Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-04-2009 CC Joint Pkt
ROLL CALL REPORT OF THE POSTING AGENDA 1. 21820 Via Regina APPLICATION # APTR09-0001; APN503-69-013 – Appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission Granting approval of a tree removal permit application to remove four coast live oak trees. The application shows the trees as being located within an ingress/egress/utility easement at 21820 Via Regina; the easement is held by Dale Parsley of 21990 Via Regina. One tree is in conflict with a proposed retaining wall and crowds another larger live oak tree on the adjoining property. The other three trees grow within inches of, and crowd, a coast live oak to be retained. ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us . Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Ann Sullivan, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on October 29, 2009 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 29 day of October 2009 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan, CMC City Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SITE VISIT AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2009 9:00 A.M. 1 SPECIAL MEETING –5:30 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 5:30 P.M. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 29, 2009) COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Oral Communications – Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. CLOSED SESSION– 5:30 P.M. –ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE –INSTRUCTION TO REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov’t Code Section 54956.8): Wildwood Way Agency Negotiator: Dave Anderson, City Manager and John Cherbone, Public Works Director CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – Anticipated Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1 potential case) ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 4, 2009 2 OPEN SESSION – 6:00 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM – 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. CALL JOINT MEETING TO ORDER – 6:00 P.M. 1. Joint Meeting with the Saratoga Ministerial Association Recommended Action: Informational only. ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development Department Director at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk Clerk at 408/868-1269. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Ann Sullivan, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council for the City of Saratoga was posted on October 29, 2009, at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 29th day of October 2009 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan, CMC City Clerk REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 29, 2009) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Oral Communications -Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. Communications from Boards and Commissions Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards & Commissions. ANNOUNCEMENTS CEREMONIAL ITEMS SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, November 4, 2009 1 1. Review of Accounts Payable Registers Recommended action: That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for Accounts Payable cycles: October 15, 2009 October 22, 2009 2. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended September 30, 2009 Recommended action: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended September 30, 2009. 3. Final map approval for two lots located at 15211 Hume Drive Recommended action: Move to adopt Resolution granting final map approval of tentative map application No. SUB 09-0001 for two lots located at 15211 Hume Drive. 4. FY 2009 – 2010 CDBG County/City Contract Recommended action: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the CityManager to execute a $464,069.77 contract with Santa Clara County for the FY 2009-2010 CDBG Program. 5. Update of Saratoga’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) matrices pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Recommended action: Authorize the CityManager to submit the attached updated mitigation matrices to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for their preliminary review and comment. PUBLIC HEARINGS Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance are subject to Council’s approval at the Council meeting 6. Appeal of a tree removal permit (TRP09-0222). Recommended action: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision denying the appeal and allowing the removal of four oak trees. The attached resolution would make removal subject to all the Planning Commission conditions, including a provision that work may not proceed if a court has determined that the Applicant may not remove trees within the easement. OLD BUSINESS 7. Herriman Avenue Pedestrian Walkway and Bicycle Lane Review Recommended action: action: Receive report and provide direction to staff 2 NEW BUSINESS 8. Status of January 6, 2010 Council Meeting Recommended action: Consider cancelling the meeting of January 6, 2010. ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Chuck Page Hakone Foundation Executive Committee Peninsula Division, League of California Cities SSC Cities Association Board SCC Cities Association Selection Committee Valley Transportation Authority PAC West Valley Sanitation District West Valley Mayors and Managers Association Council Finance Committee City School Ad-Hoc Vice Mayor Kathleen King Hakone Foundation Board West Valley Flood Control Zone & Watershed Advisory Committee SSC Cities Association Executive Board SCC Cities Association – Joint Economic Development Policy Committee (JEDPC) City School Ad-Hoc Councilmember Jill Hunter Historical Foundation Library Joint Powers Association Santa Clara County Valley Water District Commission Village AdHoc Councilmember Howard Miller Chamber of Commerce KSAR Santa Clara County Emergency Council West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association Council Finance Standing Committee Councilmember Susie Nagpal ABAG Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Policy Advisory Board (PAB) County HCD Policy Committee SASCC Sister City Liaison Village AdHoc CITY COUNCIL ITEMS CITY MANAGER’S REPORT ADJOURNMENT 3 In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development Department Director at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Ann Sullivan, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council for the City of Saratoga was posted on October 29, 2009, at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 29th day of October 2009 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan, CMC City Clerk 4 NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 11/4 Regular Meeting – Saratoga Ministerial Association 11/18 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Hakone Foundation 12/1 Council Reorganization 12/2 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Planning Commission 12/16 Regular Meeting -CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2009 5 Dave Anderson Melanie Whittaker Mary Furey SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council review and accept the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable payment cycles: REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the Check Registers for: Date Ending Check No. 10/15/09 113478 113535 57 722,670.50 10/15/09 10/08/09 113477 10/22/09 113536 113604 68 161,146.80 10/22/09 10/15/09 113535 AP Date Check No . Issued to Dept. Amount 10/15/09 113482 Public Works 250,102.85 10/15/09 113516 Public Safety 344,573.67 10/22/09 113542 Public Works 44,906.62 The following are Accounts Payable checks that were voided or manually issued: AP Date Check No. Amount 10/15/09 10/22/09 Ending Check No. Total Checks Amount Checks Released October 15, 2009 October 22, 2009 CIP Streets Prospect Median SC County Office of Sheriff General SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: DEPT. DIRECTOR: Type of Checks Date Starting Check No. None Issued to Description Prior Check Register The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks issued for more than $20,000 and a brief description of the expenditure: B&B Landscape CIP Parks /Tree Fine Kevin Moran Improvements Fund Purpose Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Monthly Law Enforcement Blossom Valley Construction None 6 The following is a list of cash reduction by fund: Fund # AP 10/15 AP 10/22 Total 111 General 426,115.58 52,443.48 478,559.06 231 Village Lighting 28.47 1,641.50 1,669.97 241 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape 269.25 269.25 242 Bonnet Way Landscape 138.50 138.50 243 Carnelian Glen 135.00 135.00 244 Cunningham/Glasgow Landscape 145.64 145.64 245 Fredericksburg Landscape 31.51 31.51 246 Greenbriar Landscape 158.01 158.01 247 Kerwin Ranch Landscape 311.00 311.00 248 Leutar Court Landscape 57.25 57.25 251 McCartysville Landscape 180.00 315.57 495.57 252 Prides Crossing Landscape 251.20 251.20 253 Saratoga Legends Landscape 158.00 158.00 254 Sunland Park Landscape 203.00 203.00 255 Tricia Woods Landscape 42.28 42.28 272 Bellgrove Landscape 1,598.00 5,276.91 6,874.91 273 Gateway Landscape 374.99 630.27 1,005.26 274 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 320.00 320.00 276 Tollgate LLD 71.03 71.03 277 Village Commercial Landscape 263.25 263.25 411 CIP Street Projects 1,819.07 63,690.50 65,509.57 412 CIP Parks Projects 202,630.07 2,488.00 205,118.07 413 CIP Facility Projects 26,209.89 26,209.89 421 Tree Fine Fund 17,300.00 5,800.00 23,100.00 431 Grant Fund -CIP Streets 30,172.78 5,022.00 35,194.78 612 Workers' Comp 354.59 354.59 621 Office Stores Fund 1,413.12 1,413.12 622 Information Technology 2,506.79 2,471.01 4,977.80 623 Vehicle & Equipment Maint 2,711.42 1,516.71 4,228.13 624 Building Maintenance 7,622.35 2,305.56 9,927.91 631 12,345.25 12,345.25 632 172.10 172.10 711 4,106.40 4,106.40 722,670.50 161,146.80 883,817.30 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the 'A/P Checks By Period and Year' report format TOTAL Fund Description Vehicle & Equipment Replacement IT Equipment Replacement Library Capital Improvement 7 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 10/28/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 10:15:27 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113478’ and ’113535’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113478 10/15/09 234 A T & T 6246202 SUPERTRUNK 0.00 546.66 11111 113478 10/15/09 234 A T & T 6246202 MTHLY CHARGES 0.00 177.89 11111 113478 10/15/09 234 A T & T 6246202 ALARM SYSTEM 0.00 87.05 11111 113478 10/15/09 234 A T & T 6246202 SR CENTER ALARM 0.00 31.49 11111 113478 10/15/09 234 A T & T 1117102 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 0.00 204.84 11111 113478 10/15/09 234 A T & T 6246202 NORTH CAMPUS 0.00 76.84 11111 113478 10/15/09 234 A T & T 1115301 CORP YARD ER LINE 0.00 45.94 11111 113478 10/15/09 234 A T & T 1115301 BLANEY PHONE MODEM 0.00 15.24 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,185.95 11111 113479 10/15/09 72 ADVANTAGE JANITORIAL SUP 6246202 SUPPLIES − JANITORIAL JANITORIAL 0.00 139.84 11111 113479 10/15/09 72 ADVANTAGE JANITORIAL SUP 6246202 SUPPLIES − JANITORIAL 0.00 366.44 11111 113479 10/15/09 72 ADVANTAGE JANITORIAL SUP 6246202 SUPPLIES − JANITORIAL 0.00 62.72 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 569.00 11111 113480 10/15/09 521 ALLIED LOCK & SAFE INC 6246202 SUPPLIES − FACILITIES 0.00 66.10 11111 113481 10/15/09 500 ARCHER, AMY 111 FACILITY DEP REFUND 0.00 300.00 11111 113482 10/15/09 601 B&B LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR 421 RETENTION − K MORAN 0.00 −1,700.00 11111 113482 10/15/09 601 B&B LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR 412 RETENTION − K MORAN 0.00 −10,811.35 11111 113482 10/15/09 601 B&B LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR 431 RETENTION 0.00 30,172.78 11111 113482 10/15/09 601 B&B LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR 412 RETENTION 0.00 94,516.56 11111 113482 10/15/09 601 B&B LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR 421 RETENTION 0.00 2,000.00 11111 113482 10/15/09 601 B&B LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR 412 RETENTION 0.00 10,811.35 11111 113482 10/15/09 601 B&B LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR 4129237−001 K MORAN IMPROVEMENTS 0.00 108,113.51 11111 113482 10/15/09 601 B&B LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR 4219211−002 K MORAN IMPROVEMENTS 0.00 17,000.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 250,102.85 11111 113483 10/15/09 327 BELANGER, CHRISTINE 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − DANCE 0.00 66.00 11111 113483 10/15/09 327 BELANGER, CHRISTINE 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − DANCE 0.00 88.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 154.00 11111 113484 10/15/09 65 CA PARK AND RECREATION S 1116101 2010 DUES − HENIG 0.00 140.00 11111 113485 10/15/09 99 CAMPBELL UNION HIGH SCHO 1115301 PROSPECT FLD RENTAL 0.00 11,410.00 11111 113485 10/15/09 99 CAMPBELL UNION HIGH SCHO 1115301 PROSPECT FLD RENTAL 0.00 6,860.00 11111 113485 10/15/09 99 CAMPBELL UNION HIGH SCHO 1116101 PROSPECT FLD RENTAL 0.00 420.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 18,690.00 11111 113486 10/15/09 130 CDWG, INC 6323202 BATTERY REPLACEMENT 0.00 172.10 11111 113487 10/15/09 176 CIENEGA LANDSCAPING 2745302 LNDSCP−HORSESHOE 9/09 0.00 320.00 11111 113487 10/15/09 176 CIENEGA LANDSCAPING 1115301 LNDSCP−FOOTHILL 09/09 0.00 178.00 11111 113487 10/15/09 176 CIENEGA LANDSCAPING 2435302 CARNELIAN GLEN 09/09 0.00 135.00 11111 113487 10/15/09 176 CIENEGA LANDSCAPING 1115301 VILLAGE 09/09 0.00 220.00 11111 113487 10/15/09 176 CIENEGA LANDSCAPING 1115301 LNDSCP−C SPRING 09/09 0.00 400.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,253.00 11111 113488 10/15/09 229 COAST OIL COMPANY LLC 6235202 UNLEADED/DIESEL 0.00 1,475.30 11111 113489 10/15/09 772 COMFORT CONSTRUCTION COM 413 RETENTION − LAVATORY 0.00 −2,710.00 8 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2 DATE: 10/28/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 10:15:27 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113478’ and ’113535’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113489 10/15/09 772 COMFORT CONSTRUCTION COM 4139342−002 CORP YARD LAVATORY 0.00 27,100.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 24,390.00 11111 113490 10/15/09 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCI 111 GEO #08−0021 0.00 783.75 11111 113490 10/15/09 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCI 111 GEO#09−0007 0.00 958.75 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,742.50 11111 113491 10/15/09 564 DE LAGE LANDEN PUBLIC FI 6213102 COPIER LEASE 10/09 0.00 1,413.12 11111 113492 10/15/09 573 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1115201 SIGNAL /LIGHT 08/09 0.00 534.79 11111 113493 10/15/09 620 DRAKE WELDING INC 6235202 REPAIR − POLE PULLER 0.00 45.00 11111 113494 10/15/09 1 ENVIRONMENTAL 6246202 DISPOSAL FEE 09/18 0.00 159.17 11111 113495 10/15/09 426 FLINT TRADING, INC 4119111−002 SIGNS − RESTRIPING 0.00 1,426.89 11111 113496 10/15/09 761 FRESHI FILMS, LLC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − FILM 0.00 4,760.00 11111 113497 10/15/09 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGE 1115301 CLEANUP − FRANKLIN 0.00 200.00 11111 113497 10/15/09 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGE 1115301 REPAIRS − S BLOSSOM 0.00 168.40 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 368.40 11111 113498 10/15/09 455 GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPME 1115301 SUPPLIES − PARKS 0.00 95.56 11111 113498 10/15/09 455 GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPME 1115201 SUPPLIES − STREETS 0.00 9.66 11111 113498 10/15/09 455 GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPME 1115201 SUPPLIES − STREETS 0.00 224.47 11111 113498 10/15/09 455 GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPME 1115201 SUPPLIES − STREETS 0.00 38.39 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 368.08 11111 113499 10/15/09 470 GREGORIAN, AGNES 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − DANCE 0.00 128.00 11111 113499 10/15/09 470 GREGORIAN, AGNES 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − DANCE 0.00 128.00 11111 113499 10/15/09 470 GREGORIAN, AGNES 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − DANCE 0.00 128.00 11111 113499 10/15/09 470 GREGORIAN, AGNES 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − DANCE 0.00 128.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 512.00 11111 113500 10/15/09 520 FUN FUN FUNDAMENTALS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SPORTS 0.00 169.40 11111 113500 10/15/09 520 FUN FUN FUNDAMENTALS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SPORTS 0.00 230.40 11111 113500 10/15/09 520 FUN FUN FUNDAMENTALS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SPORTS 0.00 302.40 11111 113500 10/15/09 520 FUN FUN FUNDAMENTALS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SPORTS 0.00 145.20 11111 113500 10/15/09 520 FUN FUN FUNDAMENTALS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SPORTS 0.00 169.40 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,016.80 11111 113501 10/15/09 780 HY FLOOR & GAMELINE PAIN 6246202 FLOOR CARE − C CTR 0.00 2,734.00 11111 113502 10/15/09 19 IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, IN 1115201 TREE MAINT − FARWELL 0.00 450.00 11111 113503 10/15/09 24 ICE CENTER OF CUPERTINO 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SKATING 0.00 48.00 11111 113503 10/15/09 24 ICE CENTER OF CUPERTINO 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SKATING 0.00 48.00 11111 113503 10/15/09 24 ICE CENTER OF CUPERTINO 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SKATING 0.00 144.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 240.00 11111 113504 10/15/09 63 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTR 4119111−002 SUPPLIES − RESTRIPING 0.00 229.97 9 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 3 DATE: 10/28/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 10:15:27 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113478’ and ’113535’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113504 10/15/09 63 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTR 6246202 SUPPLIES − FACILITIES 0.00 326.55 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 556.52 11111 113505 10/15/09 123 KELEX SECURITY 6246202 ALARM REPAIR 0.00 235.00 11111 113506 10/15/09 192 LI, CHRISTINE KAISER 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − PILATES 0.00 88.80 11111 113506 10/15/09 192 LI, CHRISTINE KAISER 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − PILATES 0.00 44.40 11111 113506 10/15/09 192 LI, CHRISTINE KAISER 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − PILATES 0.00 432.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 565.20 11111 113507 10/15/09 683 LIST ENGINEERING COMPANY 4139374−001 REIMBURSABLE COSTS 0.00 19.39 11111 113508 10/15/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 1115301 BEAUCHAMPS 09/09 0.00 212.00 11111 113508 10/15/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 1115301 RAVENWOOD 09/09 0.00 110.00 11111 113508 10/15/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 1115301 AZULE PARK 09/09 0.00 565.00 11111 113508 10/15/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 1115301 HISTORICAL 09/09 0.00 170.00 11111 113508 10/15/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 1115301 NORTH CAMPUS 09/09 0.00 450.00 11111 113508 10/15/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 2515302 MCCARTYSVILLE 09/09 0.00 180.00 11111 113508 10/15/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 2545302 SUNLAND 09/09 0.00 203.00 11111 113508 10/15/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 2475302 KERWIN RANCH 09/09 0.00 311.00 11111 113508 10/15/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 2725302 BELLGROVE 09/09 0.00 1,598.00 11111 113508 10/15/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 2535302 LEGENDS 09/09 0.00 158.00 11111 113508 10/15/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 2735302 GATEWAY 09/09 0.00 203.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4,160.00 11111 113509 10/15/09 340 MEYER, GREG 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − NATURE 0.00 30.00 11111 113510 10/15/09 500 MIYAOKA, VICKIE 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 89.00 11111 113511 10/15/09 781 MORROW, CRYSTAL 1111201 PRESSING − TABLECLOTH 0.00 40.00 11111 113512 10/15/09 550 MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAIN 1115301 WATER FOUNTAIN AND PET 0.00 3,300.68 11111 113513 10/15/09 71 MUNIQUIP DITCH WITH EQUI 6235202 REPAIR PARTS VEH #97 0.00 820.99 11111 113514 10/15/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 764.40 11111 113514 10/15/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 873.60 11111 113514 10/15/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 436.80 11111 113514 10/15/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 764.40 11111 113514 10/15/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 546.00 11111 113514 10/15/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 436.80 11111 113514 10/15/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 655.20 11111 113514 10/15/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 436.80 11111 113514 10/15/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 873.60 11111 113514 10/15/15/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 873.60 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 6,661.20 11111 113515 10/15/09 135 NORTH BAY BLDG MAINTENAN 6246202 WKLY SVC 09/27−09/30 0.00 152.00 11111 113515 10/15/09 135 NORTH BAY BLDG MAINTENAN 6246202 WKLY SVC 09/20−09/26 0.00 228.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 380.00 11111 113516 10/15/09 1 OFF OF SHERIFF−FISCAL SV 1117101 LAW ENFORCEMENT 10/09 0.00 344,573.67 10 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 4 DATE: 10/28/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 10:15:27 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113478’ and ’113535’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113517 10/15/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1114101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 57.19 11111 113517 10/15/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1114101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 57.68 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 114.87 11111 113518 10/15/09 540 ORCHARD SUPPLY 6246202 SUPPLIES − FACILITES 0.00 259.78 11111 113519 10/15/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 6246202 NATURAL GAS VEHICLE 0.00 39.56 11111 113519 10/15/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2315302 OAK STREET 0.00 28.47 11111 113519 10/15/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2735302 GATEWAY 0.00 171.99 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 240.02 11111 113520 10/15/09 195 PAPA 1115301 TRAINING − JUAREZ 0.00 70.00 11111 113520 10/15/09 195 PAPA 1115301 DUES − BEAN 0.00 0.00 40.00 11111 113520 10/15/09 195 PAPA 1115301 TRAINING − JUAREZ 0.00 70.00 11111 113520 10/15/09 195 PAPA 1115301 DUES − DE PAREDES 0.00 40.00 11111 113520 10/15/09 195 PAPA 1115301 DUES − JUAREZ 0.00 40.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 260.00 11111 113521 10/15/09 326 PONY EXPRESS TACK 6246202 SUPPLIES − FACILITIES 0.00 509.99 11111 113522 10/15/09 393 REED & GRAHAM, INC 4119111−001 ASHPALT 0.00 162.21 11111 113523 10/15/09 82 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 1115101 PRINTS − RAVENWOOD 0.00 34.53 11111 113524 10/15/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 6246202 BUILDINGS 0.00 787.30 11111 113524 10/15/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1115301 PARKS /OPEN SPACE 0.00 14,716.78 11111 113524 10/15/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 2765302 TOLLGATE 0.00 71.03 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 15,575.11 11111 113525 10/15/09 136 SCOTTY’S AUTOMOTIVE 6235202 MAINTENANCE VEH#109 0.00 65.15 11111 113526 10/15/09 500 SEATER, KAREN 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 74.00 11111 113527 10/15/09 778 SILICON VALLEY AUTO GLAS 6235202 REPAIRS − VEH 109 0.00 239.08 11111 113528 10/15/09 253 STEVE BENZING ARCHITECT 4139351−001 KITCHEN UPGRADE 0.00 800.50 11111 113528 10/15/09 253 STEVE BENZING ARCHITECT 4139351−001 N CAMPUS 0.00 1,000.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,800.50 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115301 SUPPLIES − PARKS 0.00 319.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 2775302 CAMERA−PARKING DIST 0.00 161.18 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 2775302 CAMERA−PARKING DIST 0.00 102.07 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115301 SUPPLIES − PARKS 0.00 25.06 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 CONSTANT CONTACT 0.00 70.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111201 SUPPLIES − TRAINING 0.00 114.55 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 76.46 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6235202 PARTS − VEH #97 0.00 65.90 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111201 SUPPLIES − PC SESSION 0.00 5.49 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1114101 ISA MEMBERSHIP 0.00 120.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 SUPPLIES − FACILITIES 0.00 488.61 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 SUPPLES − JANITORIAL 0.00 3.98 11 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 5 DATE: 10/28/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 10:15:27 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113478’ and ’113535’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 CSTI 8/30/09 0.00 84.72 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 CSTI 8/30−9/3/09 0.00 369.80 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 MMANC CONFERENCE 0.00 274.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 9/09 & 9/16 TRIPS 0.00 15.92 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 TOUR /TRAIN 9/16 0.00 1,340.42 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 GUIDE LUNCH 9/09 0.00 18.34 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 TICKETS − 10/07 0.00 195.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111201 SUPPLIES − TSC MTG 0.00 19.60 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 AGENDA MTG 8/24 0.00 43.33 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 AGENDA MTG 8/31 0.00 33.36 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 AGENDA MTG 9/14 0.00 37.10 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 CONVENTION 9/17 0.00 14.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1118302 SUPPLIES FOR CREW 0.00 188.75 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112201 MMANC − SULLIVAN 0.00 20.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1114101 MMANC − MCCORMICK 0.00 20.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111201 SUPPLIES−LIBRARY COM 0.00 21.14 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112201 SUPPLIES − ER TRAININ 0.00 62.92 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 SUPPLIES −COUNCIL MTG 0.00 407.05 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 SUPPLIES − JOINT MTG 0.00 20.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 SUPPLIES − AGENDA MTG 0.00 49.50 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112201 NEW LAW CONFERENCE 0.00 440.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 SUPPLIES −COUNCIL MTG 0.00 7.98 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112301 ER PREP MTG 8/26 0.00 28.10 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112301 EVENT PLANNING MTG 0.00 31.08 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112301 ICE CREAM SOCIAL 0.00 36.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112301 HR MTG/CITY VEHICLE 0.00 12.05 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112301 GIFT CARDS − EMPLOYEE 0.00 115.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112301 HR/PUBLIC WORKS MTG 0.00 9.38 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112301 HR MTG 9/15 0.00 28.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1113101 GFOA CONFERENCE 0.00 722.55 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 SUPPLIES − FACILITIES FACILITIES 0.00 23.18 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 98.31 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 SUPPLIES − FACILITIES 0.00 21.89 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6128501 WELLNESS SNACKS 0.00 82.99 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 49.60 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115201 HAZMAT TRAINING 0.00 171.73 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6128501 WELLNESS SNACKS 0.00 61.75 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6223201 DATA TAPES B/U 0.00 470.79 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1118302 GARAGE SALE REG FORM 0.00 24.95 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1118302 COUNCIL MATERIALS 0.00 51.91 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 LCC CONFERENCE 0.00 18.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MTG 8/25 0.00 201.85 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 AGENDA MTG 8/27 0.00 52.50 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 POSTAGE 0.00 26.40 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MTG 9/02 0.00 16.26 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MTG 9/02 0.00 137.50 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 AGENDA MTG 9/04 0.00 35.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 NTHP DUES−ANDERSON 0.00 250.00 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MTG 9/16 0.00 300.68 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1117102 ER TRAINING 9/15 0.00 34.95 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MTG 9/16 0.00 6.81 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111201 RECOGNITION DINNER 0.00 43.60 12 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 6 DATE: 10/28/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 10:15:27 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113478’ and ’113535’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1114101 APA CONFERENCE 0.00 950.06 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6128501 WELLNESS SNACKS 0.00 209.85 11111 113531 10/15/09 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1114103 POSTAGE 0.00 44.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 9,601.95 11111 113532 10/15/09 396 US POSTMASTERS 1118101 POSTAGE−SARATOGAN 0.00 1,850.00 11111 113533 10/15/09 1 VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AU 1115101 MBR FEE Q1/10 Q2/10 0.00 11,239.00 11111 113534 10/15/09 425 WESCO GRAPHICS, INC 1118101 PRINTING − NEWSLETTER 0.00 2,907.61 11111 113535 10/15/09 696 ZAG TECHNICAL SERVICES, 6223201 ARCHIVE SOFTWARE 0.00 2,036.00 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 722,670.50 TOTAL FUND 0.00 722,670.50 TOTAL REPORT 0.00 722,670.50 13 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 10/28/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 10:34:26 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113536’ and ’113604’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113536 10/22/09 3 A & M MOTOR SUPPLY 6235202 MAINTENANCE VEH#122 0.00 118.32 11111 113537 10/22/09 234 A T & T 6246202 XEROX MACHINE 0.00 14.34 11111 113537 10/22/09 234 A T & T 6246202 MEASURED BUS LINE 0.00 76.28 11111 113537 10/22/09 234 A T & T 6246202 BOOK−GO−ROUND 0.00 29.94 11111 113537 10/22/09 234 A T & T 1117102 ER LINE 0.00 15.63 11111 113537 10/22/09 234 A T & T 1115301 GATEWAY LLA 0.00 15.33 11111 113537 10/22/09 234 A T & T 1115301 C SPRINGS PARK 0.00 31.02 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 182.54 11111 113538 10/22/09 546 ABAG POWER PURCHASING 6246202 GAS SVC − 09/09 0.00 1,200.00 11111 113539 10/22/09 72 ADVANTAGE JANITORIAL SUP 6246202 SUPPLIES − JANITORIAL 0.00 565.95 11111 113539 10/22/09 72 ADVANTAGE JANITORIAL SUP 1115301 SUPPLIES − JANITORIAL 0.00 639.86 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,205.81 11111 113540 10/22/09 500 ALLEN, MARK 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 44.00 11111 113541 10/22/09 254 AWARD COMPANY OF AMERICA 1111101 AWARD PLAQUES 0.00 302.50 11111 113542 10/22/09 760 BLOSSOM VALLEY CONSTRUCT 411 RETENTION 0.00 −4,989.63 11111 113542 10/22/09 760 BLOSSOM VALLEY CONSTRUCT 4119132−002 PROS MEDIAN 0.00 49,896.25 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 44,906.62 11111 113543 10/22/09 692 CBSC 1114201 Q3 BUILDING CODE FEE 0.00 483.30 11111 113544 10/22/09 130 CDWG, INC 6223201 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 0.00 1,008.65 11111 113545 10/22/09 500 CENTENO, EMMA 111 FACILITY RENTAL DEP 0.00 300.00 11111 113546 10/22/09 783 CINNABAR WINERY, LLC 4119132−005 IMPROVEMENT GRANT 0.00 2,837.00 11111 113547 10/22/09 229 COAST OIL COMPANY LLC 6235202 UNLEADED /DIESEL 0.00 1,305.05 11111 113548 10/22/09 342 DATA TICKET INC 1117101 MTHLY FEE 08/09 0.00 100.00 11111 113549 10/22/09 528 DAVID . GATES & & ASSOCIAT 4119142−003 VILLAGE PROJ 0.00 146.38 11111 113550 10/22/09 500 DAVID, LUCILLE 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 44.00 11111 113551 10/22/09 211 DEEP CLIFF GOLF COURSE 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − GOLF 0.00 477.36 11111 113552 10/22/09 247 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATI 1114201 Q3 SMIP PAYMENTS 0.00 1,183.88 11111 113553 10/22/09 341 DU−ALL SAFETY 1115201 HAZ WASTE TRAINING 0.00 1,050.00 11111 113553 10/22/09 341 DU−ALL SAFETY 6246202 HAZ WASTE TRAINING 0.00 280.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,330.00 11111 113554 10/22/09 355 DURAN & VENABLES, INC. 4119141−002 SILT REMOVAL 0.00 15,000.00 11111 113555 10/22/09 416 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 1115301 TREE SPRAY− FRUITVALE 0.00 150.00 14 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2 DATE: 10/28/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 10:34:26 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113536’ and ’113604’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113556 10/22/09 419 EVENT SERVICES 1115301 PORTA POTTY RNTL 9/09 0.00 254.91 11111 113557 10/22/09 727 FIELD PAOLI ARCHITECTS 7118701 SARA LIBRARY 0.00 4,106.40 11111 113558 10/22/09 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGE 4129237−001 LNDSCP − HIST MUSEUM 0.00 2,488.00 11111 113559 10/22/09 455 GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPME 1115301 SUPPLIES − PARKS 0.00 160.64 11111 113559 10/22/09 455 GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPME 1115301 CHAINSAW 0.00 524.88 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 685.52 11111 113560 10/22/09 461 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFIC 1113101 2010 DUES − EDRIS 0.00 250.00 11111 113561 10/22/09 500 GUINDON, SYLVIE 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 69.00 11111 113562 10/22/09 19 IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, IN 4219211−002 REMOVE TREE − AZULE 0.00 5,800.00 11111 113563 10/22/09 498 INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNT 1112101 ICMA DUES 0.00 1,225.00 11111 113564 10/22/09 57 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE 1112201 DUES − SULLIVAN 0.00 165.00 11111 113565 10/22/09 63 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTR 4119121−001 SIGNS− TRAFFIC SAFETY 0.00 766.55 11111 113566 10/22/09 118 JUST FOR KICKS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SOCCER 0.00 355.50 11111 113566 10/22/09 118 JUST FOR KICKS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SOCCER 0.00 533.25 11111 113566 10/22/09 118 JUST FOR KICKS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SOCCER 0.00 474.00 11111 113566 10/22/09 118 JUST FOR KICKS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SOCCER 0.00 1,185.00 11111 113566 10/22/09 118 JUST FOR KICKS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SOCCER 0.00 829.50 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 3,377.25 11111 113567 10/22/09 500 KIM, GRACE 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 89.00 11111 113568 10/22/09 500 KIRKBRIDE, PAMELA 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 59.00 11111 113569 10/22/09 500 KO, ESTHER 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 49.00 11111 113570 10/22/09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 108.00 11111 113570 10/22/09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 43.20 11111 113570 10/22/09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 39.60 11111 113570 10/22/09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 82.80 11111 113570 10/22/09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 110.40 11111 113570 10/22/09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 138.00 11111 113570 10/22/09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 27.60 11111 113570 10/22/09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 154.80 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 704.40 11111 113571 10/22/09 171 LABOSSIERE, MONICA 1112301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 27.70 11111 113571 10/22/09 171 LABOSSIERE, MONICA 1112301 SUPPLIES − COOKOFF 0.00 198.84 11111 113571 10/22/09 171 LABOSSIERE, MONICA 1112301 SUPPLIES − COOKOFF 0.00 12.39 11111 113571 10/22/09 171 LABOSSIERE, MONICA 1112301 SUPPLIES − COOKOFF 0.00 8.74 11111 113571 10/22/09 171 LABOSSIERE, MONICA 1112301 SUPPLIES − COOKOFF 0.00 70.88 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 318.55 15 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 3 DATE: 10/28/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 10:34:26 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113536’ and ’113604’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113572 10/22/09 673 LOEVERICH, ALEXIS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − YOGA 0.00 64.00 11111 113572 10/22/09 673 LOEVERICH, ALEXIS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − YOGA 0.00 297.50 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 361.50 11111 113573 10/22/09 500 MARTINEZ, ERIC 111 RENTAL DEP REFUND 0.00 300.00 11111 113574 10/22/09 33 SKYTERRA 1117102 MTHLY SVC 10/09 0.00 73.38 11111 113575 10/22/09 40 MONTEZ SUPPLY CO. RENE M 6235202 EQUIPMENT BOLTS 0.00 50.08 11111 113576 10/22/09 782 MOUNTAINV VIEW GARDEN CE 1115301 SUPPLIES − PARKS 0.00 144.05 11111 113577 10/22/09 577 NUTRITIVE FOODS, LLC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − COOKING 0.00 63.00 11111 113578 10/22/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1115201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 73.57 11111 113578 10/22/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1115101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 101.31 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 174.88 11111 113579 10/22/09 500 ONTON, AARE 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 44.00 11111 113580 10/22/09 60 ONTRAC 4319112−002 DELIVER: O GRADY 0.00 6.50 11111 113580 10/22/09 60 ONTRAC 4319274−001 DELIVER: SHUTE MIHALY 0.00 5.00 11111 113580 10/22/09 60 ONTRAC 4319274−001 DELIVER: SARATOGA 0.00 5.50 11111 113580 10/22/09 60 ONTRAC 4319274−001 DELIVER: VTA 0.00 5.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 22.00 11111 113581 10/22/09 500 PATAKY, GRACE 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 89.00 11111 113582 10/22/09 375 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRAVEL 1116101 EXCURSION SVC 11/05 0.00 812.00 11111 113582 10/22/09 375 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRAVEL 1116101 EXCURSION SVC 11/19 0.00 775.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,587.00 11111 113583 10/22/09 500 RAJ, PRITHVI 111 ARBORIST DEP REFUND 0.00 2,140.00 11111 113584 10/22/09 388 RATRA, RICK 6235202 PROPANE 0.00 43.26 11111 113585 10/22/09 393 REED & GRAHAM, INC 4119111−001 ASPHALT 0.00 33.95 11111 113586 10/22/09 09 397 REED EQUIPMENT COMPANY 6315203 JD FIELD GROOMER 0.00 12,345.25 11111 113587 10/22/09 409 REPUBLIC ITS 1115201 SIGNAL MAINT 07/09 0.00 1,425.00 11111 113587 10/22/09 409 REPUBLIC ITS 1115201 SIGNAL MAINT 08/09 0.00 1,425.00 11111 113587 10/22/09 409 REPUBLIC ITS 2315302 STREETLIGHT SVC 09/09 0.00 1,312.00 11111 113587 10/22/09 409 REPUBLIC ITS 2315302 STREETLIGHT SVC 08/09 0.00 329.50 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4,491.50 11111 113588 10/22/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1115301 PARKS /OPEN SPACE 0.00 1,273.00 11111 113588 10/22/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 2455302 FREDERICKSBURG 0.00 31.51 11111 113588 10/22/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 2465302 GREENBRIAR 0.00 158.01 11111 113588 10/22/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 2515302 MCCARTYSVILLE 0.00 315.57 11111 113588 10/22/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 2555302 TRICIA WOODS 0.00 42.28 11111 113588 10/22/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 2415302 ARROYO DE SARATOGA 0.00 269.25 16 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 4 DATE: 10/28/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 10:34:26 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113536’ and ’113604’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113588 10/22/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 2485302 LEUTAR CT 0.00 57.25 11111 113588 10/22/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 2425302 BONNET WAY 0.00 138.50 11111 113588 10/22/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 2525302 PRIDES CROSSING 0.00 251.20 11111 113588 10/22/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 2725302 BELLGROVE 0.00 5,276.91 11111 113588 10/22/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 2445302 CUNNINGHAM/GLASGOW 0.00 145.64 11111 113588 10/22/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 2735302 GATEWAY 0.00 630.27 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 8,589.39 11111 113589 10/22/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 4319274−001 STIPULATION JUDGEMENT 0.00 5,000.00 11111 113590 10/22/09 522 SARATOGA TREE SERVICE 1115301 TREE SVC − CITY HALL 0.00 1,800.00 11111 113591 10/22/09 505 SC FIRE DEPARTMENT 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − CPR 0.00 6.00 11111 113592 10/22/09 124 SCHWAAB INC 1112201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 51.88 11111 113593 10/22/09 147 SHIMODA MICHIKO 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − IKEBANA 0.00 138.00 11111 113593 10/22/09 147 SHIMODA MICHIKO 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − IKEBANA 0.00 103.50 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 241.50 11111 113594 10/22/09 162 SILICON VALLEY COMM NEWS 1112201 LGL NOTICE: ORD 273 0.00 78.00 11111 113594 10/22/09 162 SILICON VALLEY COMM NEWS 1112201 LGL NOTICE: ORD 271 0.00 68.25 11111 113594 10/22/09 162 SILICON VALLEY COMM NEWS 1112201 LGL NOTICE: ORD 272 0.00 78.