope reduction criteria set forth in the ordinance. This final net site area is then put into the allowable floor area table. Further reducing the allowable floor area, for the R1 districts, based on the height of the structure; 1.5 percent reduction for each one foot of building height in excess of 18 ft. This reduction does not apply to the HR district. The latter of these steps was adopted in 1992 as part of a comprehensive package of Zoning Ordinance amendments. The intent at the time was to discourage homeowners within predominantly single story neighborhoods to build taller two -story homes. An exception to this regulation was provided for those applicants who could demonstrate that their particular neighborhood was already predominantly developed with two -story homes. Since this Ordinance was adopted, the City has processed many exception applications. The pattern has been that these requests are almost always denied in the smaller lot zoning districts, and almost always approved in the R1- 40,000 zoning districts. In every case, the applicant, staff and the Planning Commission have had to struggle with defining the geographical "neighborhood" and what constitutes a "predominance An unfortunate side effect of this process has also been residents' consistent interpretation of these exception requests as being Variance requests that every exception approval is granting yet another Variance to Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance. To simplify this process and still provide an incentive to keep new buildings low in the districts where the vast majority of single story structures are found (R1- 10,000, R1- 12,500, R1- 15,000 and R1- 20,000), staff is recommending that the floor area reduction provision no longer apply to single- family residential structures in the R1- 40,000 zoning district. The reduction would still apply to the 2 smaller lot -size zoning districts, but the exception process to the reduction rule would be eliminated. Administrative Design Review The current Administrative Design Review procedures have never been codified in the Zoning Ordinance. Instead, they are binding procedures adopted by Planning Commission Resolution each staff planner has a copy of the Resolution and they are available to the public. One of the problems this has created is that no appeal protocol exists as does for other administrative decisions. For example, the appeal to the Planning Commission of the administrative approval of the one -story Ravenswood Dr. home addition was then appealed again to the City Council. Appeals of codified administrative approvals are only appealable to the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending that the Administrative Design Review process both be codified as part of Article 15 -45 of the Zoning Ordinance and that the process be streamlined to eliminate unnecessary multiple noticing. Instead of duplicate sets of notices being sent to adjoining property owners and Commissioners, staff recommends a single notice be sent to neighbors only. Sign Ordinance Currently, all signs that are greater than 10 sq. ft. and/or are illuminated require Planning Commission approval at a public hearing. The only exceptions are signs that are consistent with a pre- approved sign program these are approved administratively. It was suggested by the Team Saratoga subcommittee of the Saratoga Business Development Committee that the current sign ordinance discouraged compliance for smaller businesses since it required the same fee and public hearing review process for a single tenant/business as it did for a large retail center sign program. Staff had responded by lowering the permit fees for individual businesses from $1,500 to $500 as part of the FY 1997/98 fee schedule adopted by the City Council. Staff is further suggesting that individual sign permits, with the possible exception of internally illuminated signs, be reviewed and approved by staff rather than the Planning Commission. Design and compatibility issues would still be addressed using existing resources such as the Village Design Guidelines. Denials of sign permits could be appealed to the Planning Commission. Creek Protection Setbacks The City of Saratoga is traversed by seven major creeks that fall within the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District; Saratoga, Calabazas, Wildcat, San Tomas Aquino, Vasona, Prospect and Rodeo Creeks. The District's jurisdiction along these creeks extends 50 feet from the top of each creek bank. Under existing regulations, the construction or placement of a structure or any improvements within a designated floodway is prohibited without the District's review and approval. Also prohibited without express permission of the District are excavation within a floodway, the construction or placement of an outlet for discharging drainage water 3 i I upon or within the banks of a watercourse, and any planting upon or within the banks of a watercourse. Staff is recommending an Ordinance that would augment the District's efforts and provide local environmental restrictions and setback requirements from creeks for all properties in Saratoga. This type of a setback is most effectively implemented at the subdivision review stage, when a Tentative Subdivision Map has been submitted. This is how Saratoga has regulated creek protection as a policy for the past several years. This new ordinance would go one step further by adopting this policy as an ordinance requirement. Staff is proposing the following Ordinance amendments that will require both a riparian habitat/open space easement as a condition of Tentative Subdivision Map approval and a creek setback requirement that will apply to existing lots. These measures also promote the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit compliance efforts and are supported by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Tentative Subdivision Map Requirements: A riparian habitat/open space easement shall be required along all creeks identified in the most recently available Maps of Flood Control Facilities and Limits of 1% Flooding, prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. These maps shall be used for reference purposes only, and do not indicate any involvement, responsibility or liability on the Water District's part related to this Ordinance. Creeks identified in these maps shall be referred to as "Protected Creeks If a proposed subdivision abuts a Protected Creek, a riparian habitat /open space easement shall be required along the creek to ensure future protection of the creek bank and the riparian area. A Riparian Habitat Assessment shall be prepared by a qualified professional to establish the appropriate dimensions of the easement. The easement shall be recorded with the Final Map and shall p rohibit any improvements, ornamental landscaping or fencing, unless it is determined by the Community Development Director that said structures or improvements will enhance a creek's condition (i.e. improvements to flood and/or erosion control or improvements designed to protect riparian habitat). Existing Lot Requirements: For any new construction adjacent to a Protected Creek, the minimum required setbacks prescribed for that particular zoning district shall be measured from the top of the creek bank. Any existing structures that currently encroach into these setbacks shall be considered legal non- conforming and may remain subject to the regulations set forth in Article 15 -65 of the Municipal Code. Any new construction, or additions to existing structures, shall be required to meet these setbacks unless a Variance is otherwise granted as a result of special circumstances. Accessory structures may be permitted within these setbacks as provided for in the Zoning Ordinance. 4 It shall be the applicant/property owner's responsibility to accurately determine the location of the top of creek bank. Where banks do not distinguishably end, the top of bank shall be determined by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The definition of a Protected Creek will be included in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff also recommends that the current definition of a Riparian Corridor be stricken, since it is more narrowly defined and could be confused with these requirements for a Riparian Habitat protection easement. Riparian Corridor is currently defined as only the area within the top of creek banks the habitat area could be much broader. Wood Burning Fire Place Restrictions New home construction would be limited to one wood burning fireplace. Gas burning only fireplaces would not be restricted. This ordinance would only apply to new construction. When reviewing additions and expansions, the ordinance would restrict net increases for example, a home owner with three existing wood burning fireplaces would not be required to remove any of them, but no new wood burning fireplaces could be built. A representative of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District will be present at the August 5 meeting to provide an overview of why the District is encouraging local jurisdictions to adopt ordinances to restrict wood burning fireplaces. This will be a similar presentation to the one the Planning Commission heard last year that prompted these proposed restrictions. Accessory Structures Noticing Staff is recommending eliminating the noticing requirement for certain detached accessory structures. Currently, open garden structures (arbors, gazebos, etc.) may be located within required setbacks if they meet certain height and placement requirements and an application notice is distributed to neighbors. Since there has never been an appeal of this type of an administrative approval, staff questions the need to expend reduced staffing resources on these types of tasks and recommends eliminating the application process and noticing requirements. These structures would still be subject to Zoning Ordinance height and placement requirements and Planning Division review and approval via a "Zoning Clearance" prior to issuance of Building Permits. Average Slope Definition An issue of fairness has arisen for certain property owners with SCVWD easements on their property. The Zoning Ordinance requires that only net site areas be used for calculating a lot's maximum allowable floor area (AFA). The AFA is then further adjusted based on the site's average slope average slope being based on a site's gross site area. Road rights -of -way, landslides, and SCVWD easements are all deducted from a site's gross site area. So a property with a creek and SCVWD creek easement across it would be burdened by a high average slope 5 calculation as a result of the physical topography of the creek banks, but the area of the creek itself would be deducted from the gross site area. The argument has been made that property owners with steep terrain contained within a SCVWD easement are being penalized twice. Staff agrees with this argument and is therefore recommending that the slope definition be revised to be calculated from the net site area. Measure G Ordinance Lot Coverage Discrepancies These proposed changes will make the Zoning Ordinance consistent with the language contained in Measure G. Currently, staff has to explain two separate lot coverage regulations for every inquiry. Residential Garage Parking Dimensions This proposed amendment adds an interior parking dimension requirement for new garages (9.5 ft. x 18 ft. per space). This is the minimum dimension of a standard parking space, which staff has been administratively requiring for garages also. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A notice of the hearing was published in the Saratoga News. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance amendments would not be adopted. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Second reading and adoption of Ordinances will be scheduled for the September 2, 1998 City Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinances 6 ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING SECTION 15- 06.280 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO DEFINITION OF "FLOOR AREA" The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 15- 06.280 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. Section 15- 06.280 is hereby added to the Code of the City of Saratoga, to read as follows: 15- 06.280 Floor area; gross floor area. (a) Floor area means horizontal area measured in square feet. (b) Gross floor area means the total habitable and/or accessible floor space under roof of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, including halls, stairways, elevator shafts, ducts, service and mechanical equipment rooms, interior courts, underfloor areas with an interior height of five feet or greater, porches, verandas and similar building elements with a solid roof and enclosed on three or more sides, garages and enclosed accessory structures. In the case of a sloped ceiling or ground surface, the floor area shall be measured to the point at which the interior height is less than five feet. The term "interior courts" as used herein means an area within the structure enclosed on all sides. Gross floor area does not include basements, exterior roof overhangs, exterior unenclosed balconies, inaccessible attic areas, unenclosed accessory structures and unenclosed areas underneath exterior decks or balconies. The term "enclosed" as used herein means a structure with three or more walls, or an equivalent percentage of enclosure for an area 1 with more than four walls, and a solid roof. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: July 30, 1998 MSR:dsp A:\FLOORARE.98 2 ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTIONS 15- 45.030, 15- 45.040 AND 15- 45.050 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO EXCEPTION TO FLOOR AREA REDUCTION FOR BUILDING HEIGHT The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 15- 45.030 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended, to read as follows: "15- 45.030 Allowable floor area. (a) Definition. As used in this Article, the term "allowable floor area" means the maximum gross floor area of the main structure (including any garage constituting a portion thereof), plus any accessory structures. For purposes of calculating allowable floor area, any space with an interior height of fifteen feet or greater shall be doubled. The allowable floor area is based upon the size and slope of the lot and the height of the main structure to be constructed or existing thereon as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Section. (b) Maximum standards. The standards set forth in this Section are intended to be maximum figures and the Planning Commission may, in any case, require that the floor area be reduced below the applicable standard if such reduction is necessary in order to make the findings prescribed in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article. (c) Slope adjustment. If the average slope of the lot is more than ten percent, the net site area of the lot shall be reduced by a percentage amount based upon the average slope and calculated as follows: 1 Average Slope Percentage of Net Site Area of the Lot to be Deducted 10.01 -20% 10% plus 2% for each 1 percent of the slope over 10 e" 20.01 -30% 30% plus 3% for each 1 percent of the slope over 20 Over 30% 60% *Where the average slope is a fractional number, it shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (d) Floor area standards. After reducing the net site area by the amount required for the slope adjustment under subsection (c) of this Section, if any, the floor area standard for the lot shall be determined in accordance with the table set forth below: Size of Lot Floor Area Standard (net site area) Less than 5000sq ft To bedetermined by Planning Commi 5,000 10,000 sq.ft. 2,400 sq.ft. plus 160 sq.ft. for each 1,000 sq.ft. of net site area over 5,000 sq.ft.* 10,001- 15,000 sq.ft. 3,200 sq.ft. plus 170 sq.ft. for each 1,000 sq.ft. of net site area over 10,000 sq.ft.* 15,001- 40,000 sq.ft. 4,050 sq.ft. Plus 78 sq.ft. for each 1,000 sq.ft. of net site area over 15,000 sq.ft.* 40,001- 80,000 sq.ft. 6,000 sq.ft. Plus 20 sq.ft. for each 1,000 sq.ft. of net site area over 40,000 sq.ft.* 2 80,001- 200,000 sq.ft. 6,800 sq.ft. plus 10 sq.ft. for each 1,000 sq.ft. of net site area over 80,000 sq.ft.* 200,000 8,000 sq.ft. is the maximum allowable square footage.* *Where division of the net site area by 1000 results in a fractional number the product shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (e) Maximum floor area allowed for R HR and A Zone districts. The maximum allowable floor area shall be as prescribed in the following table: Zone District Maximum Floor Area R -1- 10,000 4,400 R -1- 12,500 4,830 R- 1- 15,000 5,220 R -1- 20,000 6,000 R -1- 40,000 7,200 HR and A 8,000 (f) Floor area reduction for certain zone districts. After the allowable floor area is calculated in subsections (d) and (e) of this Section, the maximum allowable floor area for all structures shall be reduced by 1.5 percent for each one foot of maximum building height in excess of eighteen feet in height. This deduction shall apply only to new construction built aftcr May 15, 1992, including new main structures, additions thereto, and new additions to existing _main structures, for all lots located in any R lan R1 10, RZ 12 5, Rlk 2 zone district. 1 .1 The maximum building height of any structure shall be determined in the manner prescribed in Section 15- 06.340." The Planning Commission may grant an exception to permit additional floor arca up to the maximum prescribed in subscctions (d) and (c) of this Scction, provided that all of the following findings arc made: (1) Thcrc is a predominance of two -story structures in the neighborhood; and 3 {2) All the findings in Section 15- 45.080(a) through (f) arc present. Amended by Ord. 71.99 §24, 25, 1991; Ord. 71.86 §2, 1990; Ord. 71 -106 §7, 1992; Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992; Amended during 5/95 supplement) SECTION 2. Section 15- 45.040 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is here y amended to read as follows: "Section 15- 45.040 Setbacks. Where a new structure or an addition to an existing structure, located within an R -1- 10,000, R -1- 12,500 of R -1- 15,000 ox R l 20,0 ©0 district will exceed eighteen feet in height, the required setback from each property line of the site shall be increased by one foot for each one foot of height in excess of eighteen feet." SECTION 3. Section 15- 45.050 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 15- 45.050 Underfloor clearance. All new single family main structures and accessory structures, or additions thereto, shall be designed to follow the slope of the site so as to reduce the clearance between ground floor levels and natural or finish grade, whichever measurement is greater, to not more than five feet. Thz does not applyto decks or balconies above ground flood uel The Planning Commission may grant exceptions to this requirement if the Commission is still able to make all of the findings set forth in Section 15- 45.080 of this Article." SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998, by the following vote. AYES: 4 NOES: ABSENT: Xff Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk July 30, 1998 MSR :dsp A:\BLDGHGT.98 5 ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 45.060 AND ADDING SECTION 15- 45.065 TO THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 15- 45.060 of Article 15 -45 is hereby amended by amending subsection (a) (1) to read as follows: "Section 15- 45.060 Requirement for design review; public hearing. (a) In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of a single family main structure or accessory structure in any A, R -1, HR, or R -OS district until such structure has received design review approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Article: (1) Any multi -story main or accessory structureto be constructed upon a hillside lot." SECTION 2. Section 15- 45.065 is hereby added to Article 15 -45; to read as follows: "Section 15- 45.065 Administrative Design Review. (a) In each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction or expansion of a single family structure or structure in any A, R -1, HR, or R -OS district until such structure has received administrative design review approval by the Community Development Director, pursuant to this Article: 1) New single -story residences; 1 I 2) Major additions in size, defined as either the addition of 50% or more of existing main or accessory structure or as a 100 sq. ft. or greater addition to the second story of a main or accessory structure. (b) The application for administrative design review approval sha comply with Section 15- 45.070. In addition to the standar 4k) application materials, applicant will be required to submit two--(2) J sets of stamped, addressed envelopes for mailing notice to at least the ten (10) closest neighboring properties, and other deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. The Director will direct the applicant in determining the ten closest properties. The Director shall not grant design review approval unless the findings set forth in Section 15- 45.080 may be made. (c) If application can be approved, a "Notice of Intent to Approve" will be mailed to the neighboring property owners, and others as deemed appropriate. All concerned parties will have ten (10) days in which to review or appeal the application. Any appeal will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Notwithstanding, Section 15- 45.110, the decision of the Planning Commission on the appeal shall be final and not subject to appeal to the City Council. (d) If the application is not approved by staff, then the applicant may file a standard design review application and go through the Planning Commission public hearing process. At any point during the design review application process, the Community Development Director may, at his/her discretion, refer an application to the Planning Commission for review and decision. All referred applications shall be heard at a standard public hearing. (e) Administrative design review approvals shall be subject to all time limitations set forth in Section 15 -45- 090." SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. 