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 224.25 11111 113595 10/22/09 784 THE MARINE MAMMAL CENTER 1116101 EXCURSION SVC 0.00 234.00 11111 113596 10/22/09 500 TRABER, DORIS 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 99.00 11111 113597 10/22/09 385 UNIVERSAL SWEEPING SERVI 1115103 SWEEP SVC 09/09 0.00 900.00 11111 113597 10/22/09 385 UNIVERSAL SWEEPING SERVI 1115103 SWEEP SVC 09/09 0.00 7,489.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 8,389.00 11111 113598 10/22/09 660 VALDIVIA, JOHN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KICKBOX 0.00 55.20 11111 113599 10/22/09 1 VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AU 1115101 Q1&Q2/10 AGENCY FEE 0.00 11,239.00 11111 113600 10/22/09 500 VAN, DANH 111 ARBORIST DEP REFUND 0.00 2,140.00 11111 113601 10/22/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1112101 CTY MGR OFFICE 0.00 65.80 11111 113601 10/22/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1112201 CTY CLERK OFFICE 0.00 71.93 11111 113601 10/22/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1113101 ADMIN/FINANCE DEPT 0.00 64.80 11111 113601 10/22/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 6223201 IT SERVICES 0.00 266.11 11111 113601 10/22/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1114201 CDD − INSPECTION 0.00 87.08 11111 113601 10/22/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1114101 CDD − DEVELOPMENT 0.00 73.25 11111 113601 10/22/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1114103 CDD − CODE COMPLIANCE 0.00 42.04 11111 113601 10/22/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1115201 PW − STREETS 0.00 209.63 11111 113601 10/22/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1115301 PW − PARKS 0.00 306.46 11111 113601 10/22/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1115101 PW − ENGINEERING 0.00 119.46 11111 113601 10/22/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1115102 PW − DEVELOPMENT 0.00 1.18 11111 113601 10/22/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 6246202 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 0.00 139.05 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,446.79 17 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 5 DATE: 10/28/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 10:34:26 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113536’ and ’113604’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113602 10/22/09 590 WANG, MARIA 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MANNERS 0.00 238.40 11111 113603 10/22/09 198 WITTWER & PARKIN, LLP 111 APP # 04−034 0.00 25.10 11111 113603 10/22/09 198 WITTWER & PARKIN, LLP 111 APP # GPA 09−0002 0.00 5,475.20 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 5,500.30 11111 113604 10/22/09 696 ZAG TECHNICAL SERVICES, 6223201 IT SUPPORT 09/09 0.00 1,196.25 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 161,146.80 TOTAL FUND 0.00 161,146.80 TOTAL REPORT 0.00 161,146.80 18 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Xu, Accountant DEPT HEAD: Mary Furey SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended September 30, 2009 RECOMMENDED ACTION Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended September 30, 2009. REPORT SUMMARY California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer (the Municipal Code of the City of Saratoga, Article 2-20, Section 2-20.035, designates the City Manager as the City Treasurer) submit to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. Section 41004. Regularly, at least once each month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. He shall file a copy with the legislative body. The following attachments provide various financial transaction data for the City of Saratoga’s Funds collectively as well as specifically for the City’s General (Operating) Fund, including an attachment from the State Treasurer’s Office of Quarterly LAIF rates from the 1st Quarter of 1977 to present. FISCAL IMPACT Cash and Investments Balance by Fund As of September 30, 2009, the City had $362,943 in cash deposit at Comerica bank, and $12,844,017 on deposit with LAIF. Council Policy on operating reserve funds, adopted on April 20, 1994, states that: for cash flow purposes, to avoid occurrence of dry period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be allowed to fall below $2,000,000. The total pooled cash balance as of September 30, 2009 is $13,206,961 and exceeds the minimum limit required. 19 Unrestricted Cash Comerica Bank $ 362,943 Deposit with LAIF $ 12,844,017 Total Unrestricted Cash $ 13,206,961 Cash Summary The Fund Balance schedule presented on the following page represents actual funding available for all funds at the end of the monthly period. This amount differs from the above Cash Summary schedule as assets and liabilities are components of the fund balance. As illustrated in the summary below, Total Unrestricted Cash is adjusted by the addition of Total Assets less the amount of Total Liabilities to arrive at the Ending Fund Balance – which represents the actual amount of funds available. Total Unrestricted Cash $ 13,206,961 Plus: Assets 217,188 Less: Liabilities (1,670,538) Ending Fund Balance $ 11,753,611 Adjusting Cash to Ending Fund Balance CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION The City would not be in compliance with Government Code Section 41004. ALTERNATIVE ACTION N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT N/A ATTACHMENTS A – Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund B – Change in Total Fund Balances by CIP Project C – Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates 20 ATTACHMENT A CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE Fund Description Fund Balance 7/1/09 Increase/(Decrease) Jul-Aug Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfers Fund Balance 9/30/09 General Undesignated Unreserved Balance 857,524 (207,751) 534,405 1,879,051 -(694,873) Reserved Fund Balance: Petty Cash Reserve 1,300 ----1,300 Designated Fund Balances: --Designated for Operations 2,870,140 ----2,870,140 Designated Economic Uncertainty 1,500,000 ----1,500,000 Designated for Development 707,380 ---(75,000) 6 32,380 Designated for Environmental 613,182 ---(50,000) 5 63,182 Designated for Uncollected Deposits 182,159 ----182,159 Designated for Mid Pen Open Space 250,000 ---(250,000) -Designated for Hillside Reserve 300,000 ----300,000 Designated for CIP Matching Grant 600,000 ----600,000 Designated for CIP Transfer 300,000 ---(300,000) -Designated for Economic Stability 25,000 ---(25,000) -Designated for Carryforward 22,000 ---(22,000) -Special Revenue Landscape/Lighting Districts 359,917 (7,346) 2,041 1 7,238 -337,375 CDBG Federal Grants ------SHARP Loan 209,175 -284 --209,460 Capital Project Street Projects 1,926,230 88,968 48,018 2 9,943 -2,033,274 Park and Trail Projects 542,045 (6,973) 277,050 5 4,827 -757,296 Facility Improvement Projects 953,833 (70,466) 70,000 2 56,883 -696,485 Administrative Projects 163,910 (2,635) 50,000 1 5,062 -196,212 Tree Fine Fund 62,943 1,596 1,920 7 5 -6 6,384 CIP Grant Fund (200,477) (70,090) 24,352 1 92,420 -(438,635) Gas Tax Fund 62,495 ----6 2,495 Debt Service Library Bond 931,361 (673,927) 4,632 -262,066 Internal Service Fund Liability/Risk Management 202,872 (148,904) (1,834) --5 2,134 Workers Compensation 123,034 15,145 (3,065) 1 ,057 -134,058 Office Stores Fund 39,633 6,864 -2,819 -4 3,677 Information Technology Services 174,838 24,134 -1 6,468 -182,504 Equipment Maintenance 56,654 24,645 -1 0,413 -7 0,886 Building Maintenance 208,842 93,240 -5 6,309 -245,773 Equipment Replacement 153,214 50,000 ---203,214 Technology Replacement 315,290 14,416 -5 0,000 -279,706 Trust/Agency Library Fund 354,394 (532) 925 --354,788 KSAR -Community Access TV 84,603 (34,570) 139 --5 0,172 Total City 14,953,491 (904,185) 1,008,868 2,582,565 (722,000) 11,753,611 21 • ATTACHMENT B FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT CIP Funds/Projects Fund Balance 7/1/09 Increase/(Decrease) Jul-Aug Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfers Fund Balance 9/30/09 Street Projects Traffic Safety 90,472 ---90,472 Highway 9 Safety Project 45,129 ---45,129 Annual Street Resurfacing Project 233,602 90,002 48,018 10,219 361,404 Sidewalks Annual Project 18,935 ---18,935 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Resurfacing 64,972 ---64,972 Traffic Signal @Verde Vista Lane 90,000 ---90,000 Fourth Street Bridge 100,000 ---100,000 Quito Road Bridge Replacement Design 9,730 ---9,730 Quito Road Bridge Construction 115,726 ---115,726 Village Newsrack Enclosure 23,307 ---23,307 Village Façade Program 18,815 ---18,815 Solar Power Radar Feedback Signs 24,158 ---24,158 El Quito Area Curb Replacement 37,553 ---37,553 Sobey Road Culvert Repair 150,000 ---150,000 Annual Storm Drain Upgrade 246 --19,724 (19,478) Village Trees & Lights at Sidestreets 25,336 ---25,336 Village Pedestrian Enhancement 9,128 ---9,128 Prospect Road Median 151,036 ---151,036 City Entrance Sign/Monument 23,788 ---23,788 Village-Streetscape Impv 517,188 ---517,188 Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway Sidewalk 4,107 ---4,107 Comer Drive Retaining Wall 173,003 (1,034) --171,969 Total Street Projects 1,926,230 88,968 48,018 29,943 -2,033,274 Parks & Trails Hakone Garden Koi Pond 49,150 ---49,150 EL Quito Park Improvements 43,905 ---43,905 Wildwood Park -Water Feature/Seating 275 ---275 Historical Park Landscape 33,890 ---33,890 Hakone Garden Retaining Wall & D/W 142,829 ---142,829 Hakone Garden Upper Moon House 125,000 ---125,000 Kevin Moran Improvements 69,083 (6,973) 27,050 2,817 86,344 West Valley Soccer Field (29,176) ---(29,176) Park/Trail Repairs 7,748 --4,288 3,460 Trail Segment #3 Repair 68,606 --7,912 60,694 Teerlink Ranch Trail 14,850 --14,850 (0) Tank Trail Repair ---24,960 (24,960) Mid Pen O/S Land Purchase --250,000 -250,000 CIP Allocation Fund 15,885 ---15,885 Total Parks & Trails 542,045 (6,973) 277,050 54,827 -757,296 Facility Improvements Warner Hutton House House Improvements 813 ---813 Facility Projects 108,643 --73,236 35,407 Civic Center Improvement 4,294 (340) --3,954 Theater Improvement 68,518 13,117 -6,460 75,175 Corp Yard -Men's Restroom 1,829 (1,407) 70,000 292 70,131 Fire Alarm at McWilliams & Museum 11,371 ---11,371 North Campus Improvements 43,960 ---43,960 North Campus -Bldg Removal 73,250 (1,189) -50,673 21,388 Multi-Purpose Room Fund 250,000 ---250,000 Corp Yard Solar Project 93,250 ---93,250 Library HVAC Upgrade 276,143 (80,646) -126,222 69,275 Library -EXT Improvement 10,000 ---10,000 McWilliams House Improvement 10,000 ---10,000 Historical Park Fire Alarm System 1,762 ---1,762 Total Facility Improvements 953,833 (70,466) 70,000 256,883 -696,486 Administrative Projects Financial System Upgrade 3,534 ---3,534 Document Imaging Project 86,780 ---86,780 CDD Document Imaging Project 36,635 (2,635) -1,025 32,974 Website Development Project 30,959 --14,037 16,922 IT Emergency Power Back --10,000 -10,000 IT Server Room A/C --40,000 -40,000 KSAR Equip Upgrades 6,002 ---6,002 Total Administrative Projects 163,910 (2,635) 50,000 15,062 -196,212 Tree Fine Fund Tree Fine Fund 62,943 1,596 1,920 75 66,384 CIP Fund CIP Grant Fund (200,477) (70,090) 24,352 192,420 (438,635) Gax Fund Gas Tax Fund 62,495 ---62,495 Total CIP Funds 3,510,979 (59,600) 471,340 549,209 -3,373,511 22 • ATTACHMENT C 23 Bill Lockyer, State Treasurer 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Inside the State Treasurer's Office LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND QUARTERLY APPORTIONMENT RATES MARCH JUNE SEl'rEMBER I)ECEMBER" 5.68 5.78 5.84 6.45 6.97 7.35 7.86 8.32 8.81 9.10 9.26 10.06 11.11 11.54 10.01 10.47 11.23 11.68 12.40 11.91 11.82 11.99 11.74 10.71 -9.87 9.64 10.04 10.18 -10.32 10.88 11.53 11.41 10.32 9.98 -9.54 9.43 9.09 8.39 7.81 7.48 7.24 7.21 7.54 7.97 t'l.OI 7.87 8.20 8.45 -8.76 9.13 8.87 H.68 8.52 8.50 8.39 8.27 7.97 7.38 7.00 6.52 5.87 5.45 4.97 4.67 4.64 4.51 4.44 4.36 4.25 4.45 --4.96 5.37 5.76 5.98 -5.89 5.76 5.62 5.52 5.57 5.58 5.56 5.63 5.68 5.71 5.70 5.66 5.64 5.46 5.19 5.08 5.21 5.49 5.80 6.18 6.47 6.52 6.16 5.32 4.47 3.52 -2.96 2.75 2.63 2.31 1.98 1.77 1.63 1.56 1.47 1.44 1.67 2.00 2.38 2.85 3.18 3.63 4.03 4.53 4.93 5. t I -5.17 5.23 -5.24 4.96 4.18 3.11 2.77 2.54 1.91 1.51 1.51 0.90 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Senior Engineer Public Works Director SUBJECT: Final map approval for two lots located at 15211 Hume Drive Owner: Adel and Maria Khouja RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Move to adopt Resolution granting final map approval of tentative map application No. SUB 09-0001 for two lots located at 15211 Hume Drive. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is a Resolution, which, if adopted, will grant final map approval for two lots, located at 15211 Hume Drive (APN 510-01-016). Staff and the City Surveyor have examined the final map and related documents submitted to the City in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.40.020 of the Municipal Code and it was 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. 09-031, 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, the City Surveyor’s certificate has been executed on the final map and the final map has been filed 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 $8,262.50 in Engineering Fees and $20,700 in Park Development Fees. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: 24 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. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION: The signed map will be released to the subdivider's Title Company for recordation along with recording instructions. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Map. 2. Parcel Map. 3. Resolution granting final map approval. 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-015 approving the tentative map with conditions. 25 SITE MAP Application Number: Location: APN: Owner: Date: SUB 09-0001 15211 Hume Drive 510-01-016 Adel and Maria Khouja November 4, 2009 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 ± Feet SITE Park Drive S. Park Drive Ro bin Way Pepper Lane Hume Drive Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 26 /\ U l I l~r\ ~ 1) I Ii J \1 \ \ \ D \ I~ ~ \ 27 OWNER'S STATEMENT WE HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF OR HAVE SOME RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST TO THE REAL PROPERTY INCLUDED WITH THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON THIS MAP; THAT WE ARE THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY TO PASS A CLEAR TITLE TO SAID PROPERTY; AND THAT WE HEREBY CONSENT TO THE MAKING OF SAID MAP AND SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE. WE ALSO HEREBY RESERVE FOR THE OWNERS OF PARCEL "A" AND "B", THEIR LICENSEES, VISITORS, AND TENANTS RECIPROCAL RIGHTS OF INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS UNDER, ON OR OVER THAT CERTAIN STRIP OF LAND DESIGNATED AND DELINEATED AS "P.I.E.U.E" (PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT) M. ADEL KHOUJA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ---------------MARIA DELL'OCA KHOUJA ON __________ 20 _ BEFORE ME, ___________ , A NOTARY PUBLIC, PERSONALLY APPEARED ______________ WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTIRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTIRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT. WITNESS MY HAND. NOTARY'S SIGNATURE ____________ NOTARY'S PRINTED NAME ___________ NOTARY'S PRINCIPAL COUNTY OF BUSINESS ______ NOTARY'S COMMISSION NUMBER _________ EXPIRATION OF NOTARY'S COMMISSION ________ SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF ADEL KHOUJA ON JULY 22, 2009. I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, IF ANY; AND THAT THE SURVEY IS TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN; THAT ALL MONUMENTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED, AND THAT THE MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. DYLAN GONSALVES, PLS 8475 DATE EXPIRATION DATE: 12-31-2010 CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE WITHIN PARCEL MAP; THAT THE SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN HEREON IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IT APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP, IF ANY, AND ANY APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF; AND THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, AS AMENDED, AND ANY LOCAL ORDINANCE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP, IF REQUIRED, HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. IVETA HARVANCIK, RCE 58980 DATE EXPIRATION DATE: 6-30-2010 CITY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE HEREON SUBDIVISION MAP AND I AM SATISFIED THAT SAID MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT. MARK A. HELTON, PLS 7078 DATE EXPIRATION DATE: 12-31-2010 CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP, CONSISTING OF 1 SHEET, WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY RESOLUTION NO. ____ AT A DULY AUTHORIZED MEETING OF SAID CITY COUNCIL HELD ON THE __ DAY OF ______ , 2009. DATE: ____ BY: _________ ANN SULLIVAN, ACTING CITY CLERK RECORDER'S STATEMENT FILE NO.______ FEE $ _ PAID FILED THIS ___ DAY OF ______ 2009 AT __ ~. IN BOOK ___ OF MAPS AT PAGE ___ AT THE REQUEST OF __________ REGINA ALCOMENDRAS, COUNTY RECORDER SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BY: ________ DEPUTY BASIS OF BEARINGS BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE MONUMENTS LOCATED ALONG HUME DRIVE AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "TlRACT NO. 128, GLEN UNA PARK -UNIT NO.2", FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS AT PAGE 30 AND 31. THE BEARING NORTH 13"51'30" WEST, WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP. NOTES 1. DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 2. THE AREA WITHIN THE DISCTINCTIVE BORDER IS 1.174± ACRES, MORE OR LESS. f\'IJ-... __ FD 3/4" IP AND TAG STAMPED 0.75' "LS 2734", UNKNOWN ORIGIN LOT 6 4 MAPS 30-31 REFERENCES SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS: R1 MAP OF TlRACT NO. 128, 4 MAPS 30-31 R2 MAP OF TlRACT NO. 5023, 304 MAPS 45-46. LEGEND DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE PARCEL LINE --------BUILDING SETBACK LINE MONUMENT LINE (CENTER LINE) ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE RECORD DATA IN CONFLICT WITH MEASURED DATA ( ) FOUND FD IRON PIPE IP PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT P.I.E.U.E. SEARCHED, NOT FOUND SNF • FD. 3/4" OPEN IRON PIPE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED o SET 5/8" REBAR & PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "PLS 8475" """ SET 3/4" BRASS TAG IN CONCRETE "'" STAMPED "PLS 8475" \Il FD 3/4" OPEN IP, SET TAG "PLS 8475" ~ DETAIL 'A' (J\ ~ NOT TO SCALE N90·00'OO"E -305.93' (305.91' R1) 280.18' 123.68' LOT 9 304 MAPS 45-46 N90·00'OO"E -161.43' P.I.E.U.E. (SHOWN HATCHED) PARCEL A GROSS AND NET 26,951± SO FT 0.619± AC \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ BUILDING SETBACK L1NE~ " PER 4 MAPS 30-31 '\ 198.39' 322.07 N90·00'OO"W -347.82' (347.84' R2) LOT 1 304 MAPS 45-46 \ ~ (J\ ~ PARCEL MAP OF THE LANDS OF KHOUJA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 7, TRACT NO. 128, "GLEN UNA PARK -UNIT NO.2", AS SHOWN ON VOLUME 4 OF MAPS, PAGES 30-31 31 AND LYING ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCALE 1"=30' SEPTEMBER 2009 DMG ENGINEERING, INC. Vol a 30 OAKVUE CT, PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523 PHONE (925) 787-0463. FAX (925) 287-8503 SCALE: 1· = 30' ~ I I o ~5 15 ~ 60 \ FD 3/4" OPEN IP, 12" DOWN IN ASPHALT PER Rl FD 3/4" OPEN IP, 12" DOWN IN ASPHAL T PER Rl m » \V) ~-Vol ~O a ~ ,..... . " f!: a:: a z ~ ~~ ~m ~f' <0 ~» ~~1Z Ol """"GJ <0. V) \ ~ a> (J\ -.l.. FD 3/4" OPEN IP, 12" DOWN IN ASPHAL T PER Rl -\ , p 5.£· 10 M 45) \ (304 FD 3/4" OPEN IP IN MONUMENT WELL PER R2 SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF APPLICATION NO. SUB 09-0001 15211 Hume Drive The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: Two lots as shown on that certain Parcel Map prepared by DMG Engineering, Inc., dated September 2009, and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga on November 4, 2009, are approved as TWO (2) individual lots. SECTION 2: No easements are offered for dedication to public on said map. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 4th day of November, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Chuck Page, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 28 29 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09·031 FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION Application SUB09·0001 Adel & Maria Khouja; 15211 Hume Drive The City of Saratoga Plamting Conunission finds and detennines as follows with respect to the above·described application: I. Project Summary The City of Saratoga Planning Commission has recei ved an application for a Tentative Map Approval for the Project shown in Exhibit "A" date stamped June 11 ,2009 incorporated by this reference. This Project is to subdivide an approximately 51,131 square foot parcel located at 152 11 Hume Drive into two lots. "Parcel A" would be approximately 26,951 square feet with street frontage on Hume Drive. "Parcel 8" would be approximately 24,180 gross square feet (2 1,001 net) with access via a 20 foot wide corridor fi-onting Hume Olive. The property is zoned R· I· 20,000 with a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (RLD). The foregoing Tentative Map will be described as the "Proj ect" in tillS Reso lution. II. Subdivision Requirement City Code Sections 14·20.030 and 14·20.060 requires an application and public hearing for tentative subdi vision map approval. III. Planning Commission Review On June 24, 2009, the Plmming Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project at willch time all interested parties were given a full OpportUillty to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Plmullng Conunission considered the Project, the staff report on the Project, CEQA documentation, correspondence, presentation from the Applicant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing. IV. Environmental Review The Project is categorically exempt from the Califomia Envirorunental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 14 C.C.R. Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) because the project is I) di viding property in an urballlzed area that is zoned for residenti al use into four or fewer parcels, 2) the project is in confom1ance with the General Plm1 and Zoning Ordinance, 3) no vmiances or exceptions are required, 4) all 30 services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, 5) the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years, and 6) the parcel does not have an average slope greater that 20 percent. No exception to tllis exemption applies. v. Subdivision Findings The findings required for issuance of a Subdivision are set forth below. The Applicant's Project has met the burden of proof to SUppOlt the Findings required for approval of a Subdivision under City Code Section 14-20.070(b), as set forth below: Finding 1: The proposed map or building site is consistent lVith the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The project meets the finding in that the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Low Density defll1ed as 2.1 8 dwelling lulits per net acre, and the minin1um lot size of20,000 square feet required by the municipal code for the R-I-20,000 zone dislIict. Parcel A is 26,951 square feet and Parcel B is 24,180 gross square feet (21 ,00 I net). Proposed lot dimensions meet or exceed the nlinimum frontage of 80 feet, width of 110 feet, and depth of 140 feet, required by the municipal code. Parcel A is 149.80 feet wide, 182.86 feet deep, and has a frontage of 154.29 feet. Parcel B is 123.68 feet wide, 169.80 feet deep, and has a frontage of20 feet (flag corridor). Finding 2: The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision or building site is consistent lVith the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The project meets the finding in that the proposed parcel sizes, configuration, access and building envelopes are consistent with the zolling code and are compatible with the existing density in the project vicinity. Parcel A is currently being developed wi th a single-family residence that has received Design Review Approval. No design is proposed for Parcel B. Design review approval in accordance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and any applicable speci fic plan shall be required for any new development. The mass, bulk, view, privacy and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood shall be examined at the time an application to construct a singl e-fanlily residence on the proposed parcels is filed with the planning department. Finding 3: The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The project meets the finding in that the existing conditions are such that they do not include physical features including topography, location, or sUITolmdings that may hinder future 2 Application SUB09-0001; Adel & Maria Khouja; 15211 Hume Drive 31 development on the site. The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape that may constrain future development on the site. The site is suitable for development in that the proposed building envelopes and sUITounding areas are reasonably sloped and the site is located in Zone X on the Flood Insurance Maps by FEMA. The application for a subdi vision has been cleared by the arborist to proceed with conditions regarding tree protection and h'ee removal on the property. Parcel A is cun'ently being developed with a single-family residence. No development is cun'ently proposed for Parcel B. Approval shall be required for any new development and geotechnical clearance shall be required for construction of either parcel at the time it is proposed if such construction would include a basement. Finding 4: The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The project meets the finding in that the subdi vision is consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Low Density that allows 2.18 residences per acre. Parcel A is currently being developed with a 5,448 square foot single-family residence and the proposed lot size of 26,951 square feet is adequate to SUpPDlt tlus density. The subdivision may result in the construction of a singlefamily residence on Parcel B. Approval in accordance with the Municipal Code shall be required for any new development. The potential for the construction of a single-fanuly home on Parcel B is consistent with the sun'ounding uses and densities in the area which is predominantly characterized by low-density single-family residential uses. Finding 5: The design of the subdivision or building site Or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project meets the finding in that the proposed project of subdividing one lot into two lots is categorically exempt from the Envirorunental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 153 15 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 15 exemption can be applied to the division of property in urbaruzed areas zoned for residential use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in confonnance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope of greater than 20 percent. Finding 6: The design of the subdivision or building site or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety 3 Application SUB09-0001; Adel & Maria KhmU'a; 1521 J Hume Drive 32 problems. The project meets the finding in that the Tentative Map has been reviewed by West Valley Sanitation District, Santa Clara County Fire Department, Santa Clara Valley Water Disni ct, Pacific Gas & Elecni c, School Distri cts, the Plarming Department, the Public Works DepaItment, and the City Arborist. No concems were raised by any of these agencies. The City of Saratoga Public Works Department has included conditions of approval to ensure adequate street, stonn drain, and other necessary improvements. All structural improvements to the propelty will be reviewed by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Finding 7: The design of the subdivision 01' building site 01' type 01' improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through 01' use of property within the proposed subdivision 01' building site. The project meets the finding in that Parcel A would have street frontage on Hume Drive aIld Parcel B would be a flag lot with access via a 20 20 foot wide conidor fronting Hume Drive. Parcel B would grant Parcel A all access and utility easement over the 20 foot wide portion of Parcel B. Finding 8: The proposed subdivision of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The "Williamson Act") will not result in the creation of parcels of insufficient size to sustain their agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in Gove/'llment Code Section 66474. 4. The project meets the finding in that the proposed subdivision of land is not subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act in that the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. Finding 9: The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision 01' building site into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a State regional water quality control board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the State Water Code. The project meets the finding in that the Tentative Map has been reviewed by West Valley Sanitation Dishict and the City of Saratoga Public Works Department. Sanitary Sewer service is available from an existing sewer line on Hume Drive. This sewer main will provide adequate service to the parcels. VI. Project Approval After careful consideration of the application, Tentative Map, CEQA documentation, and other materials aJ1d exhibits and evidence submitted 4 Application SUB09-0001; Adel & Maria Khouja; 15211 Hlime Drive 33 All Fees Paid. to the City in cOlU1ection with tllis matter, Application No. SUB09-000 I for a Subdivision is approved subject to the conditions set forth below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL I. The Community Development Director shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting tllis Approval is duly executed by the City, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in cOlU1ection with tllis application, including all consultant fees (collectively "processing fees"). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFfER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Final Map Approval, Zoning Clearance, or Demol ition, Grading, or Building Pennit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of$500 is maintained). Acknowledged. 2. The project shall at all times times be established and operate in compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisd ictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other governmental entities having jurisdiction. Agreement executed. 3. Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend City as to Action ChaUenging Approval of Application and as to Damage from Performance of Work Authorized bv Design Review Approval. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. Any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or aruml any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. Whenever an approval granted pursuant to this Chapter authorizes or requires any construction, installation, alteration 5 Application SUB09-000I; Adel & Maria Khouja; 152 II Hume Drive 34 or grading work to be perfomled, whether on public or private prope11y, the applicant shall fumish to the City: (1) A written agreement to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees and vo lunteers harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any maImer relating to the perfonnance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the applicant or by anyone acting on his behalf; and (2) When required as a condition of the approval, a policy or policies of liability and other insurance coverage in accordance with the applicable insurance standards of the City, as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. In addition, prior to any Final Map Approval or Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to fonn and content by the Community Development Director. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Acknowledged. 4. Compliance with Plans and Description of Use. The Subdivision shall be established as shown on the Tentative Map denominated Exhibit "A" date stamped June II, 2009 incorporated by tllis reference. All proposed changes to the Tentative Map shall be subject to the requisite prior City approval. Acknowledged. 5. Stormwater. Disposition and treatment of stonnwater shall comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System C'NPDES") Pennit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the "NPDES Pennit Standards"). Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Pennit for any funlre development, a Storm water Detention Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval demonstrating how all stonn water will be detained on-site and in compliance with the NPDES Pennit Standards. If not all 6 Application SUB09-0001; Adel & Maria Khouja; 15211 Hume Drive 35 c. stonnwater can be detained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not othelwise required by the NPDES Pennit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stonnwater and to direct all excess stonnwater away fiom adjoining propelty and toward stonl1water drains, drainageways, streets or road light-ofways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Pemlit Standards and applicable City Codes. CITY ARBORIST Acknowledged. 6. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arhorist Reports. Applicant shall comply with all City Arborist requirements and as specified in the City Arborist Reports dated April 10, 2009 and attached as Ex.hibit "B". All City ArbOIist requirements are hereby adopted as conditions of approval. D. PUBLIC WORKS Not Applicable. 7. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the Public Works Department in confonnance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the City Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. The following specific conditions shall be included on the improvement plans: Not Applicable. 8. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as detennined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. Not Applicable. 9. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the City Code prior to Final Map approval. Not Applicable. 10. The owner (applicant) shall furni sh Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-60.020 of the City Code in the marmer and amounts detennined by the Public Works Director prior to Final Map approval. 7 Application SUB09-0001; Ade/& Maria Khouja; 15211 Hume Drive 36 Completed. Map Submitted. 11. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (appli cant) shall cause the propelty to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all extemal propelty comer locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new comer location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in confOlmity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 12. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies ofa Final Map in substantial confOlmance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the City Code, to the City Engineer for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the infonnation required in Section 14-40.030 of the City Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title RepOlt for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. f. One copy of the approved Tentative Map. Fees paid. 13. The owner (appli cant) shall pay a Map Checking fee and deposit at the time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. Monuments Set. 14. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot comer either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient secUlity as detennined by the City Engineer shall be fumished plior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. Map Provided. Shown on the Parcel Map. 15. The applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department an electronic copy of the Final Map, recommended by the City Engineer for approval in AutoCAD Drawing or ARC View-GIS Shapefile fOlmat, prior to Final Map approval. 16. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of-way on the 8 Application SUB09-0001; Adel & Maria Khouja; 15211 flume Drive 37 Final Map, in substantial confonnance with the approved Tentative Map. Acknowledged. 17. An Encroac\U11ent Pennit issued by the Public Works Department is required for all improvements in any portion of the public right-ofway prior to commencement of the work. Letters Submitted. 18. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall fumish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commitments from all public and ptivate utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utili ty improvements to setve the subdivision. Acknowledged. 19. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary pennits fi·om the City and any other public agencies, including public and pri vate utility providers, prior to com.mencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of pennits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to City Engineer. Fees paid. 20. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. 21. The owner/applicant shall comply with requirements of Provision C.3 of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Pemlit. The applicant shall use and maintain Best Management Practices (BMP's) for site design and stonn water treatment. 22. 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 stom1 water pollution. E. FIRE SAFETY OR FIRE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS Acknowledged. 23. Fire Agency Conditions. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Agency requirements and conditions as specified in Exhibit "C" attached. 9 Application SUB09-000J; Adel & Maria Khouja; J 52 11 Hume Drive 38 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga PlalUling Conunission this 24th day of June 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSECiT: ABSTAIN: Yan Zhao Chair, Planning ConUl1ission ATTEST: . Livingstone, ecretary to the Pia ting Conunissiol1 ACCEPTANCE BY APPLlCAJ'IT AND OWNER This Tentative Map Approval is hereby accepted upon the express telms and conditions hereof. and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant and Property Owner or AuthOlized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved tenns and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the time required in tltis Resolution by ilie City of Saratoga Pl amting Conunission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date IE) Applicatian SUB09-0001; Ade! & Maria Khouja; 15211 Hume Drive Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cynthia McCormick, AICP DIRECTOR: John Livingstone AICP, Director SUBJECT: FY 2009 – 2010 CDBG County/City Contract RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a $464,069.77 contract with Santa Clara County for the FY 2009-2010 CDBG Program. REPORT SUMMARY: The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is federally funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to assist lower income and special needs persons with housing and community development needs. The City of Saratoga is not eligible to apply directly for entitlement funds, but may, qualify to receive such funds, as an “Urban County” applicant, by entering into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement1 (JPA) with the County. The County requests that cities receiving funds through the Urban County Program enter into a contract regarding the receipt and expenditure of funds. While the fiscal year begins in July, there is always a delay in receiving the new Contract from the County. The County has indicated that there is no change in this contract from the prior year, which was reviewed by the City Attorney. The availability of FY 2009-2010 CDBG funds was publicized during the month of December 2008. Seven applications were received during the application cycle. On March 18, 2009, the City Council authorized the submittal of five FY 2009-2010 CDBG funded projects totaling $134,411. The term of expenditure by the City is from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010. The FY 2009-2010 CDBG Funds are currently allocated as follows: 1 The current JPA expires on September 30, 2011. 