2 The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk July 30, 1998 MSR:apn A:\ADR.98 3 ORDINANCE NO. 71- I AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 30.060 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF CERTAIN SIGN PERMIT APPLICATIONS 1 it of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: City Coui c o t y g y s: SECTION 1. Section 15- 30.060 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended, to read as follows: "15- 30.060 Application for permit. (a) Application fora sign permit hereunder shall be made to the FlanningCon1n unityiDevel pment Director on such form as he may prescribe. If the site on which the sign will be displayed is already subject to a sign program approved by the City, or if the sign is a temporary real estate, construction, subdivision, special event or grand opening sign or a directional sign, a t (except'ni the 'c sa of i11uminated signs) iftthe sign '.zsfo aan. ndxv dua business ®r activity, the applicat may be acted upon by the t Director; otherwise, the application shall be acted upon by the Planning Commission. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the w Director may refer any application for a sign permit to the Planning Commission for a decision thereon. (b) The application shall contain the following information: (1) The location and size of any existing or proposed buildings and structures on the site. parking and loading spaces, including The location of off street pa g g p g major points of entry and exit for motor vehicles, where directional signs are proposed. 1 I I (3) The location of the proposed sign and its relationship to existing or proposed adjacent buildings and structures on the site. (4) A scale drawing showing the size, height, dimensions and content of the proposed sign or sign structure and also indicating the colors and materials thereof. (5) The location and size of all other existing signs on the site. (6) If the sign is to be illuminated, the method, source and intensity of illumination. (7) Such other information as the PlanningCommuruty ililt pat ell Director or the Planning Commission may require in order to determine whether the proposed sign will comply with the regulations and standards contained in this Article." SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk July 30, 1998 MSR:dsp A:\SIGNREV.98 ORDINANCE NO.71 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 14- 25.050, ADDING SECTIONS 14- 25.065, 15- 06.525, 15- 45.045, 15- 46.035 AND REPEALING SECTION 15- 06.575 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING CREEK PROTECTION EASEMENT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 14- 25.050(b) of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended to read as follows: "(b) Covenants for easements. In addition to any other method for the creation of an easement, easements for parking, ingress, egress, emergency access, light and air access, landscaping, open space 4*creek pro ction purposes may be created by a written covenant for easement which complies with the requirements set forth in Section 15- 80.110 of the Zoning Ordinance." SECTION 2. Section 14- 25.065 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby added to read as follows: "Section 14- 25.065 Creek Protection Easements. (a) Purpose, application. In order to provide for the future protection of creeks, including creek banks and riparian habitat, a Creek Protection Easement shall be required for any subdivision, lot, or parcel thereof which contains or abuts a Protected Creek as defined below. (b) Protected Creek defined. A Protected Creek is a creek identified in the most recently available Maps of Flood Control Facilities and Limits of 1% Flooding, prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, as may be amended from time to time. (c) Location. The location of the easement shall be based on a Biotic Assessment identifying the Protected Creek, its banks, and riparian habitat. The Biotic Assessment shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall be recorded with the Final or Parcel Map. 1 (d) Restrictions. Structures, improvements, ornamental landscaping, or fencing shall be prohibited within the easement, unless the Community Development Director determines that such will enhance the creek's condition by improving flood and/or erosion control or improving or protecting riparian habitat." SECTION 3. Section 15- 06.525 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby added to read as follows: "Section 15- 06.525 Protected Creek. "Protected Creek" means any creek identified in the most recently available Maps of Flood Control Facilities and Limits of 1% Flooding prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, as may be amended from time to time." SECTION 4. Section 15- 06.575 of the Code of the City of Saratoga, Definition of Riparian Corridor, is hereby repealed. SECTION 5. Section 15- 45.045 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby added to read as follows: "Section 15- 45.045 Creek Protection Setbacks. (a) Purpose, application. Where a Protected Creek passes through or along a building site or is otherwise located on the site, and in order to provide for the future protection of creeks, including creek banks and riparian habitat, building setbacks for any new construction shall be measured from the top of the creek bank(s) on the site rather than from the property lines of the site. The required setback shall be the minimum setback prescribed for the applicable zoning district and shall not be required to be the greater lot- percentage based setback. (b) Existing structures. Any existing structures which encroach into the Creek Protection Setbacks shall be considered Nonconforming, and shall be regulated by Article 15 -65, Nonconforming Uses and Structures. Any new additions to existing structures shall comply with the Creek Protection Setbacks. (c) Accessory structures. Accessory structures may be permitted within the Creek Protection Setbacks subject to compliance with the special rules as set forth in Section 15- 80.030 of this Chapter. (d) Location of top of creek bank. The site plans for the proposed new construction shall show the location of the top of the Protected Creek bank. It shall be the applicant /property owner's responsibility to accurately determine the location of the top of the bank, as defined in Section 15- 06.185 of this Chapter. 2 SECTION 5. Section 15- 46.035 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby added to read as follows: "Section 15- 46.035 Creek Protection Setbacks. (a) Purpose, application. Where a Protected Creek passes through or along a building site or is otherwise located on the site, and in order to provide for the future protection of creeks, including creek banks and riparian habitat, building setbacks for any new construction shall be measured from the top of the creek bank(s) on the site rather than from the property lines of the site. (b) Existing structures. Any existing structures which encroach into the Creek Protection Setbacks shall be considered Nonconforming, and shall be regulated by Article 15 65, Nonconforming Uses and Structures. Any new additions to existing structures shall comply with the Creek Protection Setbacks. (c) Accessory structures. Accessory structures for residential projects may be permitted within the Creek Protection Setbacks subject to compliance with the special rules as set forth in Section 15- 80.030 of this Chapter. Accessory structures for non residential projects shall comply with the Creek Protection Setbacks. (d) Location of top of creek bank. The site plans for the proposed new construction shall show the location of the top of the Protected Creek bank. It shall be the applicant /property owner's responsibility to accurately determine the location of the top of the bank, as defined in Section 15- 06.185 of this Chapter. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor 3 4 ATTEST: City Clerk J: \WPD\MN W\2 RD. \CREEK.ORD RS 73 O 98 4 s ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADDING ARTICLE 15 -48 TO THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ti RELATING TO WOOD BURNING FIREPLACES The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Article 15 -48 is hereby added to the Code of the City of Saratoga to read as follows: "ARTICLE 15 -48 LIMITATIONS ON WOOD- BURNING FIREPLACES 15- 48.010 Purpose of Article The purpose of this Article is to improve and maintain air quality conditions in the City of Saratoga in order to protect and enhance the health and quality of life of its citizens, as well as contribute to improvements in regional air quality, by reducing air pollutant emissions from wood burning fireplaces. 15- 48.020 Definitions Fireplace: An installed masonry or factory -built device designed to be used with an air -to -fuel ratio greater than or equal to 35 -to -1. Excluded from this definition are devices intended to be solely used for preparation of food (e.g., wood burning ovens, s 0OiCkeN toav becoe)) 15- 48.030 Limitations 1. Only one wood burning fireplace per structure (e.g., main residence, guest house) or per dwelling unit (in multiple family projects) may be installed in any new construction. All fireplaces in excess of one installed in new construction shall be gas -fired fireplaces (natural or propane) with dedicated gas jets, direct venting, convection chambers, heat exchanger, 1 variable heat output and flame p control, and permanently affixed artificial logs. Excluded are existing fireplaces, regardless of how many exist. 2. It shall be unlawful to burn garbage, plastics, rubber, paints, solvents, oil, treated wood products, particle board, glossy or treated paper, coal, or any other material that produces noxious or toxic emissions when burned in a wood burning fireplace. 15.48.040 Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on and shall apply to all permits issued on or after If SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk July 30, 1998 MSR:dsp A: \WOODFIRE.98 2 ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE (14/ CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 80.030 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES- NOTICING The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: Cc) SECTION 1. Section 15 80.030 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended by repealing subsection (i) and amending subsections (d)(2) and (j) thereof, to read as follows: "(d) Enclosed accessory structures. No enclosed accessory structures shall be located in any required yard of any lot, except as follows: (1) (2) Subject to approval by the P lartningCommunity Deve o meet Director and thc provisions of subsection (i) of this Scction, garden sheds, structures for housing swimming pool equipment and other enclosed structures of a similar nature, not exceeding two hundred fifty square feet in gross floor area, may be located no closer than six feet from the rear property line and shall not exceed six feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional foot of setback from the rear property line in excess of six feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the structure is still located within the required rear yard. This subsection shall not apply to any structure intended or used for the keeping of animals. C (j Referral to Planning Commission. With respect to any accessory structure requiring approval by the PlanningC®nmumty Develop Director, as described in subsections (d)(2), (e) and (f) of this Section, the Director may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for action thereon whenever the Director deems such referral to be necessary or appropriate. If thc application relates to an accessory structurc dcscribcd in subscction (d)(2) 1 i or (c), thc Planning Commission shall follow thc same procedure as set forth in subsection (i) of this Section. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage an adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk July 30, 1998 MSR:dsp A:\NOTICING.98 2 ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 06.030 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO DEFINITION OF "SLOPE" The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 15- 06.030 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 15- 06.030. Slope. "Slope" means the average slope of the grass net site area determined by the following formula, and rounded to the nearest whole percent: Average .00229 IL slope A Where: I Contour interval in feet (at intervals of not more than five feet) L Combined length of contour lines in scale feet A Gress Mt site area expressed in acres" SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998, by the following vote. 1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk July 30, 1998 MSR:dsp A: \SLOPE.98 2 ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTIONS 15- 12.080 AND 15- 13.080 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO SITE COVERAGE The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Sections 15- 12.080 and 15- 13.080 of the Code of the City of Saratoga are hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 15- 12.080 Site Coverage. (a) The maximum coverage in each R -1 district shall be as set forth in the following table: District Coverage R -1- 10,000 60% R -1- 12,500 55% R- 1- 15,000 50% R -1- 20,000 45% (b) In determining thc amount of impervious surfacc in thc R -1- l0,000 zoning district, thc area of a single driveway providing vehicle access from thc street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site and any related turnaround area for such spaces or required for safety purposes shall District Coverage R 1- 40,000 30% p,S7 Section 15- .1 Site age. The maximum site coverage on any lot in the HR district shall be ass- f-ellovcws4 1 twenty -five percent, or fifteen thousand square feet, whichever is less. (b) In determining thc amount of impervious surfacc, thc arca of a single driveway providing vehicular access from thc street to the required Enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related turnaround area determined to be necessary for safety purposes, shall be excluded." SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk July 30, 1998 MSR:dsp A:\SITECOVE.98 2 I I ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 35.040 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO ADD DIMENSION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL GARAGE PARKING SPACES The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 15- 35.040 of the Code of the City of Saratoga is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph (j) as follows: "(j) Where required residential parking is located in a garage, the dimensions of the required parking spaces shall be not less than eighteen feet in length and nine feet, six inches in width." SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1998 by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 30A AGENDA ITEM 6 MEETING DATE: August 5, 1998 CITY MANAGE;: 9 P ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk DEPT. HEAD: 1V/ SUBJECT: Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed Abatement Charges RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Adopt resolution. REPORT SUMMARY: Under State and local laws, local governments routinely abate the seasonal fire hazards of weed growth on undeveloped property. For the County and several cities, including Saratoga, this weed abatement program is administered by the County Fire Marshal's Office. In many cases, property owners find it convenient to have government take care of weed removal and to pay through a property tax lien. This past year, the County performed weed abatement on parcels on the attached list in Saratoga. Tax liens and assessments on the owners of these parcels totalled $15,940.08. In order to recover this cost, it is necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution confirming the assessments and directing the County Auditor to enter and collect the assessments on the property tax bill. FISCAL IMPACTS: None upon City if resolution is passed. City may be liable for work performed by contractor for any assessments not levied. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Weed Abatement Office has mailed notice to property owners and published notice of hearing. FOLLOWUP ACTIONS: None; this is the last City action in the weed abatement cycle. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): See Fiscal Impacts. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution with list of assessments. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: 503 AGENDA ITEM: 60 MEETING DATE: August 5, 1998 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: immunity Development PREPARED BY: James Walgr ommunity Development Director SUBJECT: DR -96 -056.1 UP- 96- 016.1; Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Blauer Drive SARATOGA COURTYARDS, LLC /ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES Appeal of Planning Commission denial of a request to allow the free standing Pad B building to be separated from the overall Argonaut Shopping Center approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Affirm the Planning Commission's determination and deny the appeal. REPORT SUMMARY: Description: Request for modification of Design Review and Use Permit approvals previously granted to redevelop and expand the Argonaut Shopping Center. The approved plans included adding approximately 10,000 sq. ft. to the existing Safeway Supermarket, renovating the existing Center buildings and parking lot and constructing two new free standing buildings. The modification request is to allow the free standing building approved for Pad B at the southeast corner of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Blauer Drive to be separated from the overall project approval so that they may proceed independently with construction of that building. Discussion: The renovation and expansion of the Argonaut Shopping Center was approved by the Planning Commission in February 1997. This approval was "called -up" for review and affirmed by the City Council in March 1997. The Council noted the importance of the project to the community in their decision to also go on record in support of the Center improvements. While the expansion and renovation of the existing structures was strongly supported, the proposed Pad A free standing building across the parking lot from the existing structures and fronting Saratoga Sunnyvale Road was a concern with some of the Councilmembers who felt it may set a negative precedent (City Council March 1997 minutes attached). The Pad A free standing building is physically attached to the Argonaut Shopping Center. The Pad B building is across Blauer Drive from the Center. Pad B was originally submitted with the overall redevelopment proposal and the application was approved, in whole, per the attached plan set marked Exhibit "A In December 1997 representatives of the Argonaut Associates requested Planning Commission re- consideration of staffs determination that the Pad B building was truly g Y integral and part of the overall project approval. This was an informal request and was heard as a Commission Item at the end of a regularly scheduled public hearing meeting. The Planning Commission rejected their request to separate the Pad B building from the overall project approval and directed staff accordingly. The