39 Page 2 of 3 New CDBG 2009-2010 Funded Projects Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council -Adult Day Care Program $27,859.00 City of Saratoga ADA – Accessible Signal Program Phase III $22,161.00 City of Saratoga ADA –Access Ramp Historical Museum Phase II $10,000.00 ADA -Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Curb Ramp Phase II $41,927.00 City of Saratoga ADA – City Hall Public Bathroom $4,464.00 Urban County Rehabilitation Services (City of Saratoga) $13,000.00 General Administration (City of Saratoga) $15,000.00 Subtotal $134,411.00 Carry-Over (Unused Funds) Projects from Prior Years SHARP Revolving Housing Rehabilitation Program (2004) $77,020.77 SHARP Revolving Housing Rehabilitation Program (2005) $41,152.00 ADA -Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Curb Ramp Phase I $63,698.00 ADA – Accessible Signal Program Phase I $74,526.00 City of Saratoga ADA – Accessible Signal Program Phase II $55,600.00 City of Saratoga ADA –Access Ramp Historical Museum $16,882.00 ADA – Theater Seating Project $780.00 Subtotal $329,658.77 TOTAL CDBG 2009-2009-2010 funded projects $464,069.77 FISCAL IMPACTS: If the City signs the County/City CDBG Contract, then the City becomes eligible to receive a new allocation of $134,411.00 in CDBG funds. In addition, the City will have access to unexpended funds in the amount of $329,658.77 from prior fiscal years for eligible FY 2009-2010 CDBG activities. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: If the City does not sign the County/City Contract, this would jeopardize the City’s receipt of FY 2009-2010 CDBG funds as well as carry-over CDBG funds. In addition, without the new CDBG funds, the City may have to fund previously approved CDBG activities with General Funds. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not sign the County/City Contract FOLLOW UP ACTION: 40 Page 3 of 3 Forward three signed copies of the County/City contract to Santa Clara County. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the Agenda ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. FY 2009-2010 County/City Contract 41 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY FOR THE FY 2009-2010 COMMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City is participating as a member of the County of Santa Clara (County) Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Joint Powers Agreement; and WHEREAS, the County has agreed to the use by the City, as a sub-recipient, of a portion of the County’s CDBG Entitlement for a housing and community development program to be operated within the County and which shall benefit low and very low income households; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2009 the City Council of the City of Saratoga approved the expenditure of $134,411.00 in new CDBG funds for fiscal year 2009-2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the expenditure of $329,658.77 in carry-over CDBG funds from prior years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby authorizes the CityManager to execute said CDBG County/City Contract in the total amount of $464,069.77 for fiscal year 2009-2010. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November 2009, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED: _______________________________________ Chuck Page, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 42 43 COm1lThTITY DEVELOP1\1ENT BLOCK GRANT COUNTY ICITY CONTRACT Contract No. SA-10-00 THIS Contract is made and entered into pursuant to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 14.218 by and berNeen the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter "COlJNTY"), and the CITYITOWN OF SARATOGA (hereinafter "CITY") participating as a member of the County of Santa Clara COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (hereinafter "CDBG") Joint Powers Agreement. The allocation of funds pursuant to this Contract shall be a grant. COUNTY approved the allocation and disbursement of CDBG funds to CITY on May 5. 2009. \VITl\TESSETH WHEREAS, COUNTY has received CDBG Entitlement Program funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter "HUD") as an entitlement jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; and \VHEREAS, COUNTY has agreed to the use by CITY, as a subrecipient, of a portion of COUNTY'S CDBG entitlement for a housing and community development program to be operated within COUNTY and which shall benefit low and very low income households. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. PROGRAM COUNTY agrees to allocate a portion of its CDBG entitlement, and/or program income as . defined in 24 CFR 570 Subpart J, "Grant Administration" (570.504), to the CITY, as a subrecipient ofthe County, in the amount of Four hundred sixty-four thousand sixty-nine & 77/100 Dollars ($464.069.77) for the purpose of reimbursing the City for costs incurred to implement the housing and community development program (hereinafter "PROGRAM"). PROGRAl\1 is defmed as projects and activities funded with this allocation by the CITY and described in detail in Exhibits "A" through "H." A lump sum figure is allocated for this Contract and the parties understand and agree that the allocation is distributed by the COUNTY through reimbursing the CITY for allowed expenses, and no lump sum distribution of of CDBG funds is made at the outset of this Contract. Reimbursement for Fiscal Year 2009/10 shall not exceed the total sum of the beginning fiscal year Cash Control Sheet (fiscal year CDBG allocation of funds to CITY, and roll-over of unexpended CDBG funds from previous years allocations to CITY). CITY is granted authority to also expend funds for eligible CDBG Housing activities from its approved rehabilitation program revolving loan fund account, including accrued Program Income. Such authority is based on CITY and its subrecipients being in compliance with all Federal Rules and Regulations governing the CDBG PROGRAM, and the COUNTY CDBG Reallocation Guidelines. County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grant Program FY 0911 0 County/City Contract Rev. 9117/09 44 As a condition of this Contract, CITY has provided numerous exhibits marked "A" through "D" as noted herein, attached to this Contract, incorporated by this reference, as though fully set forth as follows: Exhibit "A" (Agency Description), Exhibit "B" (Project ,\lork Plan), Exhibit "c" (Proposed Implementation Time Schedule), and Exhibit "D" (Budget). Attached hereto and incorporated herein are the County's Exhibits as follows: Exhibit "E" (Certifications), Exhibit "F" (Assurances), Exhibit "G" (Insurance), Exhibit "H" (Urban County Housing Rehabilitation Services), if applicable, and Exhibit "I" (Contracting Principles Declaration) for all allocated CITY projects and activities awarded funding for Fiscal Year 2009/10. II. TERM A. The purpose of this Contract is for the COUNTY to disburse CDBG funds. Unless amended prior to its expiration, the term of this Contract for disbursement purposes will begin on July 1,2009 and will terminate on June 30,2010, or unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section VI or Section VII of this Contract. Invoices requesting disbursements submitted after the expiration of this Contract will be honored only for allowable costs incurred during the Contract term and received prior to the processing cut-off date established by the County. B. The term of expenditure by CITY for the grant amount provided for herein shall begin on July 1,2009 and terminate on the earliest of the following dates as set forth herein: June 30, 2010, or later date per amendment to this Contract; the date of the expenditure of the total grant, and/or program income amount provided for herein; upon the termination date established pursuant to Section VI or Section VII of this Contract. III. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY A. Certifications by CITY: City must provide COUNTY with written certification that the following information is on file at the CITY offices, and is subject to monitoring by HUD and/or COUNTY (County's Housing and Community Development Department, "OAH") OAH staff, or their representatives. l. Names and addresses of the current CITY Manager and CITY Council members. 2. Records of all discussions and actions taken at CITY Council meetings pertaining to the CDBG PROGRAM. 3. Information and housing objectives for the Consolidated Plan required by HUD at the beginning of each program year. B. PROGR.Al\1 Performance Responsibilities of CITY. County of Santa Clara 2 Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grant Program FY 09/1 0 County/City Contract Rev. 9/17/09 45 1. Conduct the PROGRAM within Santa Clara County, for the purpose of benefiting low and very low income households. 2. File quarterly reports with COUNTY detailing adherence to the PROGRAl\1 as described in Exhibits "A" through "D." The reports must document services rendered by the PROGRAM, describe the beneficiaries of the services, and evaluate the manner in which the PROGRAM is achieving its objectives and goals as a participating non-entitlement CITY. 3. Utilize minority and/or female owned business, vendors, suppliers, and contractors to the maximum extent feasible, for items funded pursuant to this Contract, in accordance with County policy. C. Fiscal Responsibilities of CITY. 1. Identify the CITY's fiscal agent who is responsible for fmancial activities of CITY, including the receipt and disbursement of CITY CDBG funds. CITY will notify COUNTY in writing of the appointment of any subsequently appointed fiscal agent and that agent's name. 2. Maintain an accounting system that conforms with generally accepted principles of accounting. The accounting system is subject to review and approval of COUNTY. 3. CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Revolving Loan Fund Conditions: If CITY maintains a Revolving Loan Fund ("RLF"), CITY will maintain the RLF as a separate fund (with a set of accounts that are independent of other program accounts) established for the purpose of carrying out specific activities which, in turn, generate payments to the fund for use in carrying out the same activities. a. The RLF must be capitalized only with housing rehabilitation or housing acquisition repayment funds, which are considered CDBG Program Income for CDBG purposes. CDBG program funds may not be drawn down to serve as the initial available funding or ongoing funding of the RLF. b. The RLF will cover a single, specific activity, i.e. housing rehabilitation. Properties which may be assisted under the RLF include: County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing • Single-family properties occupied by low and moderate-income households with annual gross incomes not to exceed 80% of the median area income threshold by family size, as issued by HUD for each program year; and, 3 FY 09/10 County/City Contract Rev. 9/1 7/09 Community Development Block Grant Program 46 o Multi-family (rental) properties with at least 51 % of the units occupied by tenants with annual gross incomes which meet the same BUD annual income thresholds. c. Program income received by the RLF from rehabilitation loan principal and interest repayments, must be held in an interest bearing account. Note: Principal repayments and the interest paid by borrowers of CDBG-funded loans made from the RLF is considered program income and subject to the CDBG program income requirements. d. Any accrued interest on the total funds maintained in the account must be returned to BUD annually, to be remitted through the COUNTY to the U.S. Treasury. e. The COUNTY's Consolidated Plan must be amended following a public review process, to reflect the establishment of a RLF as a strategy to address priority housing needs. The scope of the housing RLF should be described. f. In future years, the RLF's estimated production and program income should be incorporated into each Annual Action Plan, as well as accomplishments accomplishments and program income reported in the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). g. An amendment of the applicable Annual Action Plan is required in order to transfer any RLF funds to the grantee's main account for use with non-RLF but eligible activities. (See Title 24 CFR 570 Subpart J, 570.500 "Definitions," 570.500(b) "Revolving Fund.") 4. Comply with the audit requirements ofOMB Circular A-133 which require compliance with the Single Audit Act for any subrecipient expending $300,000 or more of federal funds for the fiscal year. 5. Document all PROGRAM costs by maintaining records in accordance with Section III, Paragraph D below. 6. Submit to the COUNTY documented requests for reimbursement. 7. Certify current and continuous insurance coverage of CITY, subject to approval of COUNTY and in accordance with requirements as outlined in Exhibit G "Indemnity and Insurance Requirements;" and obtain certificate of insurance from all subrecipients which will list CITY as additional insured. County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grant Program 4 FY 0911 0 County/City Contract Rev. 9117/09 47 8. Subparagraph C. 1. through 6. above are express conditions precedent to disbursement of any COUNTY funding and failure to comply with these conditions may, at the discretion of COUNTY, result in the suspension of funding or termination of specific projects in non-compliance; or initiate the suspension of funding or termination of this Contract as provided for herein. 9. If CITY does not use CDBG funds in accordance with this Contract, CITY is liable for repayment of all disallowed costs and ineligible activities. Disallowed costs and ineligible activities may be identified through audits, monitoring or others sources. CITY will be required to respond to any adverse [mdings which may lead to disallowed costs, subject to provisions of OMB Circular A-87, "Cost Principles for State and Local Governments," and A-133, "Single Audits of State and Local Governments." CITY is required to respond to any adverse findings which may lead to ineligible activities, subject to provisions of24 CFR Part 570.201-206 "Eligible Activities" and 24 CFR Part 570-207 "Ineligible Activities. " D. Establishment and Maintenance of Records by City 1. Maintain complete and accurate records of all its CDBG transactions including, but not limited to, contracts, invoices, time cards, cash receipts, vouchers, canceled checks, bank statements, client statistical records, personnel, property and all other pertinent records sufficient to reflect properly; 2. All direct and indirect costs of claims incurred or anticipated to be incurred to perform this Contract or to operate the PROGRAM; and E. Preservation of Records. CITY will preserve and make available its records: 1. Until five years following expiration of this Contract, or 2. For such longer period, if any as is required by applicable law; or 3. If this Contract is completely or partially terminated, the records relating to the work terminated shall be preserved and made available for a period of five years from the date of termination. F. Examination of Records: 1. At any time during during normal business hours, and as often as may be deemed reasonably necessary, CITY agrees that HUD and the COUNTY, and/or any authorized representatives may have access to and the right to examine Subrecipient CDBG records and facilities until expiration of: a. five years after expiration of this Contract; County of Santa Clara 5 Office of Affordab le Housing Community Development Block Grant Program FY 09110 County/City Contract Rev. 9117/09 48 b. five years from the date of termination of this Contract; or c. such longer period as may be prescribed by law. 2. The CITY must provide language in its Contracts with all Subrecipients stipulating that at any time during normal business hours, and as often as may be deemed reasonably necessary, SUbrecipient agrees that HUD and the COUNTY, and/or any authorized representatives may have access to and the right to examine Subrecipient CDBG records and facilities until expiration of: a. five years after expiration of this Contract; b. five years from the date of termination of this Contract; or c. such longer period as may be prescribed by law. 3. CITY also agrees that COUNTY and any authorized representatives has the right to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transactions of and from, such records and to make audits of all contracts and subcontracts, invoices, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment, materials and all other data relating to the PROGRAlv1 and matters covered by this Contract. CITY will be notified in \vriting of intended audits. CITY will be notified in writing of intended inspections of records and facilities and of intended audits no less than three business days before such inspections or audits. CITY is required to respond in writing to the OAR Director any audit findings within 30 days of receipt of written audit [mdings. Responses will be included in the final audit report. G. Compliance with Law. CITY staff will become familiar and comply with and require all its subcontractors, independent contractors and employees, if any, to become familiar and comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, ordinances, codes, Regulations and decrees including, but not limited to, those Federal rules and Regulations, executive orders, and statutes identified in "F" ASSURANCES. Specifically, CITY will comply with the requirements of OMB Circular No. A-87, "Principles for Determining Costs Applicable to Grants and Contracts with State, Local and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments," and OMB Circular A-133 "Audits of State and Local Governments." In addition, CITY will comply with Federal Regulations as cited in 24 CFR Part 570, Subpart J, and 24 CFR Part 85, and all other local, State or Federal laws applicable to this Program. CITY and its subrecipients must comply with Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Order 11063, and with Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Orders 11375 and 12086. H. Suspension and Termination. In accordance with 24 CFR 85.43, suspension or termination of this Contract may occur if the CITY materially fails to comply with any County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grant Program 6 FY 09/1 0 County/City Contract Rev. 9/17/09 49 term of this Contract, and that the contract may be terminated for convenience or cause in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44 and Sections VI and Section VII below. 1. Reversion of Assets. Upon expiration or termination of this Contract, or in the event HUD cancels its Program for any reason, the CITY will transfer to the COUNTY any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds. Any real property under the CITY's control that was acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds (including CDBG funds provided to CITY in the form of a loan) in excess of $25,000: 1. Must be used to meet one of the national objectives stated in Title 24 CFR part 570.208 for a period of five years after expiration of this Contract, or for such longer period of time as required by the COUNTY; or, 2. The CITY must reimburse the COUNTY an amount equal to the current market value of the property, less any pOliion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property (reimbursement is not required after the period of time specified in 1. 1. above). J. "Section 3" Provisions. 1. Compliance. Compliance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701 , the regulations set forth in 24 CFR 135, and all applicable rules and orders issued hereunder prior to the execution of this Contract, shall be a condition of the federal fmancial assistance provided under this Contract and binding upon the COUNTY, the CITY, and any subrecipients. Failure to fulfill these requirements shall subject the COUNTY, the CITY, and any subrecipients, their successors and assigns, to those sanctions specified by the Contract through which federal assistance is provided. The CITY certifies and agrees that no contractual or other disability exists which would prevent compliance with these requirements. The CITY further agrees to comply with these "Section 3" requirements and to include the following language in all subrecipient contracts executed under this Contract: "The work to be performed under the Contract is a project assisted under a program providing direct federal fmancial assistance from HUD and is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701. Section 3 requires that to the greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and employment be given to lower income residents of the project area and agreements for work in connection with the project be awarded to business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in, the areas of the proj ect." The CITY certifies and agrees that no contractual or other disability exists which would prevent compliance with the requirements. County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grant Program 7 FY 09/10 County/City Contract Rev. 9/17/09 50 2. Notifications. The CITY and its subrecipients must send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other agreement or understanding, if any, a notice advising said labor organization or worker's representative of its commitments under this Section 3 clause and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment or training. 3. Subcontracts. The CITY and its subrecipients will include this Section 3 clause in every contract and will take appropriate action pursuant to the contract upon a finding that the sub-subrecipient is in violation of regulations issued by COUNTY. The CITY will not contract with any sub-subrecipient where it has notice or knowledge that the latter has been found in violation of regulations under 24 CFR 135 and will not let any contract unless the sub-subrecipient has first provided it with a preliminary statement of ability to comply with the requirements of these regulations. IV. OBLIGATIONS OF COUNTY A. Method of Payment. During the term of this Contract, COUNTY will disburse CDBG funds to CITY on a reimbursement basis, unless otherwise provided herein, for all allowable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the PROGRAM. Reimbursement will not exceed the total sum of Four hundred sixty-four thousand sixty-nine and 77/100 Dollars ($464,069.17) as stated in the fiscal year Cash Control Record document plus all Program Income accrued during the fiscal year. Reimbursement may be retained, in part or in full, by COUNTY, in the event of CITY'S non-compliance to PROGRAM regulations and conditions. Substantial non-compliance includes, but is not limited to, incomplete documentation of expenses, failure to submit adequate documentation of PROGRAM progress as described in III, paragraph B.2, of this Contract, failure to provide and maintain an accounting system that is in conformance with generally accepted principles of accounting, or based on the suspension or or termination of the Grant to COUNTY made pursuant to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. B. In the case of CITY substantial non-compliance prior to exercising any recourse authorized herein, COUNTY will initiate the following procedure: 1. Notify the CITY Coordinator in writing of the alleged substantial non-compliance and request an immediate meeting between CITY Coordinator and COUNTY OAR Director to resolve issue(s). If issue(s) is(are) not resolved satisfactorily within thirty (30) days, notify CITY Manager in writing requesting an immediate meeting between CITY Manager, CITY Coordinator and COUNTY OAR Director to resolve the issue(s). County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grant Program 8 FY 09110 County/City Contract Rev. 9117/09 51 2. Determine if any portion of the reimbursement request meets all eligible criteria, and if so, authorize payment for the eligible portion of the reimbursement request; 3. Revievl the procedure to be followed pursuant to VI. C. of this Contract (CONTRACT COMPLIANCE, Corrective Action Procedure); and 4. If applicable, forward a \vritten report to HOD's Regional Office detailing the substantial non-compliance issues and the steps being instituted to correct performance, copy to the CITY Manager. C. Compliance with Law. COUNTY shall become familiar and comply with and require all its subcontractors and employees, if any, to become familiar and comply with all applicable Federal, State and localla\vs, ordinances, codes, regulations and decrees including, but not limited to, those Federal rules and regulations, executive orders, and statutes identified in Exhibit "F" ASSURANCES. Specifically, COUNTY shall comply with the requirements of OMB Circular No. A-87, "Principles for Determining Costs Applicable to Grants and Contracts with State, Local, Federally recognized Indian Tribal Governments," and OMB Circular A133 "Audits of State and Local Governments." In addition, COUNTY will comply with Federal Regulations as cited in 24 CFR Part 570, Subpart J, and 24 CFR Part 85, and all other Local, State or Federal laws applicable to this PROGRAM. V. PROGRAM COORDINATION A. The COUNTY Executive has assigned the OAR Director to supervise the progress and performance required by this Contract. All services performed by COUNTY will be at the overall direction of the OAR Director. B. CITY has designated to serve as CITY CDBG Program Coordinator, and City Manager _________________ _ (or assignee approved by the CITY Council) assumes overall responsibility for the progress and performance ofthis Contract. CITY will immediately notify the COUNTY in 'writing, of the appointment of a new CITY CDBG Program Coordinator, or a new CITY Manager (or assignee approved by the CITY Council). C. NOTICES. All notices or other correspondence required or contemplated by this Contract must be sent to the parties at the follO\ving addresses: COUNTY: County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Marjorie Matthews, Director Office of Affordable Housing County of Santa Clara County Center at Charcot 2310 North First Street, Suite 100 San Jose, CA 95131-1011 9 Community Development Block Grant Program FY 0911 0 County/City Contract Rev. 9117/09 52 CITY: Name of CITY Address of CITY City, State, ZIP Name of CITY Manager All notices must either be hand delivered or sent by United States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid. Notices given in such a manner will be deemed received when hand delivered or seventy-two (72) hours after deposit in the United States mail. Any party may change his or her address for the purpose of this section by giving five days v.'Yitten notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided in this section. VI. CONTRACT COMPLIANCE A. Monitoring and Evaluation of Services. Evaluation and monitoring of the PROGRAM performance is the mutual responsibility of COUNTY and CITY, with the understanding that HUD looks to COUNTY as the sole responsible party for meeting PROGRAM requirements. CITY will furnish data, statements, records, information and reports as mutually agreed to by CITY and COUNTY as necessary for COUNTY to monitor, review and evaluate the performance of the PROGRAM and its components. COUNTY has the right to request the services of an outside agent to assist in any such evaluation. Such services will be paid for by COUNTY. B. Contract Non-compliance. If CITY fails to comply with any provision of this Contract (24 CFR 85.43 "Enforcement"), COUNTY has the right to terminate this Contract or to require corrective action to enforce compliance with such provision. Examples of noncompliance include but are not limited to: 1. If CITY (with or without knowledge) has made any material misrepresentation of any nature with respect to any information or data furnished to COUNTY in connection with the PROGRAM. 2. If there is pending litigation with respect to the performance by CITY of any of its duties or obligations under this Contract which may materially jeopardize or adversely affect the undertaking of or the carrying out of the PROGRAM. The CITY and COUNTY may negotiate a reinstatement of this Contract following termination or conclusion of such litigation. 3. If CITY has taken any action pertaining to the PROGRAM, which action required COUNTY approval, and such approval was not obtained. 4. If CITY is in default pursuant to any provision of this Contract. County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grimt Program 10 FY 09/1 0 County/City Contract Rev. 9117/09 53 5. If CITY makes improper use of COUNTY funds. 6. If CITY fails to meet all provisions of the COUNTY CDBG Reallocation Guidelines, or the Joint Powers Agreement currently in full force and effect between the parties hereto. C. Corrective Action Procedure. COUNTY, in its absolute discretion and in lieu of immediately terminating this Contract upon occurrence or discovery of noncompliance by CITY pursuant to this Contract, will have the right to give CITY notice of COUNTY'S intention to consider corrective action to enforce compliance. Such notice must indicate the nature of the non-compliance and the procedure whereby CITY will have the opportunity to participate in fonnulating any corrective action recommendation In the event that CITY does not implement the corrective action recommendations in accordance with the corrective action timetable, COUNTY may suspend payments hereunder or terminate this Contract as set forth in Section VII below. Once non-compliance is established, the following procedure \vill be initiated: 1. COUNTY OAH Director and CITY Manager will negotiate a time frame and course of action for correcting the non-compliance; 2. CITY will provide COUNTY with a v,'fitten plan and time frame for correcting the non-compliance issue (s). Such plan must be submitted by CITY to COUNTY within thirty (30) days of the initial non-compliance meeting between CITY and COUNTY; 3. CITY must initiate the corrective action procedure within sixty (60) days of the initial non-compliance meeting between the COUNTY OAR Director and the CITY Coordinator (COUNTY, at their discretion, may extend this time line for extenuating circumstances); 4. COUNTY will have the right to require the presence of CITY officers at any hearing or meeting called for the purpose of considering corrective action; and 5. CITY has the right to appeal all findings of non-compliance, and subsequent corrective action, with both the COUNTY Board of Supervisors and HUD. VII. TERl\1INATION A. Termination for Cause. COUNTY may terminate this Contract by providing v,'fitten notice stating the date oftermination, to CITY for any of the following reasons: 1. Uncorrected Contract non-compliance as defmed in VI. B which has not been County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grant Program 11 FY 09/10 County/City Contract Rev. 9/17/09 54 addressed or resolved within the aforementioned corrective action plan time period; 2. If CITY is in bankruptcy or receivership; 3. If a member of CITY'S Executive Management staff is found to have committed fraud in connection with the CDBG program (termination is applicable only to that portion of the CDBG program for which the person who committed fraud is responsible) ; 4. Ifthere is reliable evidence that CITY is unable to operate the PROGRAM. B. Termination for Convenience. In addition to the COUNTY'S right to terminate for cause as set forth in Section VII, either COUNTY or CITY may suspend or terminate tIllS Contract for any reason upon mutual consent by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party. Upon receipt of such noti!;e, performance of the services hereunder will be immediately discontinued. C. In addition to the COUNTY'S right to terminate for cause set forth in Section VII, either COUNTY or CITY may suspend or terminate this Contract as provided for in 24 CFR 570, at Subpart J "Grant Administration," and/or 24 CFR 85.44 "Termination for Convenience." Provisions of the Reallocation Guidelines will apply, but may be adjusted if termination is for cause. D. Upon termination, CITY will: 1. Be reimbursed for all documented allowable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the Project up to the date of such termination. COUNTY shall be obligated to compensate CITY only for allowable costs and expenses as determined by an audit or other monitoring method; 2. Turn over to COUNTY immediately any and all copies of studies, reports and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CITY or its subcontractors, if any, in connection with this Contract. Such materials shall become property of COUNTY. CITY, however, shall not be liable to COUNTY'S use of incomplete materials or for COUNTY'S use of completed documents ifused for other than the services contemplated by this Contract; and 3. Transfer to the COUNTY any CDBG funds on hand and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds. All assets acquired with CDBG funds shall be returned to the COUNTY unless otherwise negotiated by separate contract per the provisions of the COUNTY CDBG REALLOCATION GUIDELIl\TES. County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grant Program 12 FY 09110 County/City Contract Rev. 9117/09 55 E. Upon termination of this Contract, CITY will immediately provide COUNTY access to all documents, records, payroll, minutes of meetings, correspondence and all other data pertaining to the CDBG entitlement fund granted to CITY pursuant to this Contract. VIII. PURCHASING REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY CITY and COUNTY must comply with all applicable Federal Regulations as detailed by 24 CFR Part 570, Subpart J, i.e. 570.500 (Definitions), 570.503 (Agreements with Subrecipients), 570.504 (Program Income), and 570.505 (Use of Real Property), with regards to the use and disposal of Real or Personal Property purchased in whole, or in part, with CDBG funds. In addition, 24 CFR Part 85 (the Cornmon Rule) includes definitions which apply to CDBG Real Property, however, the Common Rule section governing Real Property (CFR 85.31) DOES NOT APPLY TO CDBG ACTIVITIES. A. The following definitions apply to this Contract pursuant to 24 CFR, Part 58 (Common Rule) 85.3: 1. Equipment means tangible, non-expendable, personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. 2. Title as defmed in detail in 24 CFR, Part 85 .32 (a). 3. Use as defmed in detail in 24 CFR, Part 85 .32 © (1). 4. Supplies as defined in detail in 24 CFR, Part 85.33. 5. Procurement, Use and Disposition of Real Property as defined in detail by 24 CFR, Part 570.503 (Agreements with Subrecipients), 570.505 (Use of Real Property), and 570.504 (Program Income). B. Security Document. As a condition precedent to COUNTY granting funds for the purchase of real property or an option to purchase real property, CITY will prepare and require its subrecipient(s) to execute a Loan Agreement, Promissory Note, Deed of Trust and such other Contracts restricting the use of said real property for purposes consistent with this Contract, HUD and CDBG requirements. C. Grants. If a grant is provided for the acquisition of real property, CITY will require its subrecipients(s) to continually operate its Project for a minimum period of six (6) years from the effective date of this Contract. This obligation will survive the term of Cities contract with its subrecipient(s), the assignment or assumption of this Contract and the sale of the property prior to expiration of the obligation period as set forth in this paragraph. If this obligation is not fully met, CITY may be required to reimburse the COUNTY. The COUNTY may consider, but will not be limited by, the following factors in calculating the reimbursement obligation: initial grant sum; the duration of the initial County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grant Program 13 FY 09/l 0 County/City Contract Rev.9/l7/09 56 contractual obligation to operate the Project versus the actual duration of operation; and the appreciated value. D. Relocation, Acquisition, and Displacement. CITY agrees to comply with 24 CFR 570.606 relating to the acquisition and disposition of all real property utilizing CDBG funds, and to the displacement of persons, businesses, and non-profit organizations as a direct result of any acquisition of real property utilizing CDBG funds. CITY agrees to comply with applicable state laws, County Ordinances, Resolutions, and Policies concerning displacement of individuals from their residences. IX. PROGRAM INCOME Income generated by the Project is Program Income and shall be regulated by all provisions of Title 24 CFR 570 Subpart J "Grant Administration," 570.503 "Agreements with Subrecipients," and 570.504 "Program Income." In addition, all provisions of the COUNTY REALLOCATION GUIDELll\TES apply to this Contract. CITY must quarterly report all program income generated by activities carried out with CDBG funds made available under this Contract. By way of further limitations, CITY may use such income during the Contract term for activities permitted by this Contract and shall reduce requests for additional funds by the amount of any such program income balances on hand. All unused program income will be returned to the COUNTY at the end of the Contract term with the exception of Rehabilitation Loan payments. X. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR This is a contract by and between independent contractors and is not intended and will not be construed to create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association between CITY and COUNTY. CITY, including its officers, employees, agents, independent contractors or subrecipients, will not have any claim arising from the terms of this Contract or otherwise against COUNTY for any Social Security, Worker's Compensation, or employee benefits extended to employees of COUNTY. XI. ASSIGNABILITY A. None of the work or services to be performed hereunder may be assigned, delegated or subcontracted to third parties without the prior written approval of COUNTY. Copies of all third party contracts must be submitted to COUNTY at least ten days prior to the proposed effective date. In the event COUNTY approves of any such assignment, delegation or sub-contract, the subcontractors, assignees or delegates will be deemed to be employees of CITY, and CITY will be responsible for their performance and any liabilities attaching to their actions or omissions. B. This Contract may not be assumed nor assigned to another CITY, person, partnership or any other entity without the prior written approval of COUNTY. The use of the word "employees" in this paragraph is limited solely to activities by those persons described herein, related to the management and potential repayment of the program funds provided County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grant Program 14 FY 0911 0 County/City Contract Rev. 9/17/09 57 for in the Contract. The use of the term here does not create liability for personal injuries, worker's compensation or other forms ofliability, obligation or responsibility which flow from employee/employer relationships. XII. DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT INFORMATION COUNTY and CITY agree to maintain the confidentiality of any information regarding applicants for services offered by the PROGRAM pursuant to this Contract or their immediate families which may be 0 btained through application forms, intervie\vs, tests, reports from public agencies or counselors, or any other source. Without the v,'fitten permission of the applicant, such information may be divulged only if permitted by law or as necessary for purposes related to the performance or evaluation of the services and work to be provided pursuant to tIllS Contract, and then only to persons having responsibilities pursuant to this Contract, including those furnishing services for the PROGRAM through approved subcontracts. XIII. HOLD HARMLESS In addition to the indemnity obligations set forth in Exhibit G, "Indemnity and Insurance Requirements," CITY must indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY, its employees, agents, and officials, members of boards and commissions, from any and all claims, actions, suits, charges and judgments whatsoever, with respect to any damages, including attorney's fees and court costs, arising out of the failure of the CITY's PROGRAM or its subrecipient(s) failure (for CITy) to comply with applicable la\vs, ordinances, codes, regulations and decrees, including \vithout limitation those set forth in Exhibit E, "Certifications." XIV. WAIVER OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES In no event will any payment by COUNTY constitute or be construed to be a waiver by COUNTY of any breach of the covenants or conditions of this Contract or any default which may then exist on the part of CITY, and the making of any such payment while any such breach or default exists will in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to COUNTY with respect to such breach or default. In no event will payment to CITY by COUNTY in any way constitute a \vaiver by COUNTY of its rights to recover from CITY the amount of money paid to CITY on any item which is not eligible for payment from the PROGRAM or this Contract. XV. NON-DISCRIMINATION CITY will comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations including Santa Clara County's policies concerning nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in contracting. Such laws include but are not limited to the following: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sections 503 and 504); California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code sections 12900 et seq.); and California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102. CITY will not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, mental disability, County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grant Program 15 FY 0911 0 County/City Contract Rev. 9/17/09 58 physical disability, medical condition, political beliefs, organizational affiliations, or marital status in the recruitment, selection for training including apprenticeship, hiring, employment, utilization, promotion, layoff, rates of payor other forms of compensation. Nor will CITY discriminate in provision of services provided under this contract because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, political beliefs, organizational affiliations, or marital status. This non-discrimination provision must be included in CITY's contracts with its sUbrecipient(s) and vendors when utilizing the CDBG funds. XVI. AMENDMENTS A. Amendments to the terms or conditions of this Contract must be requested in writing by an authorized representative of the party desiring amendments, and any amendment will be effective only upon the mutual agreement in writing of the parties hereto. Amendments will not invalidate this Contract, nor relieve or release the COUNTY or the CITY from its obligations under this Contract. B. During the Contract term, CITY may choose to transfer funds within the PROGRAM described in Exhibits "A through D." Fund transfers exceeding $3 0,000 as well as new projects added to CITY's PROGRAM, require COUNTY's approval and may require an amendment to this Contract. XVII. INTEGRATED DOCUMENT This Contract, in conjunction with the Santa Clara County CDBG Joint Powers Agreement, contains the entire agreement between COUNTY and CITY with respect to the subject matter hereof. No written or oral agreements, other than the Santa Clara County CDBG Joint Powers Agreement, with any officer, agent or employee of COUNTY prior to execution of this Contract will affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in any documents comprising this Contract. XVIII. NON-SMOKING POLICY Contractor and its employees, agents and subcontractors, shall comply with the County's No Smoking Policy, as set forth in the Board of Supervisors Policy Manual section 3.47 (as amended from time to time), which prohibits smoking: (1) at the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Campus and all County-owned and operated health facilities, (2) within 30 feet surrounding County-ov,'l1ed buildings and leased buildings where the County is the sole occupant, and (3) in all County vehicles. XIX. MISCELLANEOUS A. The captions and section headings used in this Contract are for convenience of reference only, and the words contained therein in no way explain, modify, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions ofthis Contract. County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grant Program 16 FY 09/1 0 County/City Contract Rev. 9/17/09 59 B. All exhibits attached hereto and referred to in this Contract are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth fully herein. Exhibit "A" (Agency Description), Exhibit "B" (Project \\lork Plan), Exhibit "C" (Proposed Implementation Time Schedule), Exhibit "D" (Budget), Exhibit "E" (Certifications), Exhibit "F" (Assurances), Exhibit "G" (Insurance), Exhibit "H" (Urban County Rehabilitation Services) if applicable, and Exhibit "I" (Contracting Principles Declaration). C. The persons signing below are duly authorized to execute this Contract. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this as indicated below. CITY OF: By: -------------------------------CITY Manager Print Name ATTEST: CITY Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY Attomey Print Name FY 09110 County/City Contract jnb Rev 9/15/09 County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Community Development Block Grant Program Date Date Date 17 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA: By: ----------------------------Lis Kniss, President Date Board of of Supervisors Signed and certified that a copy of this document has been delivered by electronic or other means to the President, Board of Supervisors ATTEST M~aM~oos D~ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Shabad Puri Deputy County Counsel Date FY 09110 County/City Contract Rev. 9/17/09 Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-04-51 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: SHARP Revolving Housing Rehab Program AGENCY NAME and ADDRESS: County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing 2310 North First Street, Suite 100, San Jose CA 95131 PROJECT ADDRESS: n/a EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: n/a PHONE: ________________ FAX: ____ E-MAIL: _____________________________ CONTACT (if other than Director): Tracy Cunningham PHONE: 408-441-4323 FAX: 408-441-4333 E-MAIL: tracy.cunningham@ceo.sccgov.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Santa Clara County Housing Rehabilitation Program provides low interest home loans to low and fixed income Saratoga residents. The program promotes neighborhood stability by providing funds to help low or fixed income property owners make necessary improvements to their homes. Funds in this project have been allocated to augment the loan payments and paybacks for the housing rehabilitation loan fund. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS Santa Clara County administers this program IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE Santa Clara County administers this program BUDGET Total: $77,020.77 -Santa Clara County administers this program 60 ~ D D Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-05-51 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: SHARP Revolving Housing Rehab Program AGENCY NAME and ADDRESS: County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing 2310 North First Street, Suite 100, San Jose CA 95131 PROJECT ADDRESS: n/a EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: n/a PHONE: ________________ FAX: ____ E-MAIL: _____________________________ CONTACT (if other than director): Tracy Cunningham PHONE: 408-441-4323 FAX: 408-441-4333 E-MAIL: tracy.cunningham@ceo.sccgov.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project covers the cost of cooperative rehabilitation services provided by the County to the City of Saratoga. These services include the bidding process, inspections, work write-ups, project management, change-orders and close-outs. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS Santa Clara County administers this program IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE Santa Clara County administers this program BUDGET Total: $41,152 -Santa Clara County administers this program 61 D D Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-08-42 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: ADA – Theater Seating AGENCY NAME /ADDRESS: City of Saratoga Recreation Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PROJECT ADDRESS: 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Michael Taylor PHONE: 408-868-1250 FAX: 408-868-1279 E-MAIL: mtaylor@saraotga.ca.us CONTACT (if other than director): Thomas Scott PHONE: 408-868-1277 FAX: 408-868-1279 E-MAIL: tscott@saraotga.ca.us PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project covers the cost of removing, purchasing, modifying, and installing four (4) ADA stations and three (3) transfer stations. The seating will provide wheelchair accessibility, specialized seating, transfer areas, and companion seating arrangements. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS GOAL OBJECTIVE OUTCOME TOTAL # TO BE SERVED UNIT TYPE # SERVED PER QTR Install ADA compliant seating in the Saratoga Civic Theater Improve ADA accessibility for individuals using the Theater ADA seating will improve accessibility for individuals at the Theater n/a n/a n/a IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES: This project has completed. Leftover funds have been authorized for transfer. BUDGET $780 62 D D Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-09-42 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: City of Saratoga ADA – Access Ramp Historical Museum (Phase I) AGENCY NAME /ADDRESS: City of Saratoga Recreation Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PROJECT ADDRESS: 20450 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga CA 95070 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Michael Taylor PHONE: 408-868-1250 FAX: 408-868-1279 E-MAIL: mtaylor@saraotga.ca.us CONTACT (if other than director): Thomas Scott PHONE: 408-868-1277 FAX: 408-868-1279 E-MAIL: tscott@saraotga.ca.us PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project covers the cost of installing access ramps including two ADA transfer points and two standard ADA hand railings to provide increased accessibility at the Saratoga Historical Museum. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS GOAL OBJECTIVE OUTCOME TOTAL # TO BE SERVED UNIT TYPE # SERVED PER QTR Install access ramps and other ADA upgrades Improve ADA accessibility for individuals visiting the Museum ADA upgrades will improve accessibility for individuals at the Museum n/a n/a n/a IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES: The City hired a labor consultant to prepare the documents to send this project out to bid. The City expects to receive bids in the 3rd quarter FY2010, and construction completed in the 4th quarter. BUDGET $16,882 63 D D Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-10-31 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council – Adult Day Care Program AGENCY NAME /ADDRESS: Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 CONTACT: Susan Huff PHONE: 408-868-1255 E-MAIL: shuff@sascc.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project covers the cost of 2 full-time Program Assistants and 2 part-time Program Assistants to run the Saratoga Adult Center. Program Assistants help with planning, implementing, and evaluating the program which includes assisting program participants with activities such as walking and eating. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS GOAL OBJECTIVES OUTCOME TOTAL # TO BE SERVED UNIT TYPE SERVED /QTR Help prevent or delay institutionalization of frail elderly, enable them to remain in their homes for as long as possible, and improve the quality of life for participants and caregivers. Provide mental & physical stimulation by providing opportunities for socializing in a conducive setting Provide respite for caregivers and a higher quality of life to the frail elderly at a lower cost to both the family members and public agencies 50 (Some individuals return each quarter) individuals 40 IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES Ongoing: Provide respite care, socialization, instruction, structured activities, nutritious meals and snacks, etc. BUDGET Total: $27,859 64 D ~ D Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-10-42 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: City of Saratoga ADA – Access Ramp Historical Museum (Phase II) AGENCY NAME /ADDRESS: City of Saratoga Recreation Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PROJECT ADDRESS: 20450 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga CA 95070 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Michael Taylor PHONE: 408-868-1250 FAX: 408-868-1279 E-MAIL: mtaylor@saraotga.ca.us CONTACT (if other than director): Thomas Scott PHONE: 408-868-1277 FAX: 408-868-1279 E-MAIL: tscott@saraotga.ca.us PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project covers the cost of installing access ramps including two ADA transfer points and two standard ADA hand railings to provide increased accessibility at the Saratoga Historical Museum. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS GOAL OBJECTIVE OUTCOME TOTAL # TO BE SERVED UNIT TYPE # SERVED PER QTR Install access ramps and other ADA upgrades Improve ADA accessibility for individuals visiting the Museum ADA upgrades will improve accessibility for individuals at the Museum n/a n/a n/a IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES: The City hired a labor consultant to prepare the documents to send this project out to bid. The City expects to receive bids in the 3rd quarter FY2010, and construction completed in the 4th quarter. BUDGET $10,000 65 D D Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-09-53 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: Urban County Rehab Services AGENCY NAME and ADDRESS: County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing 2310 North First Street, Suite 100, San Jose CA 95131 PROJECT ADDRESS: n/a EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: n/a PHONE: ________________ FAX: ____ E-MAIL: _____________________________ CONTACT (if other than director): Tracy Cunningham PHONE: 408-441-4323 FAX: 408-441-4333 E-MAIL: tracy.cunningham@ceo.sccgov.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project covers the cost of cooperative rehabilitation services provided by the County to the City of Saratoga. These services include the bidding process, inspections, work write-ups, project management, change-orders and close-outs. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS Santa Clara County administers this program IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE Santa Clara County administers this program BUDGET Total: $13,000 -Santa Clara County administers this program 66 ~ D D Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-07-41 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: ADA-Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Curb Ramp (Phase I) AGENCY NAME /ADDRESS: City of Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PROJECT ADDRESS: Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga CA 95070 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: John Cherbone PHONE: 408-868-1241 FAX: 408-868-1281 E-MAIL: jcherbone@saraotga.ca.us CONTACT (if other than director): Kristin Borel PHONE: 408-868-1258 FAX: 408-868-1281 E-MAIL: kborel@saraotga.ca.us PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project (Phase I) covers the cost of installing curb ramps and making other ADA upgrades to provide increased accessibility at intersection crosswalks and along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. This project will include asphalt concrete dikes to close various gaps on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS GOAL OBJECTIVE OUTCOME TOTAL # TO BE SERVED UNIT TYPE SERVED PER QTR 1 2 3 4 Install ADA curb ramps at various locations along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Improve ADA accessibility at these locations ADA curb ramps will improve accessibility for individuals at these locations n/a IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES: Preliminary work has been completed including surveying and curb layout. The City hired a labor consultant to prepare documents to send this project out to bid. The City expects to send out the bid documents in Fiscal Year 2010. BUDGET $63,698 67 D D Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-08-41 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: ADA-City of Saratoga ADA-Accessible Signal Program Phase 1 AGENCY NAME /ADDRESS: City of Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PROJECT ADDRESS: various EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: John Cherbone PHONE: 408-868-1241 FAX: 408-868-1281 E-MAIL: jcherbone@saraotga.ca.us CONTACT (if other than director): Kristin Borel PHONE: 408-868-1258 FAX: 408-868-1281 E-MAIL: kborel@saraotga.ca.us PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project covers the cost of installing ADA audible signals for visually-impaired citizens. The following is a list of proposed locations for the new signals. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS GOAL OBJECTIVE OUTCOME TOTAL # TO BE SERVED UNIT TYPE SERVED PER QTR Install ADA audible signals at various locations throughout the City Reduce pedestrianvehicle conflicts and crashes at signalized intersections ADA audible signals will alert pedestrians who are visually impaired when the walk interval begins at these locations n/a n/a n/a IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES: Bids for design should be received in the 2nd quarter of FY2010. Once the design has been completed, the City will send out a request for construction bides. A contract should be awarded and construction begun prior to the end of the 4th quarter. BUDGET $74,526 68 D D Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-09-41 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: ADA-City of Saratoga ADA-Accessible Signal Program Phase 2 AGENCY NAME /ADDRESS: City of Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PROJECT ADDRESS: various EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: John Cherbone PHONE: 408-868-1241 FAX: 408-868-1281 E-MAIL: jcherbone@saraotga.ca.us CONTACT (if other than director): Kristin Borel PHONE: 408-868-1258 FAX: 408-868-1281 E-MAIL: kborel@saraotga.ca.us PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project covers the cost of installing ADA audible signals for visually-impaired citizens. The following is a list of proposed locations for the new signals. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS GOAL OBJECTIVE OUTCOME TOTAL # TO BE SERVED UNIT TYPE SERVED PER QTR Install ADA audible signals at various locations throughout the City Reduce pedestrianvehicle conflicts and crashes at signalized intersections ADA audible signals will alert pedestrians who are visually impaired when the walk interval begins at these locations n/a n/a n/a IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES: Bids for design should be received in the 2nd quarter of FY2010. Once the design has been completed, the City will send out a request for construction bides. A contract should be awarded and construction begun prior to the end of the 4th quarter. BUDGET $55,600 69 D D Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-10-41 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: ADA-City of Saratoga ADA-Accessible Signal Program Phase 3 AGENCY NAME /ADDRESS: City of Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PROJECT ADDRESS: various EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: John Cherbone PHONE: 408-868-1241 FAX: 408-868-1281 E-MAIL: jcherbone@saraotga.ca.us CONTACT (if other than director): Kristin Borel PHONE: 408-868-1258 FAX: 408-868-1281 E-MAIL: kborel@saraotga.ca.us PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project covers the cost of installing ADA audible signals for visually-impaired citizens. The following is a list of proposed locations for the new signals. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS GOAL OBJECTIVE OUTCOME TOTAL # TO BE SERVED UNIT TYPE SERVED PER QTR Install ADA audible signals at various locations throughout the City Reduce pedestrianvehicle conflicts and crashes at signalized intersections ADA audible signals will alert pedestrians who are visually impaired when the walk interval begins at these locations n/a n/a n/a IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES: Bids for design should be received in the 2nd quarter of FY2010. Once the design has been completed, the City will send out a request for construction bides. A contract should be awarded and construction begun prior to the end of the 4th quarter. BUDGET $22,161 70 D D Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-10-43 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: ADA-Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Curb Ramp (Phase II) AGENCY NAME /ADDRESS: City of Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PROJECT ADDRESS: Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga CA 95070 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: John Cherbone PHONE: 408-868-1241 FAX: 408-868-1281 E-MAIL: jcherbone@saraotga.ca.us CONTACT (if other than director): Kristin Borel PHONE: 408-868-1258 FAX: 408-868-1281 E-MAIL: kborel@saraotga.ca.us PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project (Phase II) covers the cost of installing curb ramps and making other ADA upgrades to provide increased accessibility at intersection crosswalks and along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. This project will include asphalt concrete dikes to close various gaps on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS GOAL OBJECTIVE OUTCOME TOTAL # TO BE SERVED UNIT TYPE SERVED PER QTR 1 2 3 4 Install ADA curb ramps at various locations along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Improve ADA accessibility at these locations ADA curb ramps will improve accessibility for individuals at these locations n/a IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES: Preliminary work has been completed including surveying and curb layout. The City hired a labor consultant to prepare documents to send this project out to bid. The City expects to send out the bid documents in Fiscal Year 2010. BUDGET $41,927 71 D D Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-07-42 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: ADA – City Hall Public Bathroom AGENCY NAME /ADDRESS: City of Saratoga Recreation Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PROJECT ADDRESS: 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Michael Taylor PHONE: 408-868-1250 FAX: 408-868-1279 E-MAIL: mtaylor@saraotga.ca.us CONTACT (if other than director): Thomas Scott PHONE: 408-868-1277 FAX: 408-868-1279 E-MAIL: tscott@saraotga.ca.us PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project covers the cost of Design and Install automatic door openers and closers to existing restroom(s). PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS GOAL OBJECTIVE OUTCOME TOTAL # TO BE SERVED UNIT TYPE SERVED PER QTR Design and Install automatic door openers and closers Improve ADA accessibility of restroom(s) Automatic door openers and closers will improve bathroom access and egress for mobility impaired individuals n/a n/a n/a IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES: A request for proposals should go out during The 2nd quarter of FY2010. Bids should be received in the 3rd quarter. A contract should be awarded and construction begun during the 4th quarter. BUDGET $4,464 72 D D Exhibits A, B, C, D DATE: 11/04/09 PROJECT #: SA-10-91 CATEGORY: Housing Public Service Non-Public Service PROJECT TITLE: General Administration AGENCY NAME /ADDRESS: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PROJECT ADDRESS: 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: John Livingstone PHONE: 408-868-1231 FAX: 408-868-1255 E-MAIL: jlivingstone@saraotga.ca.us CONTACT (if other than director): Cynthia McCormick PHONE: 408-868-1230 FAX: 408-868-1255 E-MAIL: cmccormick@saraotga.ca.us PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project covers costs for time spent by City Staff who coordinates the Community Development Block Grant activities for the City of Saratoga. Administration activities include preparing all related reports, contracts and correspondence; managing the annual CDBG allocation disbursement process, monitoring the grantees, and acting as a liaison between the City and the County HCDA Program. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS N/A IMPLEMENTATION TIME SCHEDULE Ongoing: Staff performs CDBG administrative duties including, but not limited to, project monitoring, report preparation, and attending meetings BUDGET Total: $15,000 73 D D [gJ 74 Many elements of this document may be completed electronically, however a signature must be manually applied and the document must be submitted in paper form to the Field Office. o This certificaHori does not apply: .' ~ This'certification is applicable. " . . -. -,: ': NON-STATE GOVERNMENT CERTIFICATIONS I n accordance with the applicable statutes and the regulations governing the consolidated plan regulations, the jurisdiction certifies that: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing --The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing, which means it will conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analYSiS, and maintain records reflecting that ana lysis and actions in this regard . EXHIBITE Anti-displacement and Relocation Plan --It will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR 24; and it has in effect and is following a residential 'antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG or HOME programs. Drug Free Workplace --It will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: 1. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispenSing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; 2. Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about -a. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; b . . The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; c. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and d. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; 3. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph 1; 4. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph 1 that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will -a. Abide by the terms of the statement; and b. Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction; 5. Notifying the agency in writing, within ten ca lendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant; . 6. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b), with respect to any employee who is so convicted -a. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or b. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; 7. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. CRrVJP Non-State Grantee Certifications 1 Version .2.0 . 75 Jurisdiction Anti-Lobbying --To tr,e best of the jurisdiction's knowledge and belief: 8. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; 9. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions; and 10. It will require that the language of paragraph 1 and 2 of this anti-lobbying certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Au·thority of Jurisdiction --The consolidated plan is authorized under State and local law (as applicable) and the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations. Consistency with plan --The housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds are consistent with the strategic plan. Section 3 --It will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 135. Date Gary A. Graves Name Acting County Executive Title 70 West Hedding Street Address San Jose, CA 95110 City/State/Zip ( 408) 299-5102 Telephone Number cprvlp Non-State Grantee Certifications 2 Version 2.0 76 Jurisdiction o This certification does not apply. ~ This certification is applicable. Specific CDSG Certifications The Entitlement Community certifies that: Citizen Participation --It is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of 24 CFR 91.105. Community Development Plan --Its consolidated housing and community development plan identifies community development and housing needs and specifies both short-term. and long-term community development objectives that provide decent housing, expand economic opportunities primarily for persons of low and moderate income. (See CFR 24 570.2 and CFR 24 part 570) Following a Plan --It is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) that has been approved by HUO. Use of Funds --It has complied with the following criteria: 11. Maximum Feasible Priority -With respect to activities expected to be assisted with COBG funds, it certifies that it has developed its Action Plan so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. The Action Plan may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available); 12. Overall Benefit -The aggregate use of COBG funds including section 108 guaranteed loans during program year(s) 2009, 2 _ , 2---1 (a period specified by the grantee consisting of one, two, or three specific consecutive program years), shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent of the amount is expended for activities that benefit such persons during the deSignated period; 13. Special Assessments -It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with COBG funds including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements. However, if CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with COBG funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than COBG funds. The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with COBG funds, including Section 108, unless COBG funds are used to pay the proportion of fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements financed from other revenue sources. In this case, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than COBG funds. Also, iri the case of properties owned and occupied by moderate-income (not low-income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property for public improvements financed by a source other than COBG funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks COBG funds to cover the assessment. Excessive Force --It has adopted and is enforcing: 14. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and 15. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction; CPMP Non-State Grantee Certifications 3 Version 2.0 77 Jurisdiction Compiiance With Anti-discrimination laws --The grant wili be conducted and administered in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601-3619), and implementing regulations. Lead-Based Paint --Its activities concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of part 35, subparts A, B, J, K and R, of title 24; Compliance with Laws --It will comply with applicable laws. /IS?(Zt71 Date I Gary A. Graves Name I Acti ng Cou nty Executive Title I 70 West Heddding Street Address I San Jose, CA 95110 City jStatejZi p I (408) 299-5102 Telephone Number CPMP Non-State Grantee Certifications 4 Version 2.0 78 Jurisdiction o This certification does not apply. [Z] This certification is applicable. APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS Instructions Concerning Lobbying and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements Lobbying Certification This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.s. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. . Drug-Free Workplace Certification 1. By signing and/or submitting this application or grant agreement, the grantee is providing the certification. 2. The certification is a material representation of fact u'pon which reliance is placed when the agency awards the grant. If it is later determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise v iolates the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, HUD, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act. 3. Workplaces under grants, for grantees other than individuals, need not be identified on the certification. If known, they may be identified in the grant application. If the grantee does not identify the workplaces at the time of application, or upon award, if there is no application, the grantee must keep the identity of the workplace(s) on fi le in its office and make the information availab le for Federal inspection. Failure to identify all known workplaces constitutes a violation of the grantee's drug-free workplace requirements. 4. Workplace identifications must include the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the grant takes place. Categorical descriptions may be used (e.g., all vehicles of a mass transit authority or State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performers in concert halls or radio stations). 5. If the workplace identified to the agency changes during the performance of the grant, the grantee shall inform the agency of the change(s), if it previously identified the workplaces in question (see paragraph three). 6. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the specific grant: Place of Performance (Street address, city, county, state, zip code) Check if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here. The certification with regard to the drug-free workplace is required by 24 CFR part 21. Place Name Street City County State County Government Center 70 West Hedding San Jose Santa Clara CA St. Office of Affordable Housing 2310 N. First St. San Jose Santa Clara CA #100 7. Definitions of terms in the Nonprocurement Suspension and Debarment common rule and Drug-Free Workplace common rule apply to this certification. Grantees' attention is called, in particular, to the following definitions from these rules: "Controlled substance" means a controlled substance in Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and as further defined by regulation (21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15); "Conviction" means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposition of sentence, or both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the CPMP Non-State Grantee Certifications 10 Version 2.0 Zip 95110 95131 79 Jurisdiction Federal or State criminal drug statutes; "Criminal drug statute" means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, USe, or possession of any controlled substance; "Employee" means the employee of a grantee directly engaged in the performance of work under a grant, including: All "direct charge" employees; all "indirect charge" employees unless their impact or involvement is insignificant to the performance of the grant; and a. temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the grant and who are on the grantee's payroll. This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the grantee (e.g., volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the grantee's payroll; or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces). Note that by signing these certifications, certain documents must completed, in use, and on file for verification. These documents include: 1. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2. Citizen Participation Plan 3. Anti-displacement and Relocation Plan /Date Gary A. Graves Name I Acting County Executive Title 70 West Hedding Street Address San Jose, CA 95110 City jStatejZi p (408) .299-5102 Telephone Number CPMP Non-State Grantee Certifications 11 Version 2.0 80 EXHillITF ASSURANCES CORPORA TION hereby assures and certifies that it will comply with all regulations, policies, guidelines and requirements applicable to the acceptance and use of Federal funds for this Federally-assisted program and will be responsible for implementing and complying with all relevant future changes to Federal Regulations or OMB Circulars. Specifically CORPORATION gives assurances and certifies with respect to the PROGRAM that it is compliant with the following Regulations as defined by 24 CFR, Part 570, Subpart J; 24 CFR, Part 570, Subpart K; and will be conducted and administered in confonnity with "Public Law 88 .352 and Public Law 90-284. Full text afthe regulations can be located at: http://www.gpoaccess.gav/ cjrlindex.html 1. 570.505. Use of Real Property 2. 570.506. Records to be .Maintained 3. 570.508. Public Access to Public Records 4. 570.601. Public Law 88-352 and Public Law 90-284; affinnatively furthering fair housing; Executive Order 11063, as amended by Executive Order 12259 addresses discrimination. HUD regulations implementing Executive Order 11063 are contained in 24 CFR, Part 107. 5. 570.602. Section 109 of the Act addresses discrimination 6. 570.603. Labor Standards 7. 570.604. Environmental Standards 8. 570.605. National Flood Insurance Program 9. 570.606. Displacement, Relocation, Acquisition, and Replacement of Housing. 10. 570.607. Employment and Contracting Opportunities 11. 570.608. L~ad-Based Paint 12. 570.609. Use of Debarred, Suspended, or Ineligible Contractors or Subrecipients 13. 570.610. Uniform Administrative Requirement and Cost Principles. The COUNTY, its Subrecipients, agencies or instrumentalities, shall comply with the policies, guidelines, and requirements of24 CFR Part 85 (Common Rule), and OMB Circulars A-110 (Grants and Agreements with Non-Profit Organizations), A-122 (Cost Principles for Non-Profits), A-128 (Audits of State and Local Governmerits-implemented at 2A CFR, Part 24), and A-133 (Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non-Non-Profit EXHIBIT F -ASSURANCES 1 REVISED 8/24/06 81 Institutions), as applicable, as they relate to the acceptance and use of Federal funds under this part. The applicable sections of 24CFR, Part 85 and OMB Circular A-lOO are set forth at 570.502. 14. 570.611. Conflict of Interest 15. 570.612. Executive Order 12372 allows States to establish its own process for review and comment on proposed Federal financial assistance programs, specifically the use of CDBG funds for the construction or planning of water or sewer facilities. 16. 570.613. Eligibility Restrictions for Certain Resident Aliens 17. 570.614. Architectural Barriers Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act EXHIBIT F -ASSURANCES S:\ CDBG~ HOME 2 REVISED 8-24-06 It 82 Indemnitv . INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STANDARD CONTRACTS ABOVE $100.000 EXHIBITG The Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County of Santa Clara (hereinafter "County"), its officers, agents and employees from any claim, liability, loss, injury or damage arising out of, or in connection with, performance of this Agreement by Contractor and/or its agents, employees or sub-contractors, excepting only loss, injury or damage caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of personnel employed by the County. It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement to provide the broadest possible coverage for the County. The Contractor shall reimbmse the County for all costs, attorneys' fees, expenses and li abilities incurred v,~th respect to any litigation in which the Contractor is obligated to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the County under this Agreement. Insurance Without limiting the Contractor's indemnification of the County, the Contractor shall provide and maintain at its own expense, during the tenn of this Agreement, or as may be further required herein, the following insmance coverages and provisions: A. Evidence of Coverage Prior to commencement of this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide a Certificate of Insurance certifying that coverage as required herein has been obtained. Individual endorsements executed by the insurance carrier shall accompany the certificate. In addition, a certified copy of the policy or policies shall be provided by the Contractor upon request. This verification of coverage shall be sent to the requesting COWlty department, W1less otherwise directed. The Contractor shall not receive a Notice to Proceed with the work under the Agreement until it has obtained all insurance required and such insurance has been approved by the County. This approval of insurance shall neither relieve nor decrease the liabili ty of the Contractor. B. Qualifying Insurers All coverages, except surety, shall be issued by companies which hold a current policy policy holder's alphabetic and financial size category rating of not less than A-V, according to the current Best's Key Rating Guide or a company of equal financial stability that is approved by the County's Insurance Manager. EXHIBIT B-2 (revised) (HCD-O) Rev. 7/30102 83 EXHIBIT G C. Notice of Cancellation All coverage as required herein shall not be canceled or changed so as to no longer meet the specified County insurance requirements without 30 days' prior written notice of such cancellation or change being delivered to the County of Santa Clara or their designated agent. D. Insurance Required 1. Commercial General Liability Insurance -for bodily injury (including death) and property damage which provides limits as follows: a. Each occurrence $1,000,000 b. General aggregate -$2,000,000 c. Products/Completed Operations aggregate -$2,000,000 d. Personal Injury $1 ,000,000 2. General liability coverage shall include: a. Premises and Operations b. Products/Completed c. Personal Injury liability f. Severability of interest 3. General liability coverage shall include the following endorsement. a copv of which shall be provided to the County: Additional Insured Endorsement, which shall read: "County of Santa Clara, and members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, . and the officers, agents, and employees of the County of Santa Clara, individually and collectively, as additional insureds." Insurance afforded by the additional insured endorsement shall apply as primary insurance, and other insurance maintained by the County of Santa Clara, its EXHIBIT B-2 (revised) (BCD-O) . Rev. 7/30/02 2 84 EXIDBIT G officers, agents, and employees shall be excess only and not contributing with insurance provided under this policy. Public Entities may also be added to the additional insured endorsement as applicable and the contractor shall be notified by the contracting department of these requirements. 4. Automobile Liabilitv Insurance For bodily injury (including death) and property damage which provides total limits of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence applicable to all owned, non-O\",ned and hired vehicles. 5. Workers' Compensation and Emplover's Liability Insurance a. Statutory California Workers' Compensation coverage including broild form all-states coverage. b. Employer's Liability coverage for not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence. E. Special Provisions The following provisions shall apply to this Agreement: 1. The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by the Contractor and any approval of said insurance by the County or its insurance consultant(s) are not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Contractor pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to the provisions concerning indemnification. 