property was then sold and the new owners submitted a formal request to the Planning Commission via a modification application (DR -96 -056.1 UP -96- 016.1) to allow construction of the Pad B building be go forward independent of the overall project. The Building Permits for the overall Center have been temporarily put on hold by the owners of the Center and the new owners of Pad B were, and are, concerned that their project is being held up by factors that are beyond their control. The Planning Commission heard this request at their July 8 public hearing. Following discussion, the Commission voted unanimously to deny the request. Commissioners noted their frustration with the poor condition of the Center and the lack of progress with the renovation plans. The general concensus of the Planning Commission was that if Pad A or B was separated from the overall project approval and built, there could no assurances that the Center renovations would occur. Recommendation: Staff agrees with the applicants that the Pad B building is distinctly different from the Pad A building, and the overall Center, in that it is both physically separated and now separately owned. However, the Planning Commission has been consistently clear to the owners of Pad B that it was considered to be integral to the overall project approval. Based on the Planning Commission's determination, staff is recommending that the appeal be denied and that the request to modify the overall project approval to allow the Pad B building to be constructed independent of the Argonaut Shopping Center be rejected. 2 If the appeal is denied the applicants could then either: Wait until permits are issued for the entire Argonaut Shopping Center and then begin construction of the Pad B building, or Wait until the Argonaut Shopping Center permits expire and then file a new independent application. FISCAL IMPACTS: Minimal to the City delay in collecting Pad B building permit and construction tax fees. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A notice of this appeal hearing was published in the Saratoga News and was mailed to property owners within a 500 ft. radius of the Argonaut Shopping Center. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the City Council approves the appeal request to separate Pad B, the applicant/appellant would be issued building permits and allowed to commence construction. Staff would prepare a Resolution acknowledging the City Council's decision for the next available meeting, which would include a proportionate degree of Center improvement requirements (e.g. construction of the new medians along Blauer Drive). FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: A Resolution will be prepared and scheduled for the next available Council meeting memorializing the City Council's decision. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Appellant Correspondence 2. Planning Commission minutes dated July 8, 1998 3. Planning Commission Resolution DR -96 -056.1 UP -96 -016.1 4. City Council minutes dated March 19, 1997 5. Approved Argonaut Shopping Center Plans, Exhibit "A" 3 COURTYARDS i LLC July 30, 1998 Mayor Donald Wolfe Vice Mayor Jim Shaw Council Member Stan Bogosian Council Member Paul Jacobs Council Member Gillian Morgan City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As the President of Saratoga Courtyards, LLC, I am requesting that the City council approve the modification of the design review and use permit approvals provided in Resolution 97 -17, to allow development of my separate parcel, Pad B, and that the city council instruct the planning and building departments to issue the appropriate grading and building permits for Pad B. Approval should be granted because Pad B is a separate parcel, with its own parking and utilities, separated from the Argonaut Shopping Center by a city street, Blauer Drive. I, the owner of Pad B, have no ownership interest in the Argonaut Shopping Center, and have no control or influence over the timing or manner of Argonaut Associates' development of the center. The use permit conditions set forth in Resolution 97 17, see Item "A" attached, do not provide that pad B must be developed simultaneously with the center, and delaying the development of Pad B will not in any way ensure that the overall renovation of the center will occur. I have met all of the conditions for the issuance of a building permit for Pad B. The only impediment is the Planning Commission's unwarranted refusal to allow me to proceed. It is simply unreasonable for the City to hold the development of my parcel, Pad B, hostage, pending the development of my neighbor's project. I understand that the Planning Commission wants Pad 13 be developed simultaneously with the Center. This appears to be nothing more than their subjective belief, unsupported by the permit approvals that are in place for Pad B and the Center. Saratoga Courtyards 1855 Park Avenue, San Jose, California 95126 COURTYARDS LLC July 30, 1998 Page Two Staff, in its report to the Planning Commission dated July 8, 1998, agrees with me that Pad B is distinctly different from the Pad A building and the Center, as it is physically separated and separately owned. I do take strong exception to the statement in the report that the Planning Commission has been consistently clear to me that the development of Pad B must be part of the overall approval for the Center. That is not a condition of the use permit, nor, to my knowledge, is it stated in the record for approval of the permit. Up until the denial of this application by the Planning Commission, it has been my understanding, based on the conditions of approval I have received from the City of Saratoga, that the approvals of these separate parcels were not linked. Resolution 97 17 Resolution- 97 -17, approving the design review application and the conditional use permit application, was passed by the City Council on April 2, 1997. A copy of the resolution is enclosed as Item "A It should be noted that the use permit is only necessary to allow the expansion of the Safeway supermarket. Pad B alone does not need a use permit for the use I plan to build. Pad B is not asking for any design review changes and is ready to proceed with approved plans per the original Exhibit A resolution site and architectural plans. When I bought Pad B in March of 1998, I read and relied on the Resolution's conditions of approval. There is no condition stating that permits must be issued simultaneously. Quite to the contrary, the conditions state that either one or the other party can proceed once it has met the conditions of the resolution. For instance, Section 3, paragraph 12.d on page 6 provides that, "prior to the issuance of any permits for construction activity on either property, the owner (applicant) shall submit an improvement plan depicting the proposed layout and landscaping of the new median islands to the Public Works Director for review and approval Likewise, paragraph 12.f on the same page requires the posting of a performance bond for improvements, "prior to the issuance of any permits for construction activity on either property Either does not mean both: Either is the opposite of both. The Resolution provides that these conditions can be met by either party, not that they must be met by both Pad B and the Center. I must follow this resolution. The only reasonable interpretation of these conditions is that the development of separate parcels can proceed separately. I am ready to do so. As staff confirms and as I state below, I have met all of the conditions of the use permit and have submitted all the necessary plans and documentation for a building permit. Saratoga Courtyards 1855 Park Avenue, San Jose,_California 95126 j I 7 (I COURTYARDS LLC July 30, 1998 Page Three The Planning Commission Findings At its July 8, 1998 meeting, in denying my application to modify the design review and use permit approval the Planning Commission passed a Resolution, with only one fording: The Planning Commission fords that it is critical to the original project approval that all of the Argonaut Shopping Center improvements happen simultaneously to ensure that the overall renovation of the Center does occur. This fording is completely contrary to the facts surrounding the Center and Pad B, and contrary to the plain meaning of Resolution 97 -17. The Planning commission did not and cannot recite any specific facts that support their denial of my application. Resolution 97 -17 does not require or even suggest simultaneous development, and no other record's or conditions as to the Center and Pad B approvals support such a proposition. The facts are clear. I own Pad B and am not involved in the ownership or development of the Center in any way. Pad B is a separate parcel, with separate utilities, parking and street access. The development of Pad B, or the City's denial of my right to use my property for its intended purpose, will not meet the Planning Commission goal, to "ensure that the overall renovation of the Center does occur I understand that the Planning Commission would like the Center and Pad B to develop at the same time. But delaying Pad B will not speed up the Center; it will only damage the owners of Pad B. I have a tenant who has signed a lease and can occupy the office building on Pad B as soon as I can build. The owners of the Center, who already have tenants and receive income from the Center, are not influenced by what might be happening with my project on Pad B. They have their own agenda, which the City can influence on its own, through the building approval process. As to Saratoga's concern about architectural continuity, Argonaut Associates agrees that they will pursue the same architecture as Pad B. This assurance is given in a letter, dated May 18, 1998 from the Center's owner, and a copy is enclosed here as Item "B The City simply has no rational basis for holding the development of Pad B hostage to the renovation of the Center. Not only does it violate my property rights; it is simply ineffective to achieve the renovation of the Argonaut -Shopping Center. Saratoga Courtyards' 1855 Park Avenue, San Jose, California 95126 COURTYARDS LLC Jul 30, 1998 July Page Four Pad B is Ready for Building Permit Approval Pad B is a separate parcel, under separate ownership, bordered by two public streets. If it were not subject to CUP 96- 016.1, it would not even need a use permit to construct the proposed office building. CUP 96 -016.1 was only necessary due to the expansion of Safeway, which is not any part of my development project. What I request is a modification of this use permit, to assign a proportionate degree of the improvement requirements to Pad B, and for City Council to direct staff to issue a building permit for Pad B. Pad B has met all of the conditions of Resolution 97 -17. These include submitting complete construction plans, landscape plans, having dumpsters walled off and providing the appropriate fire alarm system. I am ready to post a performance bond for Pad B's proportionate share of the utility undergrounding and for street improvements, including replacement of the medians on Blauer Drive per original Exhibit A approval. A letter of verification from the insurance broker is attached as Item "C." Improvement plans for these medians have been submitted, as required by Section 3, paragraph 12.d of Resolution 97 -17. I have my CalTrans permit, which will expire in December 1998. As James Walgren confirms in out meeting, see my letter dated July 24, 1998, all of the conditions for approval have been met. A copy of this letter is attached here as Item "D Modification of the Design Review Approval is not necessary, nor am I asking for any. I stand ready to build the improvements on Pad B in accordance with Site Plan, Grading, Drainage and utility Plan, Floor Plan, Roof Plan and Elevations approved by the City Council as Exhibit A to resolution 97 -17. I understand that the Center has largely complied with the conditions of the use permit, and is expected to post bonds, fees and resolve redline building issues in the near future. Because fees and bonding for public improvements have to be prorated between the Center and pad B, as separate building permit applicants, the rational and reasonable course is to allow the development of Pad B now. I therefore respectfully request that the City council: 1. Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and approve my request for modification of Use Permit 96 -016. Saratoga Courtyards 1855 Park Avenue, San Jose, C alilornia 9512 o COURTYARDS LLC July 30, 1998 Page Five 2. Direct staff to prepare an amended Resolution for adoption at the next City Council meeting, which will contain conditions of approval only applicable to pad B and which will require pad B to contribute it proportionate share of fees and bonds for improvement requirements. 3. Direct staff to immediately issue grading and building permits for Pad B, once the modified conditions of approval are met. Sincerely, on Morici ml Enclosures I Saratoga Courtyards 1855 Park Avenue, San Jose, California 95126 ITEM A RESOLUTION NO. 97- 17 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DR -96 -056; UP -96 -016; ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES SARATOGA SUNNYVALE ROAD AT BLAUER DRIVE WHEREAS, Argonaut Associates, the applicants, have applied for design review approval to redevelop and expand the Argonaut Shopping Center by renovating the existing commercial structures and constructing two new free standing buildings. Use permit approval is necessary to allow the existing 30,070 sq. ft. Safeway Supermarket to be expanded by 10,720 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on said application at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and following the conclusion thereof, the Planning Commission granted the application; WHEREAS, the granting by the Planning Commission has been appealed to the City Council by the applicant. WHEREAS, on March 19, 1997, the City Council conducted a de novo hearing on the appeal at which time any person interested in the matter was given a full opportunity to be heard; WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Commission relating to the application, and the written and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support of and in opposition to the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: Section 1. Design Review Findings for DR -96 -056. 1 By split vote of the City Council (Councilmember Jacobs voting in opposition) the appeal from the Planning Commission is hereby denied, and the decision of the Planning Commission is affirmed to wit: The applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the design review application and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed new structures and the renovated existing structures, when considered with reference to the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed new structures and the renovated existing structures in relation to the immediate neighborhood will minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The proposed new structures and the renovated existing structures will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with existing residential and commercial structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district, and will not unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed site development plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. The proposed new structures and the renovated existing structures are consistent with the Saratoga Commercial- Neighborhood zoning ordinance and all other applicable development regulations and design policies. Section 2. Conditional Use Permit Findings For UP -96 -016. By split vote of the City Council (Councilmember Jacobs voting in opposition) the appeal from the Planning Commission is hereby denied and the decision of the Planning Commission is affirmed to wit: The applicant has met the burden of proof necessary to support the application and the following findings have been determined: That the proposed supermarket expansion is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the Saratoga General Plan. 2 40 That the proposed supermarket expansion would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts. That the proposed supermarket expansion will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. Section 3. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Argonaut Associates for design review approval and conditional use permit approval be and the same is hereby granted to the extent set forth above and only subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" (incorporated by reference) except as otherwise modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading Permit, the following shall be submitted to Community Development Department staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans and four (4) sets of engineered grading and drainage plans, all incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. Revised landscape plan indicating an effort to retain and incorporate as many existing healthy trees as possible. All landscaping per the approved/modified plan shall be installed. c. Creek bank improvement plans for the northwest corner of the parking lot indicating the removal of the chain link fence along the creek to be replaced with half solid/half open wood fence, per Exhibit "A along the property line. A riparian enhancement plan shall also be prepared to remove non native planting and debris along the creek bank and revegetate the area with native plants. 3. Prior to installation of any new signs in the Argonaut Shopping Center, the applicants shall prepare a comprehensive sign design program for Community Development Director review and approval. 3 4. Pursuant to the applicant/owners' agreement with the neighboring property owners, the following maintenance requirements shall apply: a. All dumpsters shall be visually "walled -off" and gated, with the potential to be locked. b. Motion sensor triggered down- directed hooded light fixtures shall be installed and maintained along the north and east sides of the main building. c. Speed bumps shall be installed along the north and east sides of the parking lot. d. Masonry or precast soundwalls, not to exceed 8 ft. in height, shall be constructed along the north and east property lines. Final construction plans shall be subject to City Arborist review and approval. 5. Exterior colors and materials shall be medium earthtone as reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, pursuant to the approved plans and material board. 6. Provide one fire hydrant capable of delivering no less than 1500 GPM. Said hydrant shall be located at or near the northeast corner of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. and Blauer Dr. The exact location shall be determined by the fire chief. 7. The two new free standing structures, one at the northeast and one at the southeast corner of Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. and Blauer Dr., shall be provided with an early warning fire alarm system with a commercial fire alarm panel. Said alarm system shall be installed in accordance with current California State Fire Marshal, N.F.P.A., and Saratoga Fire District standards. 8. The two new free standing structures shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. Said system shall be designed and installed in accordance with current California State Fire Marshal, N.F.P.A., and Saratoga Fire District standards and specifications. 9. The existing shopping center and Safeway grocery store shall be provided with an early warning fire alarm system with a commercial fire alarm panel. Said system shall be zoned and installed in accordance with current 4 California State Fire Marshal, N.F.P.A., and Saratoga Fire District standards. 10. The existing shopping center and Safeway grocery store automatic sprinkler system shall be retrofitted with a post indicator valve. The valves in the pit shall be eliminated. 11. The existing shopping center and Safeway grocery store may need to be retrofitted with attic area separations. Said separations shall be installed in accordance with the current edition of the Uniform Building Code. 12. Subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director, the following improvement requirements shall apply: a. All utility services to existing and new buildings on both properties shall be placed underground. b. Overhead utility lines along Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, fronting both properties, shall be placed underground. To accomplish this, the owner (applicant) shall agree to participate in a future Underground Utility District formed by the City to underground utility lines along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Further, the owner (applicant) shall contribute to the future Underground Utility District, the proportional cost of undergrounding the utilities along both properties, in relation to the total cost of the District, as determined by the Public Works Director prior to commencement of the underground construction. Prior to the issuance of any permits for construction activity on either property, the owner (applicant) shall post a performance bond or other acceptable security in an amount to be determined by the Public Works Director, but not to exceed $300,000, to guarantee the contribution to the future Underground Utility District. c. City standard curb, gutter and sidewalks shall be installed along the frontages of both properties. A bus turnout with but stop improvements including a bus shelter, as required by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, shall be installed along Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. Improvement plans depicting the above shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits for construction activity on either property. d. Existing median islands on Blauer Drive shall be removed and replaced 5 r with new landscaped median islands to be maintained by the owner (applicant). The owner (applicant) shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide for the maintenance of the median landscaping. Prior to the issuance of any permits for construction activity on either property, the owner (applicant) shall submit an improvement plan depicting the proposed layout and landscaping of the new median islands to the Public Works Director for review and approval. e. The southbound left turn egress from the main entry shall be eliminated/diverted. f. The owner (applicant) shall post a performance bond or other acceptable security in an amount to be determined by the Public Works Director to guarantee completion of the improvements described in paragraphs c, d and 'e above prior to the issuance of any permits for construction activity on either property. 13. The owner (applicant) shall retain permits from Caltrans, the City of Saratoga, and/or any other appropriate agencies prior to commencement of any work. 14. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. An Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and submitted for Community Development staff review and approval incorporating, to the degree feasible, stormwater infiltration measures. Examples of appropriate measures include: a. Schedule for regular parking lot cleaning. b. Previous paving materials at perimeter of parking lot to collect and drain sheet flow stormwater. c. Filtered storm drains at locations where stormwater may drain through garbage enclosures, and filtration systems built into storm drains wherever feasible. 15. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in 6 I I 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. 16. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 4. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 5. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 2nd day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Bogosian, Jacobs, Shaw and Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Moran ABSTAIN: None \1 /Ur"' 44 -aefr- ayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk i MSR:dsp l: \WPD\MNRSW\2 73\RES97ARGO.DEN 7 iR ►WwtYTIWM4t,C,Waa.ysr,.a hp )vny- hi.bhr+r Hr1 •a t. •U'..". ITEM B STORM LAND CO. tilay I 8,T998 Director of Planning City of Saratoga 1 3777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Be: Building l'crnlii Mauer Saratoga Sunnyvale fond I)ircclor of Planning: It is the intention of Argonaut Associates, LLC to continue to pursue the architecture that was originally approves) by the planning commission and city council lilt the Argonaut Shopping Center. It is our understanding that this letter tvill be used to assist the developer of the Matter Part in r eleasing a building permit. Sincerely yours, AltGoNAl1•I' ASSOCIATES, S, LLC 20725 Valley Green Dr., Suite 200 Cuperlino, CA 95014-1703 (408) 2137 -0402 FAX (son) 096-8 301 EMAIL stornrlanrl6D fc,l.co ITEM C DEMPSEy SINCE 1930 Dempsey Insuumee Service, Inc. I'.O. Box 6210 (408) 985 -0930 2185 the Alameda FAX: (408) 247 -9699 San Josc, California 95150 LIC. #0282050 July 30, 1998 Saratoga 'Courtyards LAX 1855 Park Avenue San Jose, California 95126 Attn: Anthony Morici Re: Saratoga Courtyards I_,LC Property location: 1 3030 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Tony: It has been some time since we got authorizatioon to issue a SD Improvement Bond for the City of Saratoga. Bond amount $13,878.00 Our bond company has asked us recently if you still need to comply to the City of Saratoga. Please let me know as soon as possible as our carrier might be needing updated applications if this is not resolved soon. "Thanks for your past cooperation. Respectfully Anth y T. Sortino team R° I aLOG J COLIRTYA 14 DS I I c ITEM D July 24, 1998 Mr. James Walgren Associate Planner City f Saratoga 13777 Fruit vale Avenue Saratoga, ('A 95070 Re: I'ad 11/Blauer Drive Sz. Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Saratoga. California I)ear• .lames: This is to confirm our meeting of 24, 1998 at the city of offices, whereby we discussed Pad 13. It is my understanding from you that there are no additional conditions per Resolution 97 -17 that need to be satisfied for Pad 13 except Iin• the bonding requirements. It has been agreed that the Blauer median and cut improvements will be bonded not built by I'ad 13 ownership. I have enclosed a copy or an engineer's estimate, see Item A attached, of approximately $13,000.00 which the Pad E3 ownership is willing to bond to. As we discussed, the scope of work for the physical improvements lull entirely within the scope and drawings of the Argonaut Shopping Center, the large center. Pad 13 is not constructing 131auer cut and median improvements. Since the scope of work improvements will fbtl outside ofthe Pad 13 construction work, I would like to confirm that the ingress egress access cut into and out atilt- I'ad 13 property on Mauer Drive will he Ien in place. In addition, we also discussed that upon issuance of the building permit For Pad U. I'ad 13 will bond to pay lur it's lineal lbotage share of' the 300,000.00 undergrounding of utilities For Saratoga Sunnyvale Road as it relates to total lineal Ibotage. Saratoga Courtyards 1855 Park Avenue, San Jose, California 95126 f f.•. sartatouct COURTYARDS 1 I t Mr. James Walgren July 24. 1998 I'agc Two Thank you For your input. I would like to have the above confirmed as part or the conditions ii approved. Inhere is anything, to the contrary please notily toe immediately. Sincerely, Atithonv C'..Morici ntl Enclosure Saratoga Courtyards 1855 Park Avenue, San Jose, California 95126 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 8, 1998 Walgren presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened at 9:52 p.m. The applicant stated her agreement with the staffs recommendation Kaplan asked if the fireplaces are new or if they are pre -e mg. The public hearing was closed at 9:54 p.m. Murakami appreciated the cross section the addition shown on the plans and would be able to approve the project. Bernald, Patrick and Kaplan cou also approve. Martlage liked the design d felt it had a positive effect. Pierce would be e to approve the project. BERNAL P MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE DR -98 -021; MOTION PASSED 6 -0. UP-96-016.1 (APN 393 -01 -024 025, 026, 027, 028 393 -02 -003 5. DR -96 056.1 U 393-02-003) SARATOGA COURTYARDS, LLC /ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES, Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Blauer Drive; Request for modification of Design Review and Use Permit approval to redevelop and expand the Argonaut Shopping Center by adding approximately 10,000 sq. ft. to the existing Safeway Supermarket, renovating the existing Center buildings and constructing two new free standing buildings. The modification request is to allow the free standing building approved for Pad B at the southeast corner of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Blauer Drive to be separated from the overall project approval so that they may proceed with construction of that building independent of the overall project. The conditions of approval required that construction of the free- standing buildings occur simultaneously with the renovation of the Center, in order to ensure that the renovation did occur. Walgren presented the staff memorandum. The public hearing was opened at 9:59 p.m. Anthony Morici, applicant, explained the background of the project, noting there are specific plans and building issues for Pad B, also that he has met with Public Works staff. Martlage asked if the seller of the property had disclosed the condition of the building. Denise Levy, Regan Lane, stated that the residents will be affected by changes at the Center and expressed concern about the types of businesses to be there as well as increased traffic. She wondered if traffic hours could be restricted. Pierce responded that that particular issue could not be addressed at this hearing. Chris Hawks, Blauer Drive, concurred that the residents will be affected by changes in the Center and by the retail businesses that will go in there. He felt that the application for Pad B should remain connected to Pad A (main center) and recommended denial of the project. Morici said that Blauer Drive will be improved with landscaping and responded to Hawks' questions. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 8, 1998 The public hearing was closed at 10:14 p.m. Bernald did not like the ro osed architecture. She shares the frustration that the project has not been completed p p and would not be able to vote in favor of the project at this meeting. Patrick expressed concern about the poor condition of the Center and said she would not vote in favor of the project, nor would she vote to approve separation of Pad A and Pad B. Martlage did not care for the design as it exists. As the original approval was granted previously and she is a new member of the Commission, she said she would probably abstain. Kaplan expressed dissatisfaction with the condition of the Center and said she could not vote to change something that had been voted on previously. Murakami agreed with the other Commissioners. Pierce felt there was no reason to change the project. KAPLAN MARTLAGE MOVED TO DENY DR -96 -056.1 UP -96- 016.1; MOTION PASSED 5 -0 (MARTLAGE ABSTAINED). 6. DR -96 -056.2 UP -96 -016.2 (APN 393 -01 -024, 025, 026, 027 028) W OW /ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES, Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Blauer Drive; Request for .dification of an approved project to remove or reduce a required soundwall between the Argonau hopping Center and adjacent properties to the north and east. Walgren presented the staff report. Bernald wondered if the Center has anything to say if the Com ssion recommends the wall not be built, and if the City has liability. Walgren responded that the City would no incur any liability as a result of waiving the soundwall at the neighbors' request. The public hearing was opened at 10:26 p.m. Robert Whitlow, applicant, represented sev- out of nine homeowners regarding the soundwall, all of whom felt the wall is not necessary, and that noise and -.ffic are not a problem. Neighbors also spoke in oppositio o the wall; they were concerned about people writing on the wall and wondered if the pedestrian access for the n ghborhood, currently at the northeast corner, would be maintained. Murakami asked why the had been no complaints when this was first brought to the Commission. Whitlow responded that he was .t aware that a wall would be built. Martlage was con -rued about the RV path under the tree canopy and over the tree roots. Denise Levy Regan Lane, commented that the only noise heard is from the air conditioners, which are located above roo evel and higher than the soundwall. She was opposed to a wall because it meant that trees would be remove,, and felt the wall would encourage problems with trash, rats and drainage. T public hearing was closed at 10:40 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -056.1 UP -96 -016.1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF MODIFICATION REQUEST SARATOGA COURTYARDS, LLC /ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD BLAUER DRIVE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for modification of the Argonaut Shopping Center renovation and expansion approvals to allow the free- standing building approved for Pad B at the southeast corner of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Blauer Drive to be separated from the overall project approval so that they may proceed with construction of that building independent of the overall project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following finding has been determined: The Planning Commission finds that it is critical to the original project approval that all of the Argonaut Shopping Center improvements happen simultaneously to ensure that the overall renovation of the Center does occur NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Saratoga Courtyards, LLC /Argonaut Associates for modification approval is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8 day of July 1998 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Chair Pierce, Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Murakami and Patrick NOES: None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Mar age Chairperson, Planning Commission ATTEST: Sec et Plannin .mmission City Council Minutes 3 March 19, 1997 B. City Council Review of Design Review approval to redevelop and expand the Argonaut Shopping Center by renovating the existing commercial structures and constructing two new free- standing buildings. Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the existing 30,070 sq. ft. Safeway Supermarket to be expanded by 10,720 sq. ft. The property is located at Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. at Blauer Dr. in a Commercial- Neighborhood zoning district. (DR96 -056, UP96 -016) (Applicant, Argonaut Associates) Interim Planning Director Walgren gave the staff presentation. Mayor Moran opened the Public Hearing at 8:17 p.m. Mr. Ed Storm, applicant, stated that this is the fourth revision of the building he has been asked to provide, and that he is making every effort to compromise in a reasonable fashion. He has met with the adjacent property owners and addressed their concerns. Mr. Jerome Kocir, 12855 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, stated that he lives across the street from the shopping center. He noted that the City's statute provides that no maintenance can be done between 1:00 and 6:00 in the morning, and he alleged that maintenance has been going on at 4:00 a.m. Mr. Kocir reported that the corner of Pierce Road is a dangerous corner and should have a stop sign. Another concern expressed by Mr. Kocir is the slump in the road of Highway 9 off Pierce Road which Caltrans was supposed to have repaired five years ago. Mr. Ray Froess, 20225 Ljepava Road, stated he resides about two to three blocks from the subject site. He commented that the shopping center has been an eyesore for a long time, and he would like to see it cleaned up. He has reviewed the plans which he described as thoughtfully done. Ms. Betty H. Froess, 20225 Ljepava Drive, requested that the Council approve the applicant's plans for the much needed facelift of the shopping center. Mr. Dick Wood, 14694 Sycamore Grove, former President of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, state he is also active in the Saratoga Business Council and Team Saratoga, whose charter is to devise a plan to enhance the success of business. He expressed support for the applicant's plans and recommended that the Council approve the project. Ms. Sheila Arthur, Executive Director of Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, spoke on behalf of the Chamber's Board and recommended that the Council approve the project. Responding to Mayor Moran's question, Ms. Arthur stated that the Chamber has 390 members. Mr. Tom Hardy, 20486 Tricia Way, stated that his property abuts the shopping center. He noted that he had not had an opportunity to confer with the applicant, but requested a reasonable proviso be included to conserve trees as a buffer zone. Mr. Hardy agreed to Mayor Moran's request that he meet with the applicant and staff to address the issue. Mr. Alex Kessler, a Saratoga resident since 1975 and Saratoga business owner, stated that he and his family would like to see an improvement of the shopping center and requested the Council approve the plans. Referring to Mr. Hardy's concern, Mr. Storm stated that the plan includes preserving all trees in the shopping center. Mr. Storm explained that practical conditions and a financial burden resulting from existing leases at existing rates were the reason for appealing the $300,000 in offsite improvement costs. Mayor Moran closed the Public Hearing at 8:40 p.m. Councilmember Wolfe noted that the Planning Commission had done its 4� City Council Minutes 4 March 19, 1997 job, but he also commended the cooperation of the developer in this case. He would be inclined to deny the applicant's appeal for the costs of undergrounding of utilities and the medians on Blauer Drive because of the traffic and safety impacts. WOLFE /JACOBS TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW AND USE PERMIT REQUESTS, AND DENY THE APPLICANTS' APPEAL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY UNDERGROUND THE EXISTING UTILITY LINES ALONG SARATOGA SUNNYVALE ROAD AND REPLACE THE BLAUER DRIVE MEDIANS. COUNCILMEMBER JACOBS NOTED HE SECONDED THE MOTION ONLY FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. Councilmember Jacobs analogized this item to a U.S. Supreme Court case which concluded that the city center in modern society has become the shopping center a community center, a place where the community congregates. He noted that Argonaut is, in its own way, a city center as The Village is. He expressed that the proposed improvements did not represent what he had in mind. He stated he was not in favor of the proposed site, not in favor of the proposed building at the corner site, and questioned what it would be used for. He noted that the design was just a plain stucco shopping center without character nor identity, and did nothing to enhance the community. He said he would be voting to return the plans to the Planning Commission. He noted that the Commission had asked the owner /builder to review other projects in the area and that was not done. Councilmember Bogosian commented that he would be supporting the motion, and that he would want to keep the undergrounding and median conditions intact. Mr. Walgren responded to Mayor Moran's questions regarding the signs and color tones. Mayor Moran inquired about Mr. Kocir's concerns regarding the stop sign at Pierce Road. Mr. Perlin responded that the only concern which Mr. Kocir raised that could be addressed is the issue of the hours in which the sweeping of the parking lot.occurred. He-said the intersection on Pierce Road would not be impacted in any way by this project. Councilmember Jacobs withdrew his second to the motion made earlier. WOLFE /SHAW TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW AND USE PERMIT REQUESTS, AND TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY UNDERGROUND THE EXISTING UTILITY LINES ALONG SARATOGA SUNNYVALE ROAD, AND REPLACE THE BLAUER DRIVE MEDIANS. PASSED 4 -1 (JACOBS OPPOSED). Mayor Moran declared a recess at 9:06 p.m. Upon reconvening, the same Councilmembers and staff were present. C. Appeal of denial of a request for an exemption from the floor area reduction requirement for buildings over 18 ft. in height. The request is in connection with a design review approval to construct a new 6,092 sq. ft., two -story single family residence on a 44,991 sq. ft. parcel. The property is located at 19825 Douglass Lane in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (DR96 -059, APN 397 -16 -150) (Appellant /applicant, Pinn Bros. Construction) Interim Planning Director James Walgren presented the staff report. Mayor Moran opened the Public Hearing at 9:24 p.m. Mr. Chuck Bommarito, Project Manager for Pinn Brothers Construction, presented exhibits depicting the predominance of two -story structures in the neighborhood. Another exhibit characterized the immediate neighbors who were contacted to express any concerns and who expressed support for the project. A third exhibit demonstrated photos of the site. He said the lot is surrounded on all four sides with mature trees, and the proposed home does not conflict with any of the trees. He noted that the design has plenty of support from staff and neighbors.