2. The County acknowledges that some insurance requirements contained in this Agreement may be fulfilled by .self-insurance on the part of the Contractor. However, this shall not in any way limit liabilities assumed by the Contractor under this Agreement. Any self-insurance shall be approved in writing by the County upon satisfactory evidence of financial capacity. Contractors obligation hereunder may be satisfied in \",hole or in part by adequately funded self-insurance programs or self-insurance retentions. 3. Should any of the work under this Agreement be sublet, the Contractor shall require each of its subcontractors of any tier to carry the aforementioned coverages, or Contractor may insure subcontractors under its own policies. 4. The County reserves the right to withhold payments to the Contractor in the event of material noncompliance with the insurance requirements outlined above. . EXHIBIT B-2 (revised) (HCD-O) Rev. 7/30102 3 85 EXHIBITH not included 86 DECLARATION OF CONTRACTOR (To be completed by all Type I and Type II contractors) Exhibit I X This is a Type I service contract under the Board of Supervisor's Resolution of Contracting Principles. If this box is checked, please complete the following: Type I Category: Section II.C.6 Explanation: . Contract with other public agencies. D This is a Type" contract under the Board of Supervisor's Resolution on Contracting Principles. The contractor currently has other County contracts for the same or similar services: D Yes D No If Yes is checked, please list and describe contracts, names of departments, types and dollar amounts. I am authorized to complete this form on behalf of __________________ [name of contracting entity]. I have used due diligence in obtaining this information, and this information contained herein is complete and accurate. Contractor Signature: ---------~----------Name: Title: Date: _____ ~ ____________________ _ Updated: 10/4/2006 87 CONTRACT PROVISIONS TO IMPLEl\1ENT THE TERl\1S OF THE RESOLUTION RE: CONTRACTING PRINCIPLES [TYPE I CONTRACTS] This contract is a Type I service contract subject to the Resolution of Contracting Principles adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1997. Accordingly, Contractor shall comply with all of the following: a. Contractor shalt during the term of this contract comply with all applicable federal, state, and local rules, regulations, and laws. b. Contractor shall maintain financial records adequate to show that County funds paid under the contract were used for purposes consistent with the terms of the contracts. These records shall be maintained during the term of this contract and for a period of three (3) years from termination of this contract or until all claims if any, have been resolved, whichever period is longer, or longer if otherwise required under other provisions of this contract. The failure of Contractor to comply with this Section or any portion thereof may be considered a material breach of this contract and may, at the option of the County, constitute grounds for the termination and/or non-renewal of the contract. Contractor shall be provided reasonable notice of any intended termination or non-renewal on the ground of non compliance with this Section, and the opportunity to respond and discuss the County's intended action. Page 1 of 7 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: CityManager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Barbara Powell DIRECTOR: Assistant CityManager SUBJECT: Update of Saratoga’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) matrices pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to submit the attached updated mitigation matrices to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) for their preliminary review and comment. BACKGROUND: In 2000, the federal government passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), which requires all state and local governments (cities, counties and special districts) to develop comprehensive LHMPs as a condition of eligibility for future hazard mitigation grants. In 2007, the City submitted its LHMP (Attachment “A”) and accompanying mitigation matrices to ABAG and FEMA, and FEMA approved them without any suggested revisions. Pursuant to DMA 2000, there is a requirement to periodically update the mitigation matrices. Therefore, staff has undertaken a review of the matrices and has made minor updates to them to reflect any mitigation strategies undertaken by the City since the original submittal (Attachment “B”). For example, under the Housing Mitigation Strategies, the City’s adoption of the 2007 California Building Code is reflected. The steps involved in this process will be: 1. Initial submittal to ABAG and FEMA for review and comment. 2. Review of comments received and additional revisions, if needed 3. Review and approval by the City Council during a Public Hearing at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. 4. Resubmittal to ABAG and FEMA for final review and approval. 88 Page 2 of 7 FISCAL IMPACTS: There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this recommendation. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The City will be ineligible to apply for FEMA disaster mitigation grant funding. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting on City website ATTACHMENTS: Attachment “A” – City’s LHMP Attachment “B” --Mitigation Matrices 89 Page 3 of 7 Attachment “A” ANNEX Local Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Saratoga Introduction The City of Saratoga is a small-sized city located in the western region of Santa Clara County, California. The City has a population of 29,843 people, based on the 2000 census1. For Fiscal Year 2006/2007, the City’s total general fund budget is $10,807,400. The City employs 56 full time equivalents with additional temporary and seasonal workers. Law enforcement services are provided under contract with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, and fire services are provided jointly by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and the Saratoga Fire Protection District. The Planning Process The process of preparing this plan was familiar to the City of Saratoga. The City has a Seismic Safety and Safety Element to its General Plan that includes a discussion of fire, earthquake, hazardous materials and flooding hazards. In addition, the City routinely enforces the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which, since 1988, have required mitigation for identified natural hazards. The City’s effort has focused on building on these pre-existing programs and identifying gaps that may lead to disaster vulnerabilities, in order to work on ways to address these risks through mitigation. Many of the activities conducted by the City of Saratoga were fed into the planning process for the multi-jurisdictional plan. The City participated in various ABAG workshops and meetings, including the general “kick-off” meeting. In addition, the City has provided written and oral comments on the multi-jurisdictional plan. Finally, the City provided information on facilities that are viewed as “critical” to ABAG. Key staff met to identify and prioritize mitigation strategies appropriate for the City. Staff involved in these meetings included the Community Development Director, Building Official, Public Works Director and Assistant City Manager, who is also the City’s Emergency Services Manager, together with representatives from the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, Santa Clara County Fire Department and Saratoga Fire Protection District. The City provided the opportunity for the public to comment on the DRAFT mitigation strategies selected by City staff at the City Council meeting on February 7, 2007. The resolution adopting the plan and strategies was on the City Council agenda on April 4, 2007. The mitigation strategies will become an implementation appendix to the Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the City’s General Plan. 1 For complete Census information on this city, see http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/. 90 Page 4 of 7 Hazard and Risk Assessment The ABAG multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, to which this is an Annex, lists nine hazards that impact the Bay Area, five related to earthquakes (faulting, shaking, earthquakeinduced landslides, liquefaction, and tsunamis) and four related to weather (flooding, landslides, wildfires, and drought). These hazards also impact this community, except for tsunamis, based on the City of Saratoga’s location in the Bay Area. The City has undertaken a number of general hazard mapping activities, which are included in the Seismic Safety and Safety Element. These maps may not be as current as those shown on the ABAG website at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation/. Information on disasters declared in Santa Clara County is available at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation/disaster-history.html. The City examined the hazard exposure of City urban and non-urban land based on the information on ABAG’s website at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation/pickdbh2.html. Of the 7,785 acres (7,242 urban and 544 non-urban) in the City, ¨ Earthquake faulting – While no active faults are mapped in the city by the California Geological Survey as part of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, maps of Known Active Near-Source Zones prepared for use with the 1997 Uniform Building Code indicate that most of the City is located within 2 km of a designated active Type B fault termed the "Monte Vista-Shannon Fault". This seismic source actually includes several different traces of front-range thrust faults including the Berrocal, Monta Vista, Shannon and other unnamed and poorly identified faults of uncertain activity. The activity and locations of these fault traces is currently a subject of ongoing research by the U.S. Geological Survey. New residential development proposed over or near these fault traces must be supported by a Fault Hazard Investigation (report) that is evaluated during the City's Geotechnical Peer Review process. ¨ Earthquake shaking – 7,752 acres are in the two highest categories of shaking potential, in large part because of the City’s location on the Santa Clara Valley floor. ¨ Earthquake-induced landslides – the California Geological Survey has reported 3,677 acres are not in their study zone, 498 acres are within their study zone and 3,611 have not yet been evaluated. ¨ Earthquake liquefaction – 960 acres are in areas of moderate, high, or very high liquefaction susceptibility. ¨ Tsunamis – Based on the City’s location, tsunamis are not a hazard. ¨ Flooding – 104 acres are in the 100-year flood plain, while an additional 7,392 acres are in other less flood-prone areas; the remainder is not subject to flooding. ¨ Landslides – 482 acres were classified as within a “mostly landslide area” while 2,688 acres were designated “few landslides”; the remainder had no landslides. ¨ Wildfires – 5,822 acres are in wildland-urban interface threat areas although only 466 acres were considered high, 254 very high and 0 extreme threat. ¨ Dam Inundation – 77 acres are subject to dam inundation. ¨ Drought – all 7,785 acres are subject to drought. 91 Page 5 of 7 The City also examined the hazard exposure of infrastructure based on the information on ABAG’s website at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation/pickdbh2.html. Of the 179 miles of roadway in the City, ¨ Earthquake faulting – See urban and non-urban land use above. ¨ Earthquake shaking – 178 miles of roadway are within the highest two categories of shaking potential. ¨ Earthquake-induced landslides – of the 179 miles of roadway, the California Geological Survey has included 12 miles in their study zone; 17 miles have yet to be evaluated. ¨ Earthquake liquefaction – 24 miles of roadway are in areas of moderate, high, or very high liquefaction susceptibility. ¨ Tsunamis – Based on the City’s location, tsunamis are not a hazard in the City of Saratoga. ¨ Flooding – 2 miles of roadway are in the 100-year flood plain, while an additional 170 miles are in other less flood-prone areas; the remainder is not subject to flooding. ¨ Landslides – 7 miles of road are within existing landslide areas and an additional 48 miles were designated as subject to few landslides. ¨ Wildfires – 13 miles of roadway are subject to high or very high wildfire threat; 117 miles of roads are in wildland-urban interface threat areas. ¨ Dam Inundation – 2 miles of roadway are in an area subject to dam inundation. ¨ Drought – is not a hazard for roadways. Finally, the City examined the hazard exposure of critical health care facilities, schools, and cityowned buildings based on the information on ABAG’s website at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation/pickcrit.html. Of the critical facilities in the City, ¨ Earthquake faulting – See urban and non-urban land use above. ¨ Earthquake shaking – Three long term care facilities, 11 schools, and 31 public facilities (owned by the City, County or a school district) are in the highest two categories of shaking potential. ¨ Earthquake-induced landslides – no critical facilities are located in such areas. ¨ Earthquake liquefaction – No critical health care facilities are in areas of moderate, high, or very high liquefaction susceptibility. However, three City-owned facilities and one school are located in an area of moderate earthquake liquefaction susceptibility. ¨ Tsunamis – Based on the City’s location, tsunamis are not a hazard in the City of Saratoga. ¨ Flooding – Four city-owned facilities are in the 100-year flood plain. Two long term health care facilities, 12 schools, 27 public facilities are located in other less floodprone areas. ¨ Landslides – One long term care facility and one public facility are located in areas with “few landslides”; 9 public facilities are in locations designated “mostly a landslide area” ¨ Wildfires – one public facility is located in a very high wildfire threat area. ¨ Dam Inundation – No critical facilities are subject to dam inundation. ¨ Drought – Drought will not affect city buildings directly. Additionally, the City does not operate a water-supply distribution system. In spite of the areas of the City located in flood-prone areas, there are no repetitive loss loss properties in the City based on the information at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation/pickfl ood.html. 92 Page 6 of 7 The City plans to work with ABAG during 2007 to improve the risk assessment information being compiled by ABAG by providing information on unreinforced masonry buildings and soft-story apartments located in the City. All unreinforced masonry buildings in the City have been retrofitted for life safety. Drought, though a potential problem in the City, is not fully assessed. The City will work with ABAG and various water supply agencies on this issue. The City plans to work with ABAG to develop specific information about the kind and level of damage to buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities which might result from any of the hazards previously noted. As these impacts are not fully developed, the City has reviewed the hazards identified and ranked the hazards based on past disasters and expected future impacts. The conclusion is that earthquakes (particularly shaking) and flooding pose a significant risk for potential loss. Mitigation Activities and Priorities As a participant in the ABAG multi-jurisdictional planning process, City of Saratoga staff helped in the development and review of the comprehensive list of mitigation strategies in the overall multi-jurisdictional plan. The list was discussed at various meetings with the Community Development Director, Building Official, Public Works Director, Assistant City Manager and representatives from the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, Santa Clara County Fire Department and Saratoga Fire Protection District. At these meetings, all of the mitigation strategies were reviewed. The tentative decision on priority was made based on a variety of criteria, not simply on an economic cost-benefit analysis. These criteria include being technically and administratively feasible, politically acceptable, socially appropriate, legal, economically sound, and not harmful to the environment or our heritage. Over time, we are committed to developing better hazard and risk information to use in making those trade-offs. We are not trying to create a disaster-proof region, but a disaster-resistant one. In addition, several of the strategies involve existing City programs. These draft priorities were submitted to the CityManager, Santa Clara County Fire, Saratoga Fire Department and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office for review. The draft priorities were then provided to the City Council on February 7, 2007. The public was provided with an opportunity to comment on the DRAFT priorities. The final strategies (as shown in the attached Table) will become an Implementation Appendix to the City’s Seismic Safety and Safety Element. The Plan Maintenance and Update Process 93 Page 7 of 7 The City Manager’s Office will ensure that monitoring of this Annex will occur. The plan will be monitored on an on-going basis. However, the major disasters affecting our community, legal changes, notices from ABAG as the lead agency in this process, and other triggers will be used. Finally, the Annex will be a discussion item on the agenda of the meeting of City department heads at least once a year in April. At that meeting, the department heads will focus on evaluating the Annex in light of technological and political changes during the past year or other significant events. This group will be responsible for determining if the plan should be updated. The City of Saratoga is committed to reviewing and updating this plan annex at least once every five years, as required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The City’s Assistant CityManager will contact ABAG four years after this plan is approved to ensure that ABAG plans to undertake the plan update process. If so, the City again plans to participate in the multi-jurisdictional plan. If ABAG is unwilling or unable to act as the lead agency in the multi-jurisdictional effort, other agencies will be contacted, including the County’s Office of Emergency Services. Counties should then work together to identify another regional forum for developing a multi-jurisdictional plan. The public will continue to be involved whenever the plan is updated and as appropriate during the monitoring and evaluation process. Prior to adoption of updates, the City will provide the opportunity for the public to comment on the updates. A public notice will be posted prior to the meeting to announce the comment period and meeting logistics. 94 Infrastructure Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy NumberSpecific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments INFR -a -Multi-Hazard (…owned by the infrastructure provider filling out this form, including a city, county, or special district) a-1 a-1 Assess the vulnerability of critical facilities owned by infrastructure operators to damage in natural disasters or security threats, including fuel tanks and and facilities owned outside of the Bay Area that can impact service delivery within the region. Note -Infrastructure agencies, departments, and districts are those that operate transportation and utility facilities and networks. EQ LS WF FL SEC X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. a-2 a-2 If a dam owner, comply with State of California and federal requirements to assess the vulnerability of dams to damage from earthquakes, seiches, landslides, liquefaction, or security threats. EQ LS WF FL SEC X The City does not own any dams. a-3 a-3 Encourage the cooperation of utility system providers and cities, counties, and special districts, and PG&E to develop strong and effective mitigation strategies for infrastructure systems and facilities. EQ LS WF FL DR SEC X Public Works Department a-4 a-4 Retrofit or replace critical lifeline infrastructure facilities and/or their backup facilities that are shown to be vulnerable to damage in natural disasters. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Public Works Department a-5 a-5 Support and encourage efforts of other (lifeline infrastructure) agencies as they plan for and arrange financing for seismic retrofits and other disaster mitigation strategies. (For example, a city might pass a resolution in support of a transit agency’s retrofit program.) EQ LS WF FL DR SEC X Public Works Department 1 of 12 95 Infrastructure Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy NumberSpecific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments a-6 a-6 Develop a plan for speeding the repair and functional restoration of water and wastewater systems through stockpiling of shoring materials, temporary pumps, surface pipelines, portable hydrants, and other supplies, such as those available through the Water /Wastewater Agency Response Network (WARN). Communicate that plan to local governments and critical facility operators. EQ LS WF FL DR SEC X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. a-7 a-7 Engage in, support, and/or encourage research by others (such as USGS, universities, or PEER) on measures to further strengthen transportation, water, sewer, and power systems so that they are less vulnerable to damage in disasters. EQ LS WF FL DR SEC X Public Works Department a-8 a-8 Pre-position emergency power generation capacity (or have rental/lease agreements for these generators) in critical buildings of cities, counties, and special districts to maintain continuity of government and services. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Facilities Division a-9 a-9 (REWORDED) Ensure that critical intersection traffic lights function following loss of power by installing battery back-ups, emergency generators, or lights powered by alternative energy sources such as solar. Proper functioning of these lights is essential for rapid evacuation, such as with hazmat releases resulting from natural disasters. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Public Works Department a-10 a-10 Develop unused or new pedestrian rights-of-way as walkways to serve as additional evacuation routes (such as fire roads in park lands). EQ LS WF FL SEC X Public Works Department a-11 a-11 Minimize the likelihood that power interruptions will adversely impact lifeline utility systems or critical facilities by ensuring that they have adequate back-up power. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Public Works Department 2 of 12 96 Infrastructure Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy NumberSpecific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments a-12 a-12 Encourage replacing above ground electric and phone wires and other structures with underground facilities, and use the planning-approval process to ensure that all new phone and electrical utility lines are installed underground. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Public Works Department The City is in in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. a-13 a-13 If you own a dam, coordinate with the State Division of Safety of Dams to ensure an adequate timeline for the maintenance and inspection of dams, as required of dam owners by State law, and communicate this information to local governments and the public. EQ LS WF FL SEC X The City does not own any dams. a-14 a-14 Encourage communication between State Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), FEMA, and utilities related to emergencies occurring outside of the Bay Area that can affect service delivery in the region. EQ LS WF FL DR SEC X City Manager's Office; Emergency Preparedness Coordinator a-15 a-15 Ensure that transit operators, private ambulance companies, cities, and/or counties have mechanisms in place for medical transport during and after disasters that take into consideration the potential for reduced capabilities of roads following these same disasters. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department a-16 new Recognize that heat emergencies produce the need for non-medical transport of people to cooling centers by ensuring that (1) transit operators have plans for non-medical transport of people during and after such emergencies including the use of paratransit and (2) cities, counties, and transit agencies have developed ways to communicate the plan to the public. Heat X City Manager's Office; Emergency Preparedness Coordinator a-17 a-16 Effectively utilize the Regional Transportation Management Center (TMC) in Oakland, the staffing of which is provided by Caltrans, the CHP and MTC. The TMC is designed to maximize safety and efficiency throughout the highway system. It includes the Emergency Resource Center (ERC) which was created specifically for primary planning and procedural disaster management. RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: MTC only. EQ LS WF FL SEC X MTC 3 of 12 97 Infrastructure Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy NumberSpecific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments a-18 new Develop (with the participation of paratransit providers, emergency responders, and public health professionals) plans and procedures for parasit system response and recovery from disasters. EQ LS WF FL Heat SEC X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. a-19 new Coordinate with other critical infrastruture facilities to establish plans for delivery of water and wastewater treatment chemicals. EQ LS WF FL SEC X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. a-20 new Establish plans for delivery of fuel to critical infrastructure providers. EQ LS WF FL SEC X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. a-21 new As an infrastructure operator, designate a backup Emergency Operations Center with redundant communications systems. EQ LS WF FL SEC X City Manager's Office; Emergency Preparedness Coordinator a-22 new Monitor scientific studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and policy decisions related to the long-term disaster resistance of that Delta system to ensure that decisions are made based on comprehensive analysis and in a scientifically-defensible manner. Levee failure due to earthquakes, flooding, and climate change (including sea level rise and more frequent and more severe flooding) are all of concern. The long-term health of the Delta area is critical to the Bay Area’s water supply, is essential for the San Francisco Bay and estuary’s environmental health, provides recreation opportunities for Bay Area residents, and provides the long-term sustainability of Delta communities. While only part of the Delta is within the nine Bay Area counties covered by this multi-jurisdictional LHMP, the Delta is tied to the infrastructure, water supply, and economy of the Bay Area. EQ FL X INFR -b -Earthquakes 4 of 12 98 Infrastructure Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy NumberSpecific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments b-1 b-1 Expedite the funding and retrofit of seismicallydeficient city-and county-owned bridges and road structures by working with Caltrans and other appropriate governmental agencies. EQ X Public Works Department b-2 b-2 Establish a higher priority for funding seismic retrofit of existing transportation and infrastructure systems (such as BART) than for expansion of those systems. EQ X b-3 b-3 Include “areas subject to high ground shaking, earthquake-induced ground failure, and surface fault rupture” in the list of criteria used for determining a replacement schedule for pipelines (along with importance, age, type of construction material, size, condition, and maintenance or repair history). EQ X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. b-4 b-4 Install specially-engineered pipelines in areas subject to faulting, liquefaction, earthquake-induced landsliding, or other earthquake hazard. EQ X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. b-5 b-5 Replace or retrofit water-retention structures that are determined to be structurally deficient, including levees, dams, reservoirs and tanks. EQ X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. b-6 b-6 Install portable facilities (such as hoses, pumps, emergency generators, or other equipment) to allow pipelines to bypass failure zones such as fault rupture areas, areas of liquefaction, and other ground failure areas (using a priority scheme if funds are not available for installation at all needed locations). EQ X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. b-7 b-7 Install earthquake-resistant connections when pipes enter and exit bridges and work with bridge owners to encourage retrofit of these structures. EQ X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. b-8 b-8 Comply with all applicable building and fire codes, as well as other regulations (such as state requirements for fault, landslide, and liquefaction investigations in particular mapped areas) when constructing or significantly remodeling infrastructure facilities. EQ X Public Works Department & Facilities Division b-9 b-9 Clarify to workers in critical facilities and emergency personnel, as well as to elected officials and the public, the extent to which the facilities are expected to perform only at a life safety level (allowing for the safe evacuation of personnel) or are expected to remain functional following an earthquake. EQ X 5 of 12 99 Infrastructure Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy NumberSpecific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments b-10 b-10 Develop a water-based transportation “system” across the Bay for use in the event of major earthquakes. Implementation of such a system could prove extremely useful in the event of structural failure of either the road-bridge systems or BART and might serve as an adjunct to existing transportation system elements in the movement of large numbers of people and/or goods. EQ X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. 6 of 12 100 Infrastructure Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy NumberSpecific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments INFR -c -Wildfire c-1 c-1 Ensure a reliable source of water for fire suppression (meeting acceptable standards for minimum volume and duration of flow) for existing and new development. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department c-2 c-2 Develop a coordinated approach between fire jurisdictions and water supply agencies to identify needed improvements to the water distribution system, initially focusing on areas of highest wildfire hazard (including wildfire threat areas and in wildland-urban-interface areas). WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department c-3 c-3 Develop a defensible space vegetation program that includes the clearing or thinning of (a) non-fire resistive vegetation within 30 feet of access and evacuation roads and routes to critical facilities, or (b) all non-native species (such as eucalyptus and pine, but not necessarily oaks) within 30 feet of access and evacuation roads and routes to critical facilities. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department c-4 c-4 For new development, ensure all dead-end segments of public roads in high hazard areas have at least a “T” intersection turn-around sufficient for typical wildland fire equipment. WF X Public Works Department c-5 c-5 For new development, enforce minimum road width of 20 feet with an additional 10-foot clearance on each shoulder on all driveways and road segments greater than 50 feet in length in wildfire hazard areas. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department c-6 c-6 Require that development in high fire hazard areas provide adequate access roads (with width and vertical clearance that meet the minimum standards of the Fire Code or relevant local ordinance), onsite fire protection systems, evacuation signage, and fire breaks. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department c-7 c-7 Ensure adequate fire equipment road or fire road access to developed and open space areas. WF X SFPD and SCCFD c-8 c-8 Maintain fire roads and/or public right-of-way roads and keep them passable at all times. WF X Public Works Department INFR -d -Flooding d-1 d-1 Conduct a watershed analysis of runoff and drainage systems to predict areas of insufficient capacity in the storm drain and natural creek system. FL X Santa Clara Valley Water District 7 of 12 101 Infrastructure Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy NumberSpecific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments d-2 d-2 Develop procedures for performing a watershed analysis to look at the impact of development on flooding potential downstream, including communities outside of the jurisdiction of proposed projects. FL X Santa Clara Valley Water District d-3 d-3 Conduct a watershed analysis at least once every ten years unless there is a major development in the watershed or a change in the Land Use Element of the Genral Plan of the cities or county within the watershed. FL X Santa Clara Valley Water District d-4 d-4 Assist, support, and/or encourage the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, various Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts, and other responsible agencies to locate and maintain funding for the development of flood control projects that have high cost-benefit ratios (such as through the writing of letters of support and/or passing resolutions in support of these efforts). FL X Public Works Department d-5 d-5 Pursue funding for the design and construction of storm drainage projects to protect vulnerable properties, including property acquisitions, upstream storage such as detention basins, and channel widening with the associated right-of-way acquisitions, relocations, and environmental mitigations. FL X Santa Clara Valley Water District d-6 d-6 Continue to repair and make structural improvements to storm drains, pipelines, and/or channels to enable them to perform to their design capacity in handling water flows as part of regular maintenance activities. (This strategy has the secondary benefit of addressing fuel, chemical, and cleaning product issues.) FL X Public Works Department d-7 d-7 Continue maintenance efforts to keep storm drains and creeks free of obstructions, while retaining vegetation in the channel (as appropriate), to allow for the free flow of water. FL X Public Works Department d-8 d-8 Enforce provisions under creek protection, stormwater management, and discharge control ordinances designed to keep watercourses free of obstructions and to protect drainage facilities to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Best Management Practices. FL X Public Works Department 8 of 12 102 Infrastructure Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy NumberSpecific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments d-9 d-9 Develop an approach and locations for various watercourse bank protection strategies, including for example, (1) an assessment of banks to inventory areas that appear prone to failure, (2) bank stabilization, including installation of rip rap, or whatever regulatory agencies allow (3) stream bed depth management using dredging, and (4) removal of out-of-date coffer dams in rivers and tributary streams. FL X Santa Clara Valley Water District d-10 d-10 Use reservoir sediment or reed removal as one way to increase storage for both flood control and water supply. FL X Santa Clara Valley Water District d-11 d-11 Identify critical locally-owned bridges affected by flooding and either elevate them to increase stream flow and maintain critical ingress and egress routes or modify the channel to achieve equivalent objectives. FL X Public Works Department d-12 d-12 Provide or support the mechanism to expedite the repair or replacement of levees that are vulnerable to collapse from earthquake-induced shaking or liquefaction, rodents, and other concerns, particularly those protecting critical infrastructure. FL X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. d-13 d-13 Ensure that utility systems in new developments are constructed in ways that reduce or eliminate flood damage. FL X Public Works Department d-14 d-14 Determine whether or not wastewater treatment plants are protected from floods, and if not, investigate the use of flood-control berms to not only protect from stream or river flooding, but also increasing plant security. FL X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. d-15 d-15 Work cooperatively with water agencies, flood control districts, Caltrans, and local transportation agencies to determine appropriate performance criteria for watershed analysis. FL X Public Works Department d-16 d-16 Work for better cooperation among the patchwork of agencies managing flood control issues. FL X Public Works Department d-17 d-17 Improve monitoring of creek and watercourse flows to predict potential for flooding downstream by working cooperatively with land owners and the cities and counties in the watershed. FL X Santa Clara Valley Water District 9 of 12 103 Infrastructure Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy NumberSpecific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments d-18 new Using criteria developed by EPA for asset management, inventory existing assets, the condition of those assets, and improvements needed to protect and maintain those assets. Capture this information in a Geographic Information System (GIS) and use it to select locations for creek monitoring gauges. FL X Santa Clara Valley Water District 10 of 12 104 Infrastructure Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy NumberSpecific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments INFR -e -Landslides e-1 e-1 Include “areas subject to ground failure” in the list of criteria used for determining a replacement schedule (along with importance, age, type of construction material, size, condition, and maintenance or repair history) for pipelines. LS X e-2 e-2 Establish requirements in zoning ordinances to address hillside development constraints in areas of steep slopes that are likely to lead to excessive road maintenance or where roads will be difficult to maintain during winter storms due to landsliding. LS X Community Development Department Ord. 71-113 INFR -f -Building Reoccupancy f-1 f-1 Ensure that critical buildings owned or leased by special districts or private utility companies participate in a program similar to San Francisco’s Building Occupancy Resumption Program (BORP). The BORP program permits owners of buildings to hire qualified engineers to create facility-specific post-disaster inspection plans and allows these engineers to become automatically deputized as City/County inspectors for these buildings in the event of an earthquake or other disaster. This program allows rapid reoccupancy of the buildings. Note -A qualified (deleted structural) engineer is a California licensed engineer with relevant experience. EQ LS WF FL SEC X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have a lead role in its implementation. INFR -g -Public Education g-1 g-1 Provide materials to the public related to planning for power outages. EQ LS WF FL SEC X g-2 g-2 Provide materials to the public related to family and personal planning for delays due to traffic or road closures, or due to transit system disruption, due to disasters. EQ LS WF FL SEC X 11 of 12 105 Infrastructure Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy NumberSpecific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments g-3 g-3 Provide materials to the public related to coping with reductions in water supply or contamination of that supply BEYOND regulatory notification requirements. EQ LS WF FL DR SEC X g-4 g-4 Provide materials to the public related to coping with disrupted storm drains, sewage lines, and wastewater treatment (such as that developed by ABAG's Sewer Smart Program). EQ LS WF FL DR SEC X g-5 g-5 Facilitate and/or coordinate the distribution of emergency preparedness or mitigation materials that are prepared by others, such as by making the use of the internet or other electronic means, or placing materials on community access channels or in city or utility newsletters, as appropriate. EQ LS WF FL DR SEC X g-6 new Sponsor the formation and training of Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) for the employees of your agency. [Note – these programs go by a variety of names in various cities and areas.] EQ LS WF FL DR SEC X City Manager's Office, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator g-7 new Develop and distribute culturally appropriate materials related to disaster mitigation and preparedness, such as those on the http://www.preparenow.org website related to infrastructure issues. EQ LS WF FL DR SEC X 12 of 12 106 Health Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments HEAL -a -Hospitals and Other Critical Health Care Facilities (to be filled out by cities, counties, and county health departments, (including those facilities licensed by OSHPD) as well as water agencies, public & private hospitals as noted) a-1 a-1 Work to ensure that cities, counties, county health departments, and hospital operators coordinate with each other (and that hospitals cooperate with the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development -OSHPD) to comply with current state law that mandates that critical facilities are structurally sound and have nonstructural systems designed to remain functional following disasters by 2013. In particular, this coordination should include understanding any problems with obtaining needed funding. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Cities, counties, county health departments, and hospitals EQ LS WF FL SEC X Community Development Departrment a-2 a-2 Encourage hospitals in your community to work with OSHPD to formalize arrangements with structural engineers to report to the hospital, assess damage, and determine if the buildings can be reoccupied. The program should be similar to San Francisco’s Building Occupancy Resumption Program (BORP) that permits owners of buildings to hire qualified structural engineers to create building-specific post-disaster inspection plans and allows these engineers to become automatically deputized as inspectors for these buildings in the event of an earthquake or other disaster. OSHPD, rather than city/county building departments, has the authority and responsibility for the structural integrity of hospital structures. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Cities, counties, county health departments, and hospitals EQ LS WF FL SEC X Santa Clara County Public Health Department a-3 a-3 Ensure health care facilities are adequately prepared to care for victims with respiratory problems related to smoke and/or particulate matter inhalation. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Cities, counties, county health departments, and hospitals EQ WF SEC X Santa Clara County Public Health Department a-4 a-4 Ensure these health care facilities have the capacity to shut off outside air and be selfcontained. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Cities, counties, county health departments, and hospitals EQ WF SEC X Santa Clara County Public Health Department Priority (CHECK ONLY ONE) 1 of 8 107 I Health Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments a-5 a-5 Ensure that hospitals and other major health care facilities have auxiliary water and power sources. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Cities, counties, county health departments, water suppliers, and hospitals EQ LS WF FL SEC X Santa Clara County Public Health Department a-6 a-6 Work to ensure that county health departments work with health care facilities to institute isolation capacity should a need for them arise following a communicable disease epidemic. Isolation capacity varies from a section of the hospital for most communicable diseases to the entire hospital for a major pandemic flu. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Cities, counties, county health departments, and hospitals EQ WF FL SEC X Santa Clara County Public Health Department a-7 a-7 Develop printed materials, utilize existing materials (such as developed by FEMA and the American Red Cross), conduct workshops, and/or provide outreach encouraging employees of these critical health care facilities to have family disaster plans and conduct mitigation activities in their own homes. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Cities, counties, county health departments, and hospitals EQ LS WF FL SEC X Santa Clara County Public Health Department HEAL -b -Ancillary Health-Related Facilities (including medical offices, pharmacies, free-standing or specialy clinics, etc.) b-1 b-1 Identify these ancillary facilities in your community. These facilities are not regulated by OSHPD in the same way as hospitals. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Cities, counties, and county health departments EQ LS WF FL SEC X b-2 b-2 Encourage these facility operators to develop disaster mitigation plans. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Cities, counties, and county health departments EQ LS WF FL SEC X b-3 b-3 Encourage these facility operators to create, maintain, and/or continue partnerships with local governments to develop response and business continuity plans for recovery. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Cities, counties, and county health departments EQ LS WF FL SEC X HEAL -c -Interface with National and State Coordination Initiatives Health Care Initiatives c-1 c-1 Designate locations for the distribution of antibiotics to large numbers of people should the need arise, as required to be included in each county’s Strategic National Stockpile Plan. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: County Health Departments FLU SEC X Santa Clara County Public Health Department The City is working with the Health Department to implement this 2 of 8 108 Health Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments c-2 c-2 Ensure that you know the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) cities in your area. Fremont, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose (plus Sacramento and Stockton) are the MMRS cities in or near the Bay Area. MMRS cities are provided with additional federal funds for organizing, equipping, and training groups of local fire, rescue, medical, and other emergency management personnel to respond to a mass casualty event. (The coordination among public health, medical, emergency management, coroner, EMS, fire, and law enforcement is a model for all cities and counties.) RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Cities, counties, county health departments, and hospitals EQ LS WF FL SEC X Santa Clara County OES; Santa Clara County Fire Department c-3 c-3 Know that National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) uniformed or non-uniformed personnel are within one-to-four hours of your community. These federal resources include veterinary, mortuary, and medical personnel. Teams in or near the Bay Area are headquartered in the cities of Santa Clara and Sacramento. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Cities, counties, county health departments, and hospitals EQ LS WF FL SEC X Santa Clara County OES; Santa clara County Public Health Department c-4 c-4 Plan for hazmat related-issues due to a natural or technological disaster. Hazmat teams should utilize the State of California Department of Health Services laboratory in Richmond for confirmation of biological agents and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or Sandia (both in Livermore) for confirmation of radiological agents. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Cities, counties, county health departments, and hospitals EQ WF FL SEC X Santa Clara County Public Health Department c-5 d-1 Create discussion forums for food and health personnel, including, for example, medical professionals, veterinarians, and plant pathologists, to develop safety, security, and response strategies for food supply contamination (at the source, in processing facilities, in distribution centers, and in grocery stores). RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: County environmental health departments FL SEC X Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department 3 of 8 109 Health Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments c-6 new Ensure mental health continuity of operations and disaster planning is coordinated among county departments, (including Public Health and Emergency Services), private sector mental health organizations, professional associations, and national and community-based non-profit agencies involved in supporting community mental health programs. First, such planning should ensure that the capability exists to provide both immediate onsite mental health support at facilities such as evacuation centers, emergency shelters, and local assistance centers, as well as to coordinate ongoing mental health support during the long-term recovery process. Second, this planning should ensure that mental health providers, in collaboration with the county agencies responsible for providing public information, are prepared to provide consistent post-disaster stress and other mental health guidance to the public impacted by the disaster. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department deleted d-2 (duplicate information to c-2) deleted d-3 (duplicate information to c-3) deleted d-4 (duplicate information to c-4) 4 of 8 110 Health Mitigation Strategies 5 of 8 111 Health Mitigation Strategies with the Health Department to implement this strategy. 6 of 8 112 Health Mitigation Strategies 7 of 8 113 Health Mitigation Strategies 8 of 8 114 Housing Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments HSNG -a -Multi-Hazard a-1 a-1 Assist in ensuring adequate hazard disclosure by working with real estate agents to improve enforcement of real estate disclosure requirements for residential properties with regard to seven official natural hazard zones: 1) Special Flood Hazard Areas (designated by FEMA), FEMA), 2) Areas of Potential Flooding from dam failure inundation, 3) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, 4) Wildland FIre Zones, 5) Earthquake Fault Zones (designated under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act), and the 6) Liquefaction and 7) Landslide Hazard Zones (designated under the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act). EQ LS WF FL SEC X a-2 a-2 Create incentives for private owners of historic or architecturally significant residential buildings to undertake mitigation to levels that will minimize the likelihood that these buildings will need to be demolished after a disaster, particularly if those alterations conform to the federal Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitation. EQ LS WF FL SEC X a-3 NEW -Was GOVT b-4 Develop a plan for short-term sheltering of residents of your community in conjunction with the American Red Cross. EQ LS WF FL SEC X a-4 NEW -Was GOVT b-4 Develop a plan for interim housing for those displaced by working with the Regional CPGP that funded this effort in 2009. (Estimated completion is 2011.) EQ LS WF FL SEC X Priority (CHECK ONLY ONE) 1 of 13 115 I Housing Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments HSNG -b -Single-Family Homes Vulnerable to Earthquakes b-1 b-1 Utilize or recommend adoption of a retrofit standard that includes standard plan sets and construction details for voluntary bolting of homes to their foundations and bracing of outside walls of crawl spaces (“cripple” walls), such as Plan Set A developed by a committee representing the East Bay-Peninsula-Monterey Chapters of the International Code Council (ICC), California Building Officials (CALBO), the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC), the Northern California Chapter of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERINC), and ABAG’s Earthquake Program. EQ X Community Development Department b-2 b-2 Require engineered plan sets for seismic retrofitting of heavy two-story homes with living areas over garages, as well as for split level homes (that is, homes not covered by Plan Set A), until standard plan sets and construction details become available. EQ X Community Development Department b-3 b-3 Require engineered plan sets for seismic retrofitting of homes on steep hillsides (because these homes are not covered by Plan Set A). EQ X Community Development Department b-4 b-4 Encourage local government building inspectors to take classes on a periodic basis (such as the FEMAdeveloped training classes offered by by ABAG) on retrofitting of single-family homes, including application of Plan Set A. EQ X Community Development Department b-5 b-5 Encourage private retrofit contractors and home inspectors doing work in your area to take retrofit classes on a periodic basis(such as the FEMAdeveloped training classes offered by ABAG or additional classes that might be offered by the CalBO Training Institute) on retrofitting of singlefamily homes. EQ X Community Development Department b-6 b-6 Conduct demonstration projects on common existing housing types demonstrating structural and nonstructural mitigation techniques as community models for earthquake mitigation. EQ X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have the lead role in its implementation. b-7 b-7 Provide retrofit classes or workshops for homeowners in your community, or help promote utilization of subregional workshops in the south bay, east bay, peninsula, and north bay as such workshops become available through outreach using existing community education programs. EQ X 2 of 13 116 Housing Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments b-8 b-8 Establish tool-lending libraries with common tools needed for retrofitting for use by homeowners with appropriate training. EQ X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have the lead role in its implementation. b-9 b-9 (reworded) Provide financial incentives to owners of of single-family homes to retrofit if those retrofits comply with Plan Set A or IEBC 2006 in addition to that provided by existing state law State law that makes such retrofits exempt from increases in property taxes. EQ X HSNG -c -Soft-Story Multifamily Residential Structures Vulnerable to Earthquakes c-1 c-1 Require engineered plan sets for voluntary or mandatory soft-story seismic retrofits by private owners until a standard plan set and construction details become available. EQ X Community Development Department c-2 c-2 Adopt the 2009 (changed date) International Existing Building Code or the latest applicable standard for the design of voluntary or mandatory soft-story building retrofits for use in city/county building department regulations. In addition, allow use of changes to that standard recommended by SEAOC for the 2012 IEBC. EQ X Community Development Department Ord. 256-2008 2007 California Building Code c-3 c-3 Work to educate building owners, local government staff, engineers, and contractors contractors on privatelyowned soft-story retrofit procedures and incentives using materials such as those developed by ABAG and the City of San Jose (see http://quake.abag.ca.gov/eqhouse.html.) EQ X Community Development Department c-4 c-4 Conduct an inventory of privately-owned existing or suspected soft-story residential structures as a first step in establishing voluntary or mandatory programs for retrofitting these buildings. EQ X Community Development Department c-5 c-5 Use the soft-story inventory to require private owners to inform all existing tenants (and prospective tenants prior to signing a lease agreement) that they may live in this type of building. EQ X c-6 c-6 Use the soft-story inventory to require private owners to inform all existing and prospective tenants that they may need to be prepared to live elsewhere following an earthquake if the building has not been retrofitted. EQ X 3 of 13 117 Housing Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments c-7 c-7 Investigate and adopt appropriate financial, procedural, and land use incentives (such as parking waivers) for private owners of soft-story buildings to facilitate retrofit such as those described by ABAG (see http://quake.abag.ca.go v/fixit ) . EQ X c-8 c-8 (reworded) Explore development of State regulations or legislation to require or encourage private owners of soft-story structures to strengthen them. EQ X c-9 c-9 Provide technical assistance in seismically strengthening privately-owned soft-story structures. EQ X HSNG -d -Unreinforced Masonry Housing Stock d-1 d-1 Continue to actively implement existing State law that requires cities and counties to maintain lists of the addresses of unreinforced masonry buildings and inform private property owners that they own this type of hazardous structure. EQ X d-2 d-2 Accelerate retrofitting of privately-owned unreinforced masonry structures that have not been retrofitted, for example, by (a) actively working with owners to obtain structural analyses of their buildings, (b) helping owners obtain retrofit funding, (c) adopting a mandatory versus voluntary, retrofit program, and/or (d) applying penalties to owners who show inadequate efforts to upgrade these buildings. EQ X All unreinforced masonry buildings in Saratoga have been retrofitted d-3 d-3 Require private owners to inform all existing (and prospective tenants prior to signing a lease agreement) that they live in an unreinforced masonry building and the standard to which it may have been retrofitted. EQ X d-4 d-4 As required by State law, require private owners to inform all existing tenants that they may need to be prepared to live elsewhere following an earthquake even if the building has been retrofitted, for it has probably been retrofitted to a life-safety standard, not to a standard that will allow occupancy following major earthquakes. EQ X 4 of 13 118 Housing Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments HSNG -e -Other Privately-Owned Structurally Vulnerable Residential Buildings and Earthquakes e-1 e-1 Identify and work toward tying down mobile homes used as year-round permanent residences using an appropriate cost-sharing basis (for example, 75% grant, 25% owner). EQ X There are no mobile homes in Saratoga. e-2 e-2 Inventory non-ductile concrete, tilt-up concrete (such as converted lofts), and other privatelyowned potentially structurally vulnerable residential buildings. EQ X These categories of structures do not currently exist in Saratoga. e-3 e-3 Adopt the 2009 International Existing Building Code or the latest applicable standard for the design of voluntary or mandatory retrofit of privately-owned seismically vulnerable buildings. EQ X Ord. 256-2008 2007 California Building Code e-4 e-4 Adopt one or more of the following strategies as incentives to encourage retrofitting of privatelyowned seismically vulnerable residential buildings: (a) waivers or reductions of permit fees, (b) below-market loans, (c) local tax breaks, (d) grants to cover the cost of retrofitting or of a structural analysis, (e) land use (such as parking requirement waivers) and procedural incentives, or (f) technical assistance. EQ X HSNG -f -New Construction and Earthquakes f-1 f-1 Continue to require that all new housing be constructed in compliance with (deleted "structural") requirements of the most recently adopted version of the California Building Code . EQ X Community Development Department Ord. 256-2008 2007 California Building Code f-2 f-2 Conduct appropriate employee training and support continued education to ensure enforcement of building codes and construction standards, as well as identification of typical design inadequacies of housing and recommended improvements. EQ X Community Development Department HSNG -g -Wildfire and Structural Fires g-1 g-1 Increase efforts to reduce hazards in existing private development in wildland-urban-interface fire-threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat through improving engineering design and vegetation management for mitigation, appropriate code enforcement, and public education on defensible space mitigation strategies. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District & Santa Clara County Fire Department g-2 g-2 Tie public education on defensible space and a a comprehensive defensible space ordinance to a field program of enforcement. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District & Santa Clara County Fire Department 5 of 13 119 Housing Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments g-3 g-3 Require that new homes in wildland-urban-interface fire-threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat be constructed of fireresistant building materials (including roofing and exterior walls) and incorporate fire-resistant design features (such as minimal use of eaves, internal corners, and open first floors) to increase structural survivability and reduce ignitability. Note -See Structural Fire Prevention Field Guide for Mitigation of Wildfires at http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/structural.html. WF X Community Development Dept., Saratoga Fire Protection District & Santa Clara County Fire Department Ord. 256-2008 2007 California Building Code & 2007 California Fire Code g-4 g-4 Create or identify “model” properties showing defensible space and structural survivability in neighborhoods that are wildland-urban-interface firethreatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat. WF X g-5 g-5 Consider fire safety, evacuation, and emergency vehicle access when reviewing proposals to add secondary units or additional residential units in wildland-urban-interface fire-threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-toextreme fire threat. WF X Community Development Department g-6 g-6 Adopt and amend as needed updated versions of the California Building and Fire Codes so that optimal fire-protection standards are used in construction and renovation projects of private buildings. WF X Community Dev. Dept., Saratoga Fire Protection District & Santa Clara County Fire Department Ord. 256-2008 2007 California Building Code & 2007 California Fire Code g-7 g-7 Create a mechanism to enforce provisions of the California Building and Fire Codes and local housing codes that require the installation of smoke detectors and/or fire-extinguishing systems for privately-owned properties by making installation a condition of (a) finalizing a permit for any work on existing properties valued at over a fixed amount, such as $500 or $1000, and/or (b) a condition for the transfer of property if these changes are determined cost-effective strategies. WF X Community Development Dept., Saratoga Fire Protection District & Santa Clara County Fire Department g-8 g-8 Work to ensure a reliable source of water for fire suppression in rural-residential areas through the cooperative efforts of water water districts, fire districts, and residents. WF X Saratoga Fire, Santa Clara County Fire, SC ValleyWater District 6 of 13 120 Housing Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments g-9 g-9 Expand vegetation management programs in wildland-urban-interface fire-threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-toextreme fire threat to more effectively manage the fuel load through roadside collection and chipping, mechanical fuel reduction equipment, selected harvesting, use of goats or other organic methods of fuel reduction, and selected use of controlled burning. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Claa County Fire Department g-10 g-11 Establish special funding mechanisms (such as Fire Hazard Abatement District or regional bond funding) to fund reduction in fire risk of existing properties through vegetation management that includes reduction of fuel loads, use of defensible space, and fuel breaks. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department g-11 g-12 Work with residents in rural-residential areas to ensure adequate plans are developed for appropriate access and evacuation in wildlandurban-interface fire-threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat. For example, in some areas, additional roads can be created, and in other areas, the communities will need to focus on early warning and evacuation because additional roads are not feasible. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department g-12 g-13 Require fire sprinklers in new homes located more than 1.5 miles or a 5-minute response time from a fire station or in an identified high hazard wildlandurban-interface wildfire area. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department Ord. 256-2008 2007 California Building Code & 2007 California Fire Code g-13 g-14 Require fire sprinklers in all new or substantially remodeled multifamily housing, regardless of distance from a fire station. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department Ord. 256-2008 2007 California Building Code & 2007 California Fire Code g-14 g-15 Require sprinklers in all mixed use development to protect residential uses from fires started in nonresidential areas. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department Ord. 256-2008 2007 California Building Code & 2007 California Fire Code g-15 g-16 Compile a list of privately-owned high-rise and high-occupancy buildings which are deemed, due to their age or construction materials, to be particularly susceptible to fire hazards, and determine an expeditious timeline for the fire-safety inspection of all such structures. WF X Saratoga does not have any highrise/high-occupancy buildings. g-16 g-17 Conduct periodic fire-safety inspections of all multifamily buildings, as required by State law. WF X 7 of 13 121 Housing Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments g-17 g-18 Ensure that city/county-initiated fire-preventive vegetation-management techniques and practices for creek sides and high-slope areas do not contribute to the landslide and erosion hazard. For example, vegetation in these sensitive areas could be thinned, rather than removed, or replanted with less flammable materials. When thinning, the nonnative species should be removed first. Other options would be to use structural mitigation, rather than vegetation management in the most sensitive areas. WF LS X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department g-18 g-19 Create a mechanism to require the bracing of water heaters and flexible couplings on gas appliances, and/or (as specified under “a. Single-family homes vulnerable to earthquakes” above) the bolting of homes to their foundations and strengthening of cripple walls to reduce fire ignitions due to earthquakes. EQ WF X Community Development Department Ord. 256-2008 2007 California Building Code & 2007 California Fire Code g-19 g-20 Work with the State Fire Marshall, the California Seismic Safety, PEER, and other experts to identify and manage gas-related fire risks of soft-story residential or mixed use buildings that are prone to collapse and occupant entrapment consistent with the natural gas safety recommendations of Seismic Safety Commission Report SSC-02-03. Note -See http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2002-03_Natural%20Gas%20Safety.pdf. Also note -any values that are installed may need to have both excess flow and seismic triggers (“hybrid” valves). EQ WF X g-21 new Work with insurance companies to create a public/private partnership to give a discount on fire insurance premiums to “Forester Certified” Fire Wise landscaping and fire-resistant building materials on private property. WF X HSNG -h -Flooding h-1 h-1 To reduce flood risk, thereby reducing the cost of flood insurance to private property owners, work to qualify for the highest-feasible rating under the Community Rating System of the National Flood Insurance Program. FL X Santa Clara Valley Water District h-2 h-2 Balance the housing needs of residents against the risk from potential flood-related hazards. FL X Community Dev. Department 8 of 13 122 Housing Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments h-3 h-3 Ensure that new private development pays its fair share of improvements to the storm drainage system necessary to accommodate increased flows from the development, or does not increase runoff by draining water to pervious areas or detention facilities. FL X Community Development Department h-4 h-4 Provide sandbags and plastic sheeting to residents in anticipation of rainstorms, and deliver those materials to vulnerable populations upon request. FL X Public Works Department h-5 h-5 Provide public information on locations for obtaining sandbags and/or deliver those sandbags to those various locations throughout a city and/or county prior to and/or during the rainy season. FL X Public Works Department h-6 h-6 Apply floodplain management regulations for private development in the floodplain and floodway. FL X Public Works Department Ord. 71-167 h-7 h-7 Ensure that new subdivisions are designed to reduce or eliminate flood damage by requiring lots and rights-of-way are laid out for the provision of approved sewer and drainage facilities, providing on-site detention facilities whenever practicable. FL X Public Works Department Ord. 71-167 h-8 h-8 Encourage home and apartment owners to participate in home elevation programs within flood hazard areas. FL X h-9 h-9 As funding opportunities become available, encourage home and apartment owners to participate in acquisition and relocation programs for areas within floodways. FL X h-10 h-10 Encourage owners of properties in a floodplain to consider purchasing flood insurance. For example, point out that most homeowners’ insurance policies do not cover a property for flood damage. FL X 9 of 13 123 Housing Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments HSNG -i -Landslides and Erosion i-1 i-1 Increase efforts to reduce landslides and erosion in existing and future development by improving appropriate code enforcement and use of applicable standards for private property, such as those appearing in the California Building Code , California Geological Survey Special Report 117 – Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) report Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117: Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California, and the California Board for Geologists and Geophysicists Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Reports. Such standards should cover excavation, fill placement, cut-fill transitions, slope stability, drainage and erosion control, slope setbacks, expansive soils, collapsible soils, environmental issues, geological and geotechnical investigations, grading plans and specifications, protection of adjacent properties, and review and permit issuance. LS X Community Development Department Ord 71-193 & Ord. 215-2002 i-2 i-2 Increase efforts to reduce landslides and erosion in existing and future private development through continuing education of design professionals on mitigation strategies. LS X 10 of 13 124 Housing Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments HSNG -j -Building Reoccupancy j-1 j-1 same as econ i-5 Develop and enforce a repair and reconstruction ordinance to ensure that damaged buildings are repaired in an appropriate and timely manner and retrofitted concurrently. This repair and reconstruction ordinance should apply to all public and private buildings, and also apply to repair of all damage, regardless of cause. See http://quake.abag.ca.gov/recovery/info-repa irord.html. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Communitiy Development Department j-2 NEW same as econ i-6 Establish preservation-sensitive measures for the repair and reoccupancy of historically significant privately-owned structures, including requirements for temporary shoring or stabilization where needed, arrangements for consulting with preservationists, and expedited permit procedures for suitable repair or rebuilding of historically or architecturally valuable structures. EQ LS WF FL SEC X HSNG -k -Public Education k-1 k-1 Provide information to residents of your community on the availability of interactive hazard maps showing your community on ABAG’s web site. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Community Development Department k-2 k-2 Develop printed materials, utilize existing materials (such as developed by FEMA and the American Red Cross), conduct workshops, and/or provide outreach encouraging residents to have family disaster plans that include drop-cover-hold earthquake drills, fire and storm evacuation procedures, and shelter-in-place emergency guidelines. EQ LS WF FL SEC X k-3 k-3 Inform residents of comprehensive mitigation activities, including elevation of appliances above expected flood levels, use of fire-resistant roofing and defensible space in high wildfire threat and wildfire-urban-interface areas, structural retrofitting techniques for older homes, and use of intelligent grading practices through workshops, publications, and media announcements and events. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Community Development Department k-4 k-4 Develop a public education campaign on the cost, risk, and benefits of earthquake, flood, and other hazard insurance as compared to mitigation. EQ LS FL SEC X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we are not the lead in its implementation. 11 of 13 125 Housing Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments k-5 k-5 Use disaster anniversaries, such as April (the 1906 earthquake), September (9/11), and October (Loma Prieta earthquake and Oakland Hills fire), to remind the public on safety and security mitigation activities. EQ LS WF FL SEC X k-6 k-6 Sponsor the formation and training of Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) training for residents in your community. [Note – these programs go by a variety of names in various cities and areas.] EQ LS WF FL SEC X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department k-7 k-7 Include flood fighting technique session based on California Department of Water Resources training to the list of available public training classes offered by CERT. FL X k-8 k-8 Institute the neighborhood watch block captain and team programs outlined in the Citizen Corps program guide. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office k-9 k-9 Assist residents in the development of defensible space through the use of, for example, “tool libraries” for weed abatement tools, roadside collection and/or chipping services (for brush, weeds, and tree branches) in wildland-urbaninterface fire-threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department k-10 k-10 Train homeowners to locate and shut off gas valves if they smell or hear gas leaking. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department k-11 k-12 Develop a program to provide at-cost NOAA weather radios to residents of flood hazard areas that request them, with priority to neighborhood watch captains and others trained in their use. FL X k-12 k-13 Make use of the materials on the ABAG web site at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/fixit and other web sites to increase residential mitigation activities related to earthquakes. (ABAG plans to continue to improve the quality of those materials over time.) EQ X k-13 k-14 Develop a “Maintain-a-Drain” campaign, similar to that of the City of Oakland, encouraging private businesses and residents to keep storm drains in their neighborhood free of debris. FL X Public Works Department 12 of 13 126 Housing Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments k-14 k-15 Encourage the formation of a community-and neighborhood-based approach to wildfire education and action through local Fire Safe Councils and the Fire Wise Program. This effort is important because grant funds are currently available to offset costs of specific council-supported projects. WF X X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department k-15 k-16 Inform shoreline-property owners of the possible long-term economic threat posed by rising sea levels. FL X k-16 k-17 Develop and distribute culturally appropriate materials related to disaster mitigation and preparedness, such as those on the http://www.preparenow.org website. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Admin., Emergency Preparedness; Santa Clara County Fire Department deleted g-10 DELETED -REPLACED BY DISCUSSION OF REVERSE 911 in GOVT c-14. deleted k-11 13 of 13 127 Economy Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments ECON -a -Multi-Hazard a-1 a-1 Assist in ensuring adequate hazard disclosure by working with real estate agents to improve enforcement of real estate disclosure requirements for commercial and industrial properties with regard to seven official natural hazard zones: 1) Special Flood Hazard Areas (designated by FEMA), 2) Areas of Potential Flooding from dam failure inundation, 3) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, 4) Wildland FIre Zones, 5) Earthquake Fault Zones (designated under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act), and the 6) Liquefaction and 7) Landslide Hazard Zones (designated under the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act). EQ LS WF FL SEC X a-2 a-2 Create incentives for private owners of historic or architecturally significant commercial and industrial buildings to undertake mitigation to levels that will minimize the likelihood that these buildings will need to be demolished after a disaster, particularly if those alterations conform to the federal Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitation. EQ LS WF FL SEC X ECON -b -Soft-Story Commercial Buildings Vulnerable to Earthquakes b-1 b-1 Require engineered plan sets for voluntary or mandatory soft-story seismic retrofits by private owners until a standard plan set and construction details become available. EQ X Community Development Department b-2 b-2 Adopt the 2009 (changed date) International Existing Building Code or the latest applicable standard for the design of voluntary or mandatory soft-story building retrofits for use in city/county building department regulations. In addition, allow use of changes to that standard recommended by SEAOC for the 2012 IEBC. EQ X Community Development Department Ord. 256-2008 2007 California Building Code b-3 b-3 Work to educate building owners, local government staff, engineers, and contractors on privatelyowned soft-story retrofit procedures and incentives using materials such as those developed by ABAG and the City of San Jose (see http://quake.abag.ca.gov/eqhouse.html.) EQ X Community Development Department b-4 b-4 Conduct an inventory of privately-owned existing or suspected soft-story commercial or industrial structures as a first step in establishing voluntary or mandatory programs for retrofitting these buildings. EQ X Community Development Department Priority (CHECK ONLY ONE) 1 of 10 128 I I Economy Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments b-5 b-5 Use the soft-story inventory to require private owners to inform all existing tenants (and prospective tenants prior to signing a lease agreement) that they may work in this type of building. EQ X b-6 b-6 Use the soft-story inventory to require private owners to inform all existing and prospective tenants that they may need to be prepared to work elsewhere following an earthquake if the building has not been retrofitted. EQ X b-7 b-7 Investigate and adopt appropriate financial, procedural, and land use incentives (such as parking waivers) for private owners of soft-story buildings to facilitate retrofit such as those described by ABAG (see http://quake.abag.ca.gov/fixit ) . EQ X b-8 b-8 (reworded) Explore development of State regulations or legislation to require or encourage private owners of soft-story structures to strengthen them. EQ X Community Development Department b-9 b-9 Provide technical assistance in seismically strengthening privately-owned soft-story structures. EQ X 2 of 10 129 Economy Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments ECON -c -Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in Older Downtown Areas c-1 c-1 Continue to actively implement existing State law that requires cities and counties to maintain lists of the addresses of unreinforced masonry buildings and inform private property owners that they own this type of hazardous structure. EQ X Community Development Department c-2 c-2 Accelerate retrofitting of privately-owned unreinforced masonry structures that have not been retrofitted, for example, by (a) actively working with owners to obtain structural analyses of their buildings, (b) helping owners obtain retrofit funding, (c) adopting a mandatory versus voluntary, retrofit program, and/or (d) applying penalties to owners who show inadequate efforts to upgrade these buildings. EQ X All unreinforced masonry buildings in Saratoga have been retrofitted. c-3 c-3 Require private owners to inform all existing (and prospective tenants prior to signing a lease agreement) that they work in an unreinforced masonry building and the standard to which it may have been retrofitted. EQ X c-4 c-4 As required by State law, require private owners to inform all existing tenants that they may need to be prepared to work elsewhere following an earthquake even if the building has been retrofitted, for it has probably been retrofitted to a life-safety standard, not to a standard that will allow occupancy following major earthquakes. EQ X ECON -d -Privately-Owned Structurally Vulnerable Buildings d-1 d-1 Inventory non-ductile concrete, tilt-up concrete, and other privately-owned structurally vulnerable buildings. EQ X These buildings do not currently exist in Saratoga d-2 d-2 Adopt the 2009 International Existing Building Code or the latest applicable standard for the design of voluntary or mandatory retrofit of privately-owned seismically vulnerable buildings. EQ X Ord. 256-2008 2007 California Building Code d-3 d-3 Adopt one or more of the following strategies as incentives to encourage retrofitting of privatelyowned seismically vulnerable commercial and industrial buildings: (a) waivers or reductions of permit fees, (b) below-market loans, (c) local tax breaks, (d) grants to cover the cost of retrofitting or of a structural analysis, (e) land use (such as parking requirement waivers) and procedural incentives, or (f) technical assistance. EQ X ECON -e -Wildfire and Structural Fires 3 of 10 130 Economy Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments e-1 e-1 Increase efforts to reduce hazards in existing private development in wildland-urban-interface fire-threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat through improving engineering design and vegetation management for mitigation, appropriate code enforcement, and public education on defensible space mitigation strategies. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District & Santa Clara County Fire Department e-2 new Tie public education on defensible space and a comprehensive defensible space ordinance to a field program of enforcement. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District & Santa Clara County Fire Department e-3 e-2 Require that new privately-owned business and office buildings in high fire hazard areas be constructed of fire-resistant building materials and incorporate fire-resistant design features (such as minimal use of eaves, internal corners, and open first floors) to increase structural survivability and reduce ignitability. WF X Community Development Dept., Saratoga Fire Protection District & Santa Clara County Fire Department e-4 e-3 Adopt and amend as needed updated versions of the California Building and Fire Codes so that optimal fire-protection standards are used in construction and renovation projects of private buildings. WF X Community Development Dept., Saratoga Fire Fire Protection District & Santa Clara County Fire Department Ord. 256-2008 2007 California Building Code & 2007 California Fire Code e-5 e-4 Create a mechanism to enforce provisions of the California Building and Fire Codes and other local codes that require the installation of smoke detectors and fire-extinguishing systems by making installation a condition of (a) finalizing a permit for any work on existing privately-owned properties valued at over a fixed amount, such as $500 or $1000, and/or (b) on any building over 75 feet in height, and/or (b) as a condition for the transfer of property. WF X Community Development Dept., Saratoga Fire Protection District & Santa Clara County Fire Department e-6 e-5 (reworded to more closely match the HSNG strategy) Expand vegetation management programs in wildland-urban-interface firethreatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat to more effectively manage the fuel load through roadside collection and chipping, mechanical fuel reduction equipment, selected harvesting, use of goats or other organic methods of fuel reduction, and selected use of controlled burning. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department 4 of 10 131 Economy Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments e-7 e-6 Establish special funding mechanisms (such as Fire Hazard Abatement District or regional bond funding) to fund reduction in fire risk of existing properties through vegetation management that includes reduction of fuel loads, use of defensible space, and fuel breaks. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department e-8 e-7 Establish special funding mechanisms (such as Fire Hazard Abatement District or regional bond funding) to fund fire-safety inspections of private properties, roving firefighter patrols on high firehazard days, and public education efforts. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department e-9 e-8 Compile a list of privately-owned high-rise and high-occupancy buildings that are deemed, due to their age or construction materials, to be particularly susceptible to fire hazards, and determine an expeditious timeline for the fire-safety inspection of all such structures. WF X Saratoga does not have any high-rise/highoccupancy buildings. e-10 e-9 Conduct periodic fire-safety inspections of all privately-owned commercial and industrial buildings. WF X e-11 e-10 Work with the State Fire Marshall, the California Seismic Safety, PEER, and other experts to identify and manage gas-related fire risks of privatelyowned soft-story mixed use buildings that are prone to collapse and occupant entrapment consistent with the natural gas safety recommendations of Seismic Safety Commission Report SSC-02-03. Note -See http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2002-03_Na tural%20Gas%20Safety.pdf. Also note -any values that are installed may need to have both excess flow and seismic triggers (“hybrid” valves). EQ WF X e-12 e-11 Ensure that city/county-initiated fire-preventive vegetation-management techniques and practices for creek sides and high-slope areas do not contribute to the landslide and erosion hazard. WF X e-13 e-12 Work with insurance companies to create a public/private partnership to give a discount on fire insurance premiums to “Forester Certified” Fire Wise landscaping and fire-resistant building materials on private property. WF X ECON -f -Flooding f-1 f-1 To reduce flood risk, thereby reducing the cost of flood insurance to private property owners, work to qualify for the highest-feasible rating under the Community Rating System of the National Flood Insurance Program. FL X Santa Clara Valley Water District 5 of 10 132 Economy Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments f-2 f-2 Balance the needs for private commercial and industrial development against the risk from potential flood-related hazards. FL X Community Dev. Department f-3 f-3 Ensure that new private development pays its fair share of improvements to the storm drainage system necessary to accommodate increased flows from the development, or does not increase runoff by draining water to pervious areas or detention facilities. FL X Community Development Department f-4 f-4 Provide sandbags and plastic sheeting to private businesses in anticipation of rainstorms, and deliver those materials to vulnerable populations upon request. FL X Public Works Department f-5 f-5 Provide information to private business on locations for obtaining sandbags and deliver those sandbags to those various locations throughout a city and/or county. FL X Public Works Department f-6 f-6 Apply floodplain management regulations for private development in the floodplain and floodway. FL X Public Works Department Ord. 71-167 f-7 f-7 Encourage private business owners to participate in building elevation programs within flood hazard areas. FL X f-8 f-8 As funding becomes available, encourage private business owners to participate in acquisition and relocation programs for areas within floodways. FL X f-9 f-9 Require an annual inspection of approved floodproofed privately-owned buildings to ensure that (a) all flood-proofing components will operate properly under flood conditions and (b) all responsible personnel are aware of their duties and responsibilities as described in their building’s Flood Emergency Operation Plan and Inspection & Maintenance Plan. FL X 6 of 10 133 Economy Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments ECON -g -Landslides and Erosion g-1 g-1 Increase efforts to reduce landslides and erosion in existing and future development by improving appropriate code enforcement and use of applicable standards for private property, such as those appearing in the California Building Code , California Geological Survey Special Report 117 – Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) report Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117: Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California, and the California Board for Geologists and Geophysicists Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Reports. Such standards should cover excavation, fill placement, cut-fill transitions, slope stability, drainage and erosion control, slope setbacks, expansive soils, collapsible soils, environmental issues, geological and geotechnical investigations, grading plans and specifications, protection of adjacent properties, and review and permit issuance. LS X Community Development Department Ord. 71-193 & 215-2002 g-2 g-2 Increase efforts to reduce landslides and erosion in existing and future private development through continuing education of design professionals on mitigation strategies. LS X ECON -h -New Construction and Earthquakes h-1 h-1 Continue to require that all new privately-owned commercial and industrial buildings be constructed in compliance with (deleted "structural") requirements of the most recently adopted version of the California Building Code . EQ X Community Development Department Ord. 256-2008 2007 California Building Code h-2 h-2 Conduct appropriate employee training and support continued education to ensure enforcement of construction standards for private development. EQ X Community Development Department h-3 h-3 Work with private building owners to help them recognize that many strategies that increase earthquake resistance also decrease damage in an explosion. In addition, recognize that ventilation systems can be designed to contain airborne biological agents. EQ SEC X 7 of 10 134 Economy Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments ECON -i -Building Reoccupancy i-1 i-1 Institute an aggressive program to encourage owners of private builldings to participate in a program similar to San Francisco’s Building Occupancy Resumption Program (BORP). This program permits owners of private buildings to hire qualified structural engineers to to create buildingspecific post-disaster inspection plans and allows these engineers to become automatically deputized as City/County inspectors for these buildings in the event of an earthquake or other disaster. EQ LS WF FL SEC X i-2 i-2 Actively notify owners of historic or architecturally significant buildings of the availability of the local BORP-type program and encourage them to participate to ensure that appropriately qualified structural engineers are inspecting their privatelyowned buildings, thus reducing the likelihood that the buildings will be inappropriately evaluated following a disaster. EQ LS WF FL SEC X i-3 i-3 Actively notify owners of educational facility buildings of the availability of the local BORP-type program and encourage them to participate to ensure that appropriately qualified structural engineers are inspecting their buildings, thus reducing the likelihood that the buildings will be inappropriately evaluated following a disaster. EQ LS WF FL SEC X i-4 i-4 Allow private building owners to participate in a BORP-type program as described above, but not actively encourage them to do so. EQ LS WF FL SEC X i-5 i-5 Develop and enforce a repair and reconstruction ordinance to ensure that damaged buildings are repaired in an appropriate and timely manner and retrofitted concurrently. This repair and EQ LS WF FL SEC X Community Development Department i-6 i-6 Establish preservation-sensitive measures for the repair and reoccupancy of historically significant privately-owned structures, including requirements for temporary shoring or stabilization where needed, arrangements for consulting with preservationists, and expedited permit procedures for suitable repair or rebuilding of historically or architecturally valuable structures. EQ LS WF FL SEC X ECON -j -Public Education j-1 j-1 Provide information to private business owners and their employees on the availability of interactive hazard maps on ABAG’s web site. EQ LS WF FL SEC X 8 of 10 135 Economy Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments j-2 j-2 Develop printed materials, utilize existing materials (such as developed by FEMA and the American Red Cross), conduct workshops, and/or provide outreach encouraging private businesses’ employees to have family disaster plans that include drop-cover-hold earthquake drills, fire and storm evacuation procedures, and shelter-in-place emergency guidelines. EQ LS WF FL SEC X j-3 j-3 Develop and print materials, conduct workshops, and provide outreach to Bay Area private businesses focusing on business continuity planning. EQ LS WF FL SEC X j-4 j-4 Inform Bay Area private business owners of mitigation activities, including elevation of appliances above expected flood levels, use of fireresistant roofing and defensible space in wildlandurban-interface fire-threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat, structural retrofitting techniques for older buildings, and use of intelligent grading practices through workshops, publications, and media announcements and events. WF FL X j-5 j-5 Sponsor the formation and training of Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) training for other than your own employees through partnerships with local private businesses. [Note – these programs go by a variety of names in various cities and areas.] EQ LS WF FL SEC X j-6 j-6 Assist private businesses in the development of defensible space through the use of, for example, “tool libraries” for weed abatement tools, roadside collection and/or chipping services (for brush, weeds, and tree branches) in wildland-urbaninterface fire-threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat. WF X j-7 j-7 Make use of the materials developed by others (such as found on ABAG’s web site at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/business ) to increase mitigation activities related to earthquakes by groups other than your own agency. ABAG plans to continue to improve the quality of those materials over time. EQ X j-8 j-8 Develop a “Maintain-a-Drain” campaign, similar to that of the City of Oakland, encouraging private businesses and residents to keep storm drains in their neighborhood free of debris. FL X Public Works Department The City maintains our own storm drain system. 9 of 10 136 Economy Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments j-9 j-9 Encourage the formation of a community-and neighborhood-based approach to wildfire education and action through local Fire Safe Councils and the Fire Wise Program. This effort is important because grant funds are currently available to offset costs of specific council-supported projects. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department j-10 j-10 Encourage private businesses and laboratories handling hazardous materials or pathogens increase security to a level high enough to create a deterrent to crime and terrorism, including active implementation of “cradle-to-grave” tracking systems. SEC EQ X j-11 j-11 Encourage joint meetings of security and operations personnel at major private employers to develop innovative ways for these personnel to work together to increase safety and security. SEC EQ X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we are not the lead in its implementation. j-12 j-12 Inform private shoreline-property owners of the possible long-term economic threat posed by rising sea levels. FL X j-13 j-13 Develop and distribute culturally appropriate materials related to disaster mitigation and preparedness, such as those on the http://www.preparenow.org website, for private business owners. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Admin./Emerg. Prep.; Santa Clara County Fire Department 10 of 10 137 Government Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments GOVT -a -Focus on Critical Facilities (...Owned by the Local Government Filling Out This Form) a-1 a-1 Assess the vulnerability of critical facilities (such as city halls, fire stations, operations and communications headquarters, community service centers, seaports, and airports) to damage in natural disasters and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation. EQ LS WF FL X Facilities Division a-2 a-2 Retrofit or replace critical facilities that are shown to be vulnerable to damage in natural disasters. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Facilities Division a-3 a-3 Clarify to workers in critical facilities and emergency personnel, as well as to elected officials and the public, the extent to which the facilities are expected to perform only at a life safety level (allowing for the safe evacuation of personnel) or are expected to remain functional following an earthquake. EQ X a-4 a-4 Conduct comprehensive programs to identify and mitigate problems with facility contents, architectural components, and equipment that will prevent critical buildings from being functional after major natural disasters. Such contents and equipment includes computers and servers, phones, files, and other tools used by staff to conduct daily business. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Facilities Division a-5 a-5 Encourage joint meetings of security and operations personnel at critical facilities to develop innovative ways for these personnel to work together to increase safety and security. EQ LS WF FL SEC X a-6 a-6 When Installing micro and/or surveillance cameras around critical public assets tied to web-based software, and develop a surveillance protocol to monitor these cameras, investigate the possiblility of using the cameras for the secondary purpose of post-disaster damage assessment. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Information Technology Division a-7 a-7 Identify and undertake cost-effective retrofit measures related to security on critical facilities (such as moving and redesigning air intake vents and installing blast-resistant features) when these buildings undergo major renovations related to other natural hazards. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Facilities Division Priority (CHECK ONLY ONE) 1 of 7 138 I Government Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments a-8 a-8 Coordinate with the State Division of Safety of Dams to ensure that cities and counties are aware of the timeline for the maintenance and inspection of dams whose failure would impact their jurisdiction. X The City does not own any dams. a-9 a-9 As a secondary focus, assess the vulnerability vulnerability of non-critical facilities to damage in natural disasters based on occupancy and structural type, make recommendations on priorities for structural improvements or occupancy reductions, and identify potential funding mechanisms. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Facilities Division a-10 a-10 Ensure that government-owned facilities comply with and are subject to the same or more stringent regulations as imposed on privately-owned development. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Community Development Department a-11 a-11 Comply with all applicable building and fire codes, as well as other regulations (such as state requirements for fault, landslide, and liquefaction investigations in particular mapped areas) when constructing or significantly remodeling governmentowned facilities. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Community Development Department a-12 a-12 Prior to acquisition of property to be used as a critical facility, conduct a study to ensure the absence of significant structural hazards and hazards associated with the building site. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Facilities Division a-13 new Ensure that any regulations imposed on privateowned businesses (see "Economy Section") are enforced and imposed on local government's own buildings and structures. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Community Development Department GOVT -b -Maintain and Enhance Local Government’s Emergency Recovery Planning b-1 b-1 Establish a framework and process for pre-event planning for post-event recovery that specifies roles, priorities, and responsibilities of various departments within the local government organization, and that outlines a structure and process for policy-making involving elected officials and appointed advisory committees. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, City Manager's Office b-2 b-2 Prepare a basic Recovery Plan that outlines the major issues and tasks that are likely to be the key elements of community recovery, as well as integrate this planning into response planning (such as with continuity of operations plans). EQ LS WF FL SEC X Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, City Manager's Office 2 of 7 139 Government Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments b-3 b-3 Establish a goal for the resumption of local government services that may vary from function to function. EQ LS WF FL SEC X b-4 b-25 Develop a continuity of operations plan that includes back-up storage of vital records, such as plans and back-up procedures to pay employees and vendors if normal finance department operations are disrupted, as well as other essential electronic files. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Information Technology Division & Emergency Preparedness Coordinator b-5 new Plans should be made for the emergency relocation of government-owned facilities critical to recovery, as well as any facilities with known structural deficiencies or in hazardous areas. EQ LS WF FL SEC X GOVT -c -Maintain and Enhance Local Government’s Emergency Response Capacity c-1 new (old b-4 move d to HSN G a-3) Develop a plan for short-term and intermediateterm sheltering of your employees. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Emergency Preparedness Coordinator c-2 new Encourage your employees to have a family disaster plan. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Emergency Preparedness Coordinator c-3 new Offer CERT/NERT-type training to your employees. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Emergency Preparedness Coordinator c-4 b-5 (a) Periodically assess the need for new or relocated fire or police stations and other emergency facilities. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Saratoga Fire Protection District & Santa Clara County Fire Department c-5 b-5 (b) Periodically assess the need for changes in staffing levels, and additional or updated supplies, equipment, technologies, and in-service training classes. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Saratoga Fire Prot. Dist., Santa Clara County Fire Dept., & Sheriff's Office c-6 b-6 Ensure that fire, police, and other emergency personnel have adequate radios, breathing apparatuses, protective gear, and other equipment to respond to a major disaster. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Saratoga Fire Prot. Dist., Santa Clara County Fire Dept., & Sheriff's Office 3 of 7 140 Government Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments c-7 b-7 Participate in developing and maintaining a system of interoperable communications for first responders from cities, counties, special districts, state, and federal agencies. EQ LS WF FL SEC X c-8 b-8 Harden emergency response communications, including, for example, building redundant capacity into public safety alerting and/or answering points, replacing or hardening microwave and simulcast systems, adding digital encryption for programmable radios, and ensuring a plug-andplay capability for amateur radio. EQ LS WF FL SEC X c-9 b-9 Purchase command vehicles for use as mobile command/EOC vehicles if current vehicles are unsuitable or inadequate. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Public Works Department c-10 b-10 Maintain the local government’s emergency operations center in a fully functional state of readiness. EQ LS WF FL SEC X c-11 b-11 Expand or participate in expanding traditional disaster exercises involving city and county emergency personnel to include airport and port personnel, transit and infrastructure providers, hospitals, schools, park districts, and major employers. EQ LS WF FL SEC X c-12 b-12 Maintain and update as necessary the local government’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) Plan and the National Incident Management System (NIMS) Plan, and submit an appropriate NIMSCAST report. EQ LS WF FL SEC X c-13 b-13 Continue to participate not only in general mutualaid agreements, but also in agreements with adjoining jurisdictions for cooperative response to fires, floods, earthquakes, and other disasters. EQ LS WF FL SEC X c-14 b-14 & b-22 Install alert and warning systems for rapid evacuation or shelter-in-place. Such systems include outdoor sirens and/or reverse-911 calling systems. EQ LS WF FL SEC X c-15 b-15 Conduct periodic tests of the alerting and warning system. (deleted some wording) EQ LS WF FL SEC X c-16 b-16 Regulate and enforce the location and design of street-address numbers on buildings and minimize the naming of short streets (that are actually driveways) to single homes. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Community Development Department 4 of 7 141 Government Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments c-17 b-17 Monitor weather during times of high fire risk using, for example, weather stations tied into police and fire dispatch centers. WF X Saratoga Fire, Santa Clara County Fire, Sheriff's Office c-18 b-18 Establish regional protocols on how to respond to the NOAA Monterey weather forecasts, such as the identifying types of closures, limits on work that could cause ignitions, and prepositioning of suppression forces. A multi-agency coordination of response also helps provide unified messages to the public about how they should respond to these periods of increased fire danger. Response should also be modified based on knowledge of local micro-climates. Local agencies with less risk then may be available for mutual aid. WF X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have the lead in its implementation. c-19 b-19 Increase local patrolling during periods of high fire weather. WF X Sheriff's Office c-20 b-20 Create and maintain an automated system of rain and flood gauges that is web enabled and publiclyaccessible. Work toward creating a coordinated regional system. FL LS X Santa Clara Valley Water District c-21 b-21 Place remote sensors in strategic locations for early warning of hazmat releases or use of weapons of mass destruction, understanding that the appropriate early warning strategy depends on the type of problem. EQ LS WF FL SEC X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have the lead in its implementation. c-22 b-23 Review and update, as necessary, procedures pursuant to the State Dam Safety Act for the emergency evacuation of areas located below major water-storage facilities. EQ LS FL SEC X c-23 a-8 Improve coordination among cities, counties, and dam owners so that cities and counties can better plan for evacuation of inundation areas for dams whose failure would impact their jurisdiction. EQ LS FL SEC X Santa Clara Valley Water District c-24 b-24 Develop procedures for the emergency evacuation of areas identified on tsunami evacuation maps as these maps become available. EQ (TS) X c-25 new Support and encourage planning and identification of facilities for the coordination of distribuition of water, food, blankets, and other supplies, coordinating this effort with the American Red Cross. EQ LS WF FL SEC X GOVT -d -Participate in National, State, Multi-Jurisdictional and Professional Society Efforts to Identify and Mitigate Hazards d-1 c-1 Promote information sharing among overlapping and neighboring local governments, including cities, counties, and special districts, as well as utilities. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Participation in Santa Clara County Emergency Managers Association 5 of 7 142 Government Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments d-2 c-2 Recognize that emergency services is more than the coordination of police and fire response, for it also includes planning activities with providers of water, food, energy, transportation, financial, information, and public health services. EQ LS WF FL SEC X d-3 c-3 Recognize that a multi-agency approach is needed to mitigate flooding by having flood control districts, cities, counties, and utilities meet at least annually to jointly discuss their capital improvement programs for most effectively reducing the threat of flooding. Work toward making this process more formal to insure that flooding is considered at existing joint-agency meetings. FL X Santa Clara Valley Water District d-4 c-4 As new flood-control projects are completed, request that FEMA revise its flood-insurance rate maps and digital Geographic Information System (GIS) data to reflect flood risks as accurately as possible. FL X Santa Clara Valley Water District d-5 c-5 Participate in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program. FL X d-6 c-6 Participate in multi-agency efforts to mitigate fire threat, such as the Hills Emergency Forum (in the east Bay), various FireSafe Council programs, and city-utility task forces. Such participation increases a jurisidiction's competitiveness in obtaining grants. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District & Santa Clara County Fire Department d-7 c-7 Work with major employers and agencies that handle hazardous materials to coordinate mitigation efforts for the possible release of these materials due to a natural disaster such as an earthquake, flood, fire, or landslide. EQ LS WF FL SEC X The City is in agreement with this strategy; however, we do not have the lead in its implementation. d-8 c-8 Encourage staff to participate in efforts by professional organizations to mitigate earthquake and landslide disaster losses, such as the efforts of the Northern California Chapter of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, the East Bay-Peninsula Chapter of the International Code Council, the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, and the American Society of Grading Officials. EQ LS X d-9 c-9 Conduct and/or promote attendance at local or regional hazard conferences and workshops for elected officials and staff to educate the officials on the critical need for programs in mitigating earthquake, wildfire, flood, and landslide hazards. EQ LS WF FL SEC X 6 of 7 143 Government Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments d-10 c-10 Cooperate with researchers working on governmentfunded projects to refine information on hazards, for example, by expediting the permit and approval process for installation of seismic arrays, gravity survey instruments, borehole drilling, fault trenching, landslide mapping, flood modeling, and/or damage data collection. EQ LS WF FL SEC X GOVT -e -Take a Lead in Loss and Risk Assessment Activities e-1 e-1 Work with the cities, counties, and special districts in the Bay Area to encourage them to adopt a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and to assist them in integrating it into their overall planning process. RESPONSIBILITY: ABAG only; all others are "not applicable." EQ LS WF FL DR TS SEC Flu Ag Heat X e-2 e-2 Improve the risk assessment and loss estimation work in the Taming Natural Disasters report and multi-jurisdictional plan related to natural disasters. RESPONSIBILITY: ABAG only; all others are "not applicable." EQ LS WF FL DR TS Flu Ag Heat X 7 of 7 144 Education Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as EDUC -a -Focus on Critical Facilities (...Owned by School Districts) regional priority, OR Other a-1 a-1 Assess the vulnerability of critical public education facilities to damage in natural disasters and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation. EQ LS WF FL SEC X School Districts (Saratoga is served by several) The City is a separate entity from the school districts. a-2 a-2 Retrofit or replace critical public education facilities that are shown to be vulnerable to damage in natural disasters. EQ LS WF FL SEC X School Districts (Saratoga is served by several) The City is a separate entity from the school districts. a-3 a-3 Conduct comprehensive programs to identify and mitigate problems with facility contents, architectural components, and equipment that will prevent critical public education buildings from being functional after major disasters. EQ LS WF FL SEC X School Districts (Saratoga is served by several) The City is a separate entity from the school districts. a-4 a-4 As a secondary focus, assess the vulnerability of non-critical educational facilities (that is, those that do not house students) to damage in natural disasters based on occupancy and structural type, make recommendations on priorities for structural improvements or occupancy reductions, and identify potential funding mechanisms. EQ LS WF FL SEC X School Districts (Saratoga is served by several) The City is a separate entity from the school districts. a-5 new Assess the vulnerability of critical private education, pre-school, and day care facilities to damage in natural disasters and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation. EQ LS WF FL SEC X School Districts (Saratoga is served by several) The City is a separate entity from the school districts. a-6 a-5 (Major Rewording) Work with CalEMA and the Division of the State Architect to ensure that there will be an adequate group of Safety Assessment Program (SAP) inspectors trained and deployed by CalEMA to schools for postdisaster inspection. In addition, if a school district is uncomfortable with delays in inspection due to too few SAP inspectors available in catastrophic disasters, formalized arrangements with those inspectors certified by the Division of the State Architect as construction inspectors to report to the district, assess damage, and determine if the buildings can be reoccupied can also be created. EQ LS WF FL SEC X EDUC -b -Use of Educational Facilities as Emergency Shelters b-1 b-1 Work cooperatively with the American Red Cross, cities, counties, and non-profits to set up memoranda of understanding for use of education facilities as emergency shelters following disasters. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Priority (CHECK ONLY ONE) 1 of 3 145 I Education Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other b-2 b-2 Work cooperatively to ensure that school district personnel and relevant staff understand and are trained that being designated by the American Red Cross or others as a potential emergency shelter does NOT mean that the school has had a hazard or structural evaluation to ensure that it can be used as a shelter following any specific disaster. EQ LS WF FL SEC X b-3 b-3 Work cooperatively to ensure that school district personnel understand and are trained that they are designated as disaster service workers and must remain at the school until released. EQ LS WF FL SEC X EDUC -c -Actions Related to Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Planning c-1 new Encourage employees of schools to have family disaster plans and conduct mitigation activities in their own homes. EQ LS WF FL SEC X c-2 c-2 Develop plans, in conjunction with fire jurisdictions, for evacuation or sheltering in place of school children during periods of high fire danger, thereby recognizing that overloading of streets near schools by parents attempting to pick up their children during these periods can restrict access by fire personnel and equipment. EQ LS WF FL SEC X c-3 c-3 Offer the 20-hour basic CERT training to teachers and after-school personnel. EQ LS WF FL SEC X c-4 c-4 Offer the 20-hour basic Student Emergency Response Training (SERT, rather than CERT) training to middle school and/or high school students as a part of the basic science or civics curriculum, as an after school club, or as a way to earn public service hours. EQ LS WF FL SEC X c-5 c-5 Offer the 20-hour basic CERT training course through the Adult School system and/or through the Community College system (either using instructors with teaching credentials or by making facilities available for classes not run by school personnel themselves). EQ LS WF FL SEC X c-6 c-6 Develop and maintain the capacity for schools to take care of the students for the first 48 hours after a disaster, and notify parents that this capacity exists. EQ LS WF FL SEC X School Districts (Saratoga is served by several) The City is a separate entity from the school districts. 2 of 3 146 Education Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other c-7 new Develop a continuity of operations and disaster recovery plan using models such as that developed by the University of California Berkeley. (The American Red Cross has a role in promoting this activity, as well, in schools that they plan to use as shelters.) EQ LS WF FL SEC X EDUC -d-Actions Related to Schools as Conduits for Information to Families About Emergencies d-1 c-1 Utilize the unique ability of schools to reach families through educational materials on hazards, mitigation, and preparedness, particularly after disasters and at the beginning of the school year. These efforts will not only make the entire community more disaster-resistant, but speed the return of schools from use as shelters to use as teaching facilities, particularly if coordinated with cities, counties, the American Red Cross and others. EQ LS WF FL SEC X d-2 c-7 Develop and distribute culturally appropriate materials related to disaster mitigation and preparedness, such as those on the http://www.preparenow.org website. EQ LS WF FL SEC X 3 of 3 147 Environment Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments ENVI -a -Environmental Sustainability and Pollution Reduction a-1 a-1 Continue to enforce State-mandated requirements, such as the California Environmental Quality Act , to ensure that mitigation activities for hazards, such as vegetation clearance programs for fire threat and seismic retrofits, are conducted in a way that reduces environmental degradation such as air quality impacts, noise during construction, and loss of sensitive habitats and species, while respecting the community value of historic preservation. EQ LS WF FL DR SEC X Community Development Department a-2 a-2 Encourage regulatory agencies to work collaboratively with safety professionals to develop creative mitigation strategies that effectively balance environmental and safety needs, particularly to meet critical wildfire, flood, and earthquake safety levels. EQ WF FL SEC X The City contracts with the Sheriff and works with Fire agencies on these strategies. a-3 a-3 Continue to enforce and/or comply with Statemandated requirements, such as the California Environmental Quality Act and environmental regulations to ensure that urban development is conducted in a way to minimize air pollution. For example, air pollution levels can lead to global warming, and then to drought, increased vegetation susceptibility to disease (such as pine bark beetle infestations), and associated increased fire hazard. LS WF FL DR SEC X Community Development Department a-4 a-4 Develop and implement a comprehensive program for watershed management optimizing ecosystem health with water yield to balance water supply, flooding, fire, and erosion concerns. LS WF FL DR SEC X a-5 a-5 Balance the need for the smooth flow of storm waters versus the need to maintain wildlife habitat by developing and implementing a comprehensive Streambed Vegetation Management Plan that ensures the efficacy of flood control efforts, wildfire mitigation and maintains the viability of living rivers. LS WF FL DR X Santa Clara Valley Water District a-6 a-8 Comply with applicable performance standards of any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System municipal stormwater permit that seeks to manage increases in stormwater run-off flows from new development and redevelopment construction projects. FL X Community Development & Public Works Departments Priority (CHECK ONLY ONE) 1 of 4 148 Environment Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments a-7 a-9 Enforce and/or comply with the grading, erosion, and sedimentation requirements by prohibiting the discharge of concentrated stormwater flows by other than approved methods that seek to minimize associated pollution. LS FL X Community Development & Public Works Departments a-8 a-10 Explore ways to require that hazardous materials stored in the flood zone be elevated or otherwise protected from flood waters. FL X a-9 a-11 Enforce and/or comply with the hazardous materials requirements of the State of California Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). EQ LS WF FL SEC X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department a-10 a-12 Provide information on hazardous waste disposal and/or drop off locations. EQ LS WF FL SEC X a-11 new When remodeling existing governmnent and infrastructure buildings and facilities, remove asbestos to speed up clean up of buildings so that they can be reoccupied more quickly. EQ LS WF FL SEC X Facilities Division a-12 a-13 Develop and implement a program to control invasive and exotic species that contribute to fire and flooding hazards (such as eucalyptus, cattails, and cordgrass). This program could include vegetation removal, thinning, or replacement in hazard areas where there is a direct threat to structures. WF FL X Saratoga Fire Protection Protection District & Santa Clara County Fire Department a-13 a-14 Enforce provisions under creek protection, stormwater management, and discharge control ordinances designed to keep watercourses free of obstructions and to protect drainage facilities to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Best Management Practices. FL X Santa Clara Valley Water District ENVI -b -Climate Change b-1 a-6 + a-7 Stay informed of scientific information compiled by regional and state sources on the subject of rising sea levels and global warming, especially on additional actions that local governments can take to mitigate this hazard including special design and engineering of government-owned facilities in low-lying areas, such as wastewater treatment plants, ports, and airports. LS WF FL DR X b-2 new Inventory global warming emissions in your own local government's operations and in the community, set reduction targets and create an action plan. LS WF FL DR X 2 of 4 149 Environment Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments b-3 new Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities. LS WF FL DR X b-4 new Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit. LS WF FL DR X b-5 new Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, investing in “green tags”, advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for energy production, and supporting the use of waste to energy technology. LS WF FL DR X b-6 new Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements, retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money. LS WF FL DR X b-7 new Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for local government use. LS WF FL DR X b-8 new Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED program or a similar system. LS WF FL DR X b-9 new Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of vehicles; launch an employee education program including anti-idling messages; convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel. LS WF FL DR X b-10 new Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production. LS WF FL DR X b-11 new Increase recycling rates in local government operations and in the community. LS WF FL DR X b-12 new Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2. LS WF FL DR X b-13 new Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing global warming pollution. LS WF FL DR X ENVI -c -Agricultural and Aquaculture Resilience 3 of 4 150 Environment Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other Comments c-1 b-1 Maintain a variety of crops in rural areas of the region to increase agricultural diversity and crop resiliency. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: County Offices of the Agricultural Commissioner. Ag DR SEC X c-2 b-2 Promote and maintain the public-private partnerships dedicated to preventing the introduction of agricultural pests into regionallysignificant crops, such as the glassy-winged sharpshooter into vineyards. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: County Offices of the Agricultural Commissioner. Ag DR SEC X c-3 b-4 Encourage livestock operators to develop an earlywarning system to detect animals with communicable diseases (due to natural causes or bioterrorism). RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: County Health Department and Office of the County Agricultural Commissioner. Ag Flu SEC X deleted b-3 (deleted since not a disaster-related strategy) 4 of 4 151 Land Use Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other LAND -a -Earthquake Hazard Studies for New Private Developments a-1 a-1 Enforce and/or comply with the State-mandated requirement that site-specific geologic reports be prepared for development proposals within Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, and restrict the placement of structures for human occupancy. occupancy. (This Act is intended to deal with the specific hazard of active faults that extend to the earth’s surface, creating a surface rupture hazard.) EQ X Community Development Department Ord. 221-2003 a-2 a-2 Require preparation of site-specific geologic or geotechnical reports for development and redevelopment proposals in areas subject to earthquake-induced landslides or liquefaction as mandated by the State Seismic Hazard Mapping Act in selected portions of the Bay Area where these maps have been completed, and condition project approval on the incorporation of necessary mitigation measures related to site remediation, structure and foundation design, and/or avoidance. EQ X Community Development Department Ord. 221-2003 a-3 a-3 Recognizing that some faults may be a hazard for surface rupture, even though they do not meet the strict criteria imposed by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, identify and require geologic reports in areas adjacent to locallysignificant faults. EQ X Community Development Department a-4 new Ensure that development proposed near faults with a history of complex surface rupture (multiple traces, warping, thrusting, etc.) has larger setbacks than the minimum fifty feet. EQ X a-5 new Consider imposing requirements similar to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act for structures without human occupancy if these buildings are still essential for the economic recovery of the community or region. EQ X a-6 a-4 Recognizing that the California Geological Survey has not completed earthquake-induced landslide and liquefaction mapping for much of the Bay Area, identify and require geologic reports in areas mapped by others as having significant liquefaction or landslide hazards. EQ X Community Development Department a-7 a-5 Support and/or facilitate efforts by the California Geological Survey to complete the earthquakeinduced landslide and liquefaction mapping for the Bay Area. EQ X Community Development Department Priority (CHECK ONLY ONE) 1 of 4 152 I Land Use Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other a-8 a-6 Require that local government reviews of geologic and engineering studies are conducted by appropriately trained and credentialed personnel. EQ X Community Development Department Municipal Code Section 16-65.040 LAND -b -Wildland and Structural Fires b-1 b-1 Review new development proposals to ensure that they incorporate required and appropriate firemitigation measures, including adequate provisions for occupant evacuation and access by emergency response personnel and equipment. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department b-2 b-2 Develop a clear legislative and regulatory framework at both the state and local levels to manage the wildland-urban-interface consistent with Fire Wise and sustainable community principles. WF X Saratoga Fire Protection District and Santa Clara County Fire Department LAND -c -Flooding c-1 c-1 Establish and enforce requirements for new development so that site-specific designs and source-control techniques are used to manage peak stormwater runoff flows and impacts from increased runoff volumes. FL X Community Development Department Ord. 71-167 c-2 c-2 Incorporate FEMA guidelines and suggested activities into local government plans and procedures for managing flood hazards. FL X Public Works Department c-3 c-3 Provide an institutional mechanism mechanism to ensure that development proposals adjacent to floodways and in floodplains are referred to flood control districts and wastewater agencies for review and comment (consistent with the NPDES program). FL X Public Works Department c-4 c-4 Establish and enforce regulations concerning new construction (and major improvements to existing structures) within flood zones in order to be in compliance with federal requirements and, thus, be a participant in the Community Rating System of the National Flood Insurance Program. FL X Public Works Department Ord. 71-167 c-5 new Encourage new development near floodways to incorporate a buffer zone or setback from that floodway to allow for changes in stormwater flows in the watershed over time. FL X c-6 new For purposes of creating an improved hazard mitigation plan for the region as a whole, ABAG, and Bay Area cities and counties, jointly request geographically defined repetitive flooding loss data from FEMA for their own jurisdictions. FL X LAND -d -Landslides and Erosion 2 of 4 153 Land Use Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other d-1 d-1 Establish and enforce provisions (under subdivision ordinances or other means) that geotechnical and soil-hazard investigations be conducted and filed to prevent grading from creating unstable slopes, and that any necessary corrective actions be taken prior to development approval. LS X Community Development Department Ord. 71-193 & Ord. 215-2002 d-2 d-2 Require that local government reviews of these investigations are conducted by appropriately trained and credentialed personnel. LS X Community Development Department d-3 d-3 Establish and enforce grading, erosion, and sedimentation ordinances by requiring, under certain conditions, grading permits and plans to control erosion and sedimentation prior to development approval. LS X Community Development Department Ord. 71-193 & Ord. 215-2002 d-4 d-4 Establish and enforce provisions under the creek protection, storm water management, and discharge control ordinances designed to control erosion and sedimentation. LS X Community Development and Public Works Departments d-5 d-5 Establish requirements in zoning ordinances to address hillside development constraints, especially in areas of existing landslides. LS X Community Development Department Ord. 71-113 LAND -e -Hillside -Multi-Hazard e-1 e-1 For new development, require a buffer zone between residential properties and landslide or wildfire hazard areas. LS WF X Community Development Department e-2 e-2 Discourage, add additional mitigation strategies, or prevent new construction or major remodels on slopes greater than a set percentage, such as 15%, due to landslide or wildfire hazard concerns. LS WF X Community Development Department LAND -f -Smart Growth to Revitalize Urban Areas and Promote Sustainability f-1 f-1 Prioritize retrofit of infrastructure that serves urban areas (or urban services areas) over constructing new infrastructure to serve outlying areas. EQ LS WF FL DR SEC X f-2 f-2 Work to retrofit homes in older urban neighborhoods to provide safe housing close to job centers. EQ LS WF FL DR SEC X f-3 f-3 Work to retrofit older downtown areas and redevelopment districts to protect architectural diversity and promote disaster-resistance. EQ LS WF FL SEC X 3 of 4 154 Land Use Mitigation Strategies 2009 Strategy Code Original Strategy Number Specific Mitigation Strategy Applicable Hazards Existing Program Existing Program, underfunded Very High -Unofficial Program-Becomes Official on Plan Adoption, no funding needed High -Actively Looking for Funding Moderate Under Study Not Applicable, Not Appropriate, or Not Cost Effective Not Yet Considered Responsible Agency or Department (Required if Existing Program, Existing Program under funded, Very High, High, or Under Study) Ordinance or Resolution # (if existing program), Estimated Cost and Possible Funding Agency (if high priority), Estimated Date of Completion (if study), WHY if not same as regional priority, OR Other f-4 f-4 Work with non-profits and through other mechanisms to protect as open space areas susceptible to extreme hazards (such as through land acquisition, zoning, and designation as priority conservation areas). EQ LS WF FL SEC X f-5 f-5 Strive to provide preserve existing buffers between development and existing users of large amounts of hazardous materials, such as major industry, due to the potential for catastrophic releases or fires due to an earthquakes, accidents, or terrorism. (Flooding might also result in release or spread of these materials, however it is unlikely.) In areas where buffers do not exist or cannot be created, provide alternative mitigation. EQ LS WF FL SEC X LAND -g -Hazard Abatement Districts g-1 new Use hazard abatement districts as a funding mechanism to ensure that mitigation strategies are implemented and enforced over time. EQ LS WF FL X 4 of 4 155 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Kate Bear DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Appeal of a tree removal permit (TRP09-0222). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision denying the appeal and allowing the removal of the four oak trees. The attached resolution would make removal subject to all the Planning Commission conditions, including a provision that work may not proceed if a court has determined that the Applicant may not remove trees within the easement. REPORT SUMMARY: Max Keyashian (Appellant) is appealing the Planning Commission’s 7 – 0 decision approving an application for a Tree Removal Permit. He lives at 21818 Via Regina, on the property that is adjacent to and south of the location of the trees. The Tree Removal Permit application is for four coast live oak trees located within an ingress/egress/utility easement recorded in favor of property owned by Dale Parsley of 21990 Via Regina (Applicant). One tree requested for removal is in conflict with a proposed retaining wall on the south side of the easement and crowds another, larger coast live oak tree on the adjoining property at 21818 Via Regina. The other three trees grow within inches of, and crowd, a fourth coast live oak to be retained on the north side of the easement. The easement on which the trees grow measures 10 feet wide and extends across the south end of the property at 21820 Via Regina (see map below and map in Attachment 18). The property on which the easement occurs is owned by Hamid Lotfizadeh. He, along with Max Keyashian, appealed the approval of the tree removal permit to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lotfizadeh is not appealing the Planning Commission decision to the City Council, but has informed the City through his attorney that he has filed legal documents with the Santa Clara County Superior Court, in an effort to have the easement extinguished. The Planning Commission staff report describes the history of development applications for this property in detail. 1 156 Map showing relative locations of properties for the Applicant and Appellant, and the easement on which the trees grow. DISCUSSION: The Applicant has submitted a site plan to the Building Division for over-the-counter permits to grade a portion of the easement area, to install retaining walls along a portion of both sides of the easement, and to remove four trees, for the purpose of maintenance of a portion of the easement. The permit application for the retaining walls required an Arborist Review prior to issuance and the Arborist Review, in turn, required a Tree Removal Permit prior to the removal of the protected trees and issuance of the Grading and Building Permits. The Applicant applied for a Tree Removal Permit for a coast live oak (tree #3 in the Arborist Review) and, on the recommendation of their arborist, Ian Geddes, they included three additional coast live oak trees on the Tree Removal Permit application. The three trees grow as a cluster, together with another coast live oak, that they plan to to retain. These four oaks were collectively considered as one tree for the Arborist Review (tree #5). The four coast live oak trees requested 2 157 , /, ... ' .. /.. ... . , ... ' 21820 .., /I Hamid Lotfizadeh I I I I I I /Owner of Property on 21990 Dale ParsleylLinda Parsley-Ye1avichlMike Ye1avich Applicant ..: " which easement occurs .. ' " ", ' " '" '" '" '" .... -. .' .--' -•• . --,' .0-21818 Max Keyashian AppeUant 3 for removal (tree #3, and 3 trunks of tree #5) meet the criteria set forth in the City Code, Section 15-50.080 overall, and qualify for removal. The Applicant has verbally indicated that he plans to ultimately use the easement for vehicular ingress and egress and/or to install a sewer line to connect to the public sewer system, although no plans or information about such uses or related improvements have been submitted to the City as part of this Application. The Applicant has not requested the removal of other protected trees growing within the easement as part of the tree removal permit application. Some of these trees appear to interfere with use of the easement for vehicular ingress and egress and may be impacted by installation of a sewer line. Additional tree removal or tree encroachment permits may be necessary in order to use the subject easement for vehicular ingress or egress and to install an underground sewer line. The Planning Commission, after considering all evidence presented and the advice of the Assistant City Attorney, concluded that the following issues are private civil matters: (1) The validity of the Applicant’s recorded easement in light of civil litigation by property owner Lotfizadeh claiming that the easement has been extinguished; and (2) The extent of the Applicant’s property rights under the recorded easement (assuming its validity) to maintain the easement by removing trees in the easement on the condition that the City has granted final approval of a Tree Removal Permit. The Applicant has submitted evidence in the form of a recorded easement and a survey stamped by a Licensed Civil Engineer contending that the trees sought to be removed are within the recorded easement and that Applicant holds a sufficient property interest to obtain the Arborist Review and the required Tree Removal Permit without a signed consent from the property owner on which the easement is located or any adjoining property owner. Under these circumstances, the Planning Commission proceeded on the basis that such recorded easement is valid and sufficient to allow the City to approve the requested Tree Removal Permit, so long as it complies overall with the criteria set forth in the City Tree Regulations, and there is no Court Order precluding the Applicant from proceeding. TREES The Applicant has requested City approval to remove four (4) protected trees. The total appraised value for tree #3 is $2,400. The three trunks being removed as part of tree #5 should be replaced on a one for one basis, with three new 24 inch box sized trees, the standard condition for tree removal permits. New trees, equal to $2,400 in value should be planted to replace tree #3, in addition to the required three 24–inch box trees. Criteria for the Removal of a Protected Tree The findings required for issuance of a Tree Removal Permit pursuant to City Code Article 15-50.080 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making those required findings overall: Criterion #1: The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services. The request 158 4 to remove coast live oak (tree #3 referenced in the Arborist Review dated August 4, 2009) meets this criterion in that it is in the path of a proposed retaining wall. The other three oak trees (collectively called tree #5 in the Arborist Review dated August 4, 2009 because the trees grow as a single unit) do not meet this criterion in that they do not appear diseased. They also do not appear to be in danger of falling and are not causing damage to structures. Based on the information provided by the applicant, they do not interfere with utilities. Criterion #2: The necessity to remove the tree for physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The request to remove oak tree #3 meets this criterion, in that, if it is not removed, it could cause damage to the proposed retaining wall. The other three oaks (#5) do not meet this criterion. Criterion #3: The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. The proposed tree removals do not meet this criterion, in that the trees are actively having a positive effect on the prevention of erosion. They grow on a slope and their roots are holding the soil in place. Criterion #4: The number, species, size and location of existing trees on this and neighboring properties and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and established standards of the area. The proposed tree removals do not meet this criterion, in that the removal of the four oaks will have an impact on the amount of privacy available to the lower neighbor. Criterion #5: The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. The proposed four tree removals do meet this criterion, in that all four are too close to other trees for good forestry practices. Oak tree #3 is within about two feet and grows completely under the canopy of another, larger oak with better structure. The three oaks (#5) are within inches of another oak and, in the near future, if they continue to grow together, by the time they are mature they could fail as a result of the trunks pushing against each other. Criterion #6: Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. The proposed tree removal meets this criterion because there are no equally effective long-term tree-protective alternatives to removing the four oaks. While technically possible to retain all four trees, retention of oak #3 will adversely affect the long-term health of the nearby oak tree on the neighboring property to the south, and leaving the cluster of four oaks (#5) will result in four poorly-structured trees as they mature. As a result there are no equally effective long term tree protective alternatives. Criterion #7: Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. The proposed tree removal meets this criterion, in that approval of the request to remove the four oak trees is not in conflict with the general purpose and intent of Article 15-50, which is to preserve and protect healthy, mature trees in the City. In this situation, all four trees are right next to other, preferable oak trees and in competition with them. Criterion #8: Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010. Removal of the four oak trees meets this criterion in that it will support maintenance and prevention of erosion on and 159 5 associated with the easement.The applicant has presented the City with a duly recorded easement covering the land on which the trees are located. Criterion #9: It is necessary to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Removal of the four oak trees meets this criterion. It enables the easement holder to maintain the easement. In summary, removal of the four oaks is adequately supported under the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080 of the City Code. The Applicant meets the burden of proof for tree #3 in that Criteria 1, 2 and 5 – 9 support the removal of the tree. The Applicant also meets the burden of proof for tree #5 in that criteria 5 – 9 support the removal of the three trees. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15304) “Minor Alterations to Land” and no exception to that exemption applies. FISCAL IMPACT: None. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The trees will remain on the easement and the Applicant will need to submit revised plans that do not require the removal of tree #3. Tree #5 will mature into four trees that will each have poor structure. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Provide staff with direction for follow up action. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was mailed to all residents within 500 feet of the property and properly posted and published in the Saratoga News on October 20, 2009. Staff has not received any negative comments as of the writing of this staff report. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution denying Appeal, allowing the removal of four coast live oaks 2. Planning Commission Resolution, allowing the removal of four coast live oaks 3. Staff Report to Planning Commission without attachments 4. Appeal application to City Council from Max Keyashian, 21818 Via Regina 5. Appeal applications to Planning Commission from Max Keyashian, 21818 Via Regina, and and Hamid Lotfizadeh, 21820 Via Regina 6. Tree Removal Permit Application TRP09-0222 7. Arborist Review for retaining walls, August 4, 2009 160 6 8. City Council Public Hearing Notice, List of Addresses for mailing 9. Application #06-320 for sewer connection (2006) 10. Arborist report for application #06-320, May 2, 2006 11. Letter requesting withdrawal of project and response 12. Letters from fire department 13. Stop work notice 14. Letter dated March 10, 2008 from City Arborist 15. Letters dated March 20, 2008 and June 12, 2008 from Ian Geddes 16. Notice of Violation and Continuation of Stop Work Order 17. After-the-Fact Tree Encroachment Permit for work done in February 2008 18. Recorded easement 19. Documents from Applicant to Planning Commission 20. Documents from Applicant to City Council 21. Exhibit “A” – Easement Maintenance Plan 161 RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL, AND APPROVING APPLICATION #TRP09-0222, FOR THE REMOVAL OF FOUR COAST LIVE OAK TREES Application APPC09-0001/TRP09-0222 Parsley; 21990 Via Regina/21820 Via Regina WHEREAS, on September 23, 2009, following a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission approved Tree Removal Permit TRP09-0222 for the removal of four Coast Live Oak trees; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2009, Max Keyashian, of 21818 Via Regina, filed an appeal of the approval of Tree Removal Permit TRP09-0222 by the Planning Commission to the City Council; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 15-90.010 requires that the City Council consider appeals of Planning Commission decisions, such as for a Tree Removal Permit, and conduct a de novo public hearing on the Tree Removal Permit Application; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2009, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Appeal of the Tree Removal Permit, at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The City Council considered the Tree Removal Permit Application, the Staff Report to the Planning Commission on the project, the Appeal of the Tree Removal Permit, correspondence, presentations and materials from the Appellant, the Applicant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing, and based on that review and consideration, made the determinations and decisions set forth below. Now, therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby: I. Denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s approval of Application #TRP09-0222 for the removal of four Coast Live Oak trees subject to all conditions of approval specified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-038; and II. Determines that the findings required for issuance of a Tree Removal Permit pursuant to City Code Article 15-50.080 are set forth below and that the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making those required findings overall as follows: Criterion #1: The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services. The request to remove coast live oak (tree #3 referenced in the Arborist Review dated August 4, 2009) meets this criterion in that it is in the path of a proposed retaining wall. The other three oak trees (collectively called tree #5 in the Arborist Review dated August 4, 2009 because the trees grow as a single unit) do not meet this criterion in that they do not appear diseased. They also do not appear to be in danger of falling and are not causing damage to structures. Based on the information provided by the applicant, they do not interfere with utilities. 162 2 Application No. APPC09-0001; 21990 Via Regina /21820 Via Regina Criterion #2: The necessity to remove the tree for physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The request to remove oak tree #3 meets this criterion, in that, if it is not removed, it could cause damage to the proposed retaining wall. The other three oaks (#5) do not meet this criterion. Criterion #3: The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. The proposed tree removals do not meet this criterion, in that the trees are actively having a positive effect on the prevention of erosion. They grow on a slope and their roots are holding the soil in place. Criterion #4: The number, species, size and location of existing trees on this and neighboring properties and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and established standards of the area. The proposed tree removals do not meet this criterion, in that the removal of the four oaks will have an impact on the amount of privacy available to the lower neighbor. Criterion #5: The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. The proposed four tree removals do meet this criterion, in that all four are too close to other trees for good forestry practices. Oak tree #3 is within about two feet and grows completely under the canopy of another, larger oak with better structure. The three oaks (#5) are within inches of another oak and, in the near future, if they continue to grow together, by the time they are mature they could fail as a result of the trunks pushing against each other. Criterion #6: Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. The proposed tree removal meets this criterion because there are no equally effective long-term tree-protective alternatives to removing the four oaks. While technically possible to retain all four trees, retention of oak #3 will adversely affect the long-term health of the nearby oak tree on the neighboring property to the south, and leaving the cluster of four oaks (#5) will result in four poorly-structured trees as they mature. As a result there are no equally effective long term tree protective alternatives. Criterion #7: Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. The proposed tree removal meets this criterion, in that approval of the request to remove the four oak trees is not in conflict with the general purpose and intent of Article 15-50, which is to preserve and protect healthy, mature trees in the City. In this situation, all four trees are right next to other, preferable oak trees and in competition with them. Criterion #8: Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010. Removal of the four oak trees meets this criterion in that it will support maintenance and prevention of erosion on and associated with the easement..The applicant has presented the City with a duly recorded easement covering the land on which the trees are located. Criterion #9: It is necessary to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Removal of the four oak trees meets 163 3 Application No. APPC09-0001; 21990 Via Regina /21820 Via Regina this criterion. It enables the easement holder to maintain the easement. In summary, removal of the four oaks is adequately supported by Section 15-50.080 of the City Code. The Applicant meets the burden of proof for tree #3 in that Criteria 1, 2 and 5 – 9 support the removal of the tree. The Applicant also meets the burden of proof for tree #5 in that criteria 5 – 9 support the removal of the three trees. III. Determines that approval of Tree Removal Application #09-0222 is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15304) “Minor Alterations to Land” and no exception to that exemption applies. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Saratoga, State of California, this 4th day of November, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________________ _____ Chuck Page, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk ACCEPTANCE BY APPLICANT AND EASEMENT HOLDER This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant/Easement Holder. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the time required in this Resolution by the City of Saratoga City Council. __________________________________ ____________________________ Applicant/Easement Holder Date 164 165 CITY OF SARA TOGA PLANNING COMl\lISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-038 -DENYING APPEALS OF A TREE REMOVAL PERl\lIT AND APPROVING TREE REMOVAL PERl\lIT APPLICATION Application APPC09-000l /TRP09-0222 Parsley; 21990 Via Reginal21820 Via Regina The City of Saratoga Plmming Conu11ission finds and detem1ines as follows with respect to the above-desclibed application and two appeals of the prior approval of a Tree Removal Pennit by the Conununity Development Director: I. Project Summary The Applicant, Dale Parsley, represented by his daughter, Linda Parsley-Yelavich, and son-inlaw, Mike Yelavich, has submitted a site plan to the Building Division for over-the-counter pennits to grade a portion of his easement across the adjoining propeliy, to install retaining walls along a p01iion of both sides of the easement, and remove four trees, for the purpose of maintenance of a p01iion of the easement. The foregoing work is desclibed as the "Project" in tllis Resolution and the accompanying Staff Report. The easement measures measures 10 feet wide and is located at the lower (south) end of property ovmed by Hamid Lotfizadeh (21820 Via Regina). The pemlit for the retaining walls required an Arb01ist Review prior to issuance and the Arborist Review, in tum, required a Tree Removal Pemut prior to the removal of the protected trees and issuance of the Grading m1d Building Pennits. The Applicant applied for a Tree Removal Pennit for a coast live oak tree (#3) and, on the recol1unendation of their arborist, Ian Geddes, they included tlu'ee additional coast live oak trees on the Tree Removal Pennit application. They grow as a cluster, together with another coast live oak, that they plan to retain. These four oaks were collectively considered as one tree for the Arborist Review (tree #5). The four coast live oak trees requested for removal (tree #3, and 3 trunks of tree #5) meet the criteria set f01ih in the City Code, Section 15-50.080 overall, and qualify for removal. In consultation with the Assistant City Attomey, staff has been advised that the following issues are private civil matters not within the jUlisdiction of the Plmming Conunission: (1) validity of Applicant's recorded easement in light of Appeal by fee owner Lotfizadeh claiming that the easement has been extinguished; and (2) extent of the Applicant's light under such recorded easement (assuming its validity) to maintain their easement by removing trees in the easement for which the City has granted final approval of a Tree Removal Pe1111it. The Applicant has submitted evidence in the fonn of a recorded easement and a survey stamped by a Licensed Civil Engineer contending that the trees sought to be removed are within the recorded easement and that they hold a sufficient property interest to obtain the Arborist Review and obtain the required Tree Removal Pennit without a signed consent from the fee owner or any adjoining propeliy owner. Under these circumstances, absent a COUli Order to the contrary, the Assistant City Attomey rec01mnends that the Plmming Commission proceed on the basis that such recorded easement is valid and sufficient to allow the City to approve the requested Tree 166 Removal Pem1it so long as it complies overall with the clltella set forth 111 the City Tree Regulations. In this case, maintenance of the easement includes construction of retaining walls, one of which is in conflict with and requires the removal of a tree (oak tree #3). Thc ParsleyNelavich's have applied for a pennit to remove oak tree #3 in order to build the proposed retaining wall. They have included on this permit application three additional coast live oaks growing within the easement that are not in conflict with the retaining walls. All four coast live oak trees meet the clltelia and qualify for removal set fOlih in the City Code, Section 15-50.080. The findings below elaborate on this. On August 19, 2009, Max Keyashian, of 21818 Via Regina, filed an appeal of the approval of Tree Removal Pennit TRP09-0222. On August 27, 2009, Michael Stone attomey for Hamid Lotfizadeh, of 21820 Via Regina, filed an appeal of the approval of Tree Removal Pennit TRP09-0222 on behalf of Mr. Lotfizadeh. Hamid Lotfizadeh owns the propeliy across which the easement is located. Mr. Keyashian owns the propeliy to the south of and adjacent to the easement. II. Requirement for Planning Commission Review City Code Section 15-90.010 requires that Plmming Conunission consider appeals of administrative decisions, such as for a Tree Removal Pennit and conduct a de novo public heming on the Tree Removal Pennit Application. III. Planning Commission Review On September 23, 2009 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Heming on the Appeals (Keyashian and Lotfizadeh) of the Tree Removal Pennit at which time all interested pmiies were given a full OPPOltunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Plmming Commission considered the Tree Removal Pennit Application, the Staff Report on the Project and the Appeals of the Tree Removal Pem1it, cOlTespondence, presentations and matelials from the Appellant, the Applicant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing. IV. Environmental Review The Project is categOllcally exempt :B:om the Califomia Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15304) "Minor Alterations to Land" and no exception to that exemption applies. v. Criteria for the Removal of a Protected Tree The critelia required to be reviewed and considered for issuance of a Tree Removal Pennit pursuant to City Code Aliicle 15-50.080 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to 2 Application No. AP PC09-000 1; 21990 Via Regina 121820 Via Regina 167 SUppOlt the detemlination that, overall, application of the criteria walTant approval of the Tree removal Pemut Application, as follows: Criterion #1: The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger offalling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and intelference with utility services. TIle rcqucst to remove coast live oak (tree #3) does meet tIns criterion in that it is in the path of a proposed retairung wall. The other tlu·ee oak trees (collectively called tree #5) do not meet this criterion in that they do not appear diseased. They also do not appear to be in danger of falling and are not causing damage to structures. Based on the infonnation provided by the applicant, they do not interfere with utilities. Criterion #2: The necessity to remove the tree for physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious sUlfaces on the property. The request to remove oak tree #3 does meet tIns criterion, in that, if it is not removed, it could cause damage to the proposed retairnng wall. The other tlu·ee oaks (#5) do not meet this criterion. Criterion #3: The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of sUlface waters. The four oak trees do not meet tIns criterion, in that they are actively having a positive effect on the prevention of erosion. They grow on a slope and their roots are holding the soil in place. Criterion #4: The number, species, size and location of existing trees on this and neighboring propel1ies and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and established standards of the area. The proposcd trcc removals do not meet tlus criterion, in that the removal of the four oaks will have an impact on the amount of privacy available to the lower neighbor. Criterion #5: The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good foresuy practices. The proposed four tree removals do meet tlus criterion, in that all four are too close to other trees for good forestry practices. Oak tree #3 is within about two feet and grows completely under the canopy of another, larger oak with better structure. The three oaks (#5) are witl1in inches of another oak and, in the near future, if they continue to grow together, by the time they are mature they could fail as a result of the trunks puslnng against each other. Criterion #6: Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected u·ee. The proposed tree removal does meet this criterion in the long tenn, in that there are no equally effective long-tenn tree-protective altematives to removing the four oaks. All four could be retained. However, retention of oak #3 will impact the long-term health of the nearby oak tree on the neighboring property to the south, and leaving the cluster of four oaks (#5) will result in four poorly-structured trees as they mature. As a result there are no equally effective long tenn tree protective altematives. Criterion #7: Whether the approval of the request would be cOlltralY to or in conflict with the general pUlpose and intent of this Article. The proposed tree removal does meet tl1is criterion, in that approval of the request to remove the four oak trees is not in conflict with the general purpose and intent of tl1is Article, wlUch is to preserve and protect healthy, mature trees in the City. In tl1is 3 Application No. AP PC09-000 1; 21990 Via Regina 121820 Via Regina 168 situation, all four trees are right next to other, preferable oak trees and in competition with them. Criterion #8: Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set f0l1h in section 15-50.010. Removal of the four oak trees does meet tlus criterion. The owner of the easement claims to have sufficient properiy rights to maintain the easement. Criterion #9: It is neceSSalY to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removaL Removal of the four oak trees does meet this clitelion. It enables the easement holder to maintain the easement. In smmnary, removal of the four oaks is adequately suppOlied by Section 15-50.080 of the City Code. The Applicant meets the burden of proof for tree #3 in that Criteria 1, 2 and 5 -9 support the removal of the tree. The Applicant also meets the burden of proof for tree #5 in that critelia 5 -9 suppOli the removal of the three trees. Overall, the Appellant has not met the burden of proof for the retention ofthe four oaks. VI. Denial of Appeals and Approval of Tree Removal Permit After careful consideration of the appeals, the tree removal pelmit application, site plan, arbOlist repOli, and all other matelials, exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in cOIU1ection with tlus matter, the appeals of Keyasluan and Lotfizadeh of the Tree Removal Pennit are delued, the exemption from CEQA is approved, and Application No. TRP09-0222, for the approval of the removal of four coast live oak trees is approvcd bascd on meeting the applicable criteria overall and subject to the conditions set fOlih below. CO:NDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL 1. The Commuruty Development Director shall mail to the Easement Holder and Applicant a notice in wliting, on or after the time the Resolution denying these Appeals and Approving the Tree removal Pelmit is duly executed by the City, contailung a statement of all amounts due to the City in cOIU1ection with tlus appeal, including all consultant fees (collectively "processing fees") . Tills decision may be appealed to the City Council witlun fifteen (15) days of the Plamling COlmnission heating. No Grading or Building Pennit may be issued until the CommUluty Development Director celiifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained) and until the appeal process has been completed. 2. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other govemmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without lirnitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zorung Regulations incorporated herein by tills reference. Given existing litigation challenging the continued existence of the easement, this permit may be 4 Application No. APPC09-0001; 21990 Via Regina 121820 Via Regina 169 exercised so long as there is no Court Order prohibiting the ApplicantiEasement Holder from doing so. 3. Agreement to Indenmifv, Hold Harmless and Defend Citv as to Action Challenging Approyal of Application and as to Damage from Performance of ,"Vork Authorized bv Design Review Approval. As a condition of tlus Approval, Easement Holder and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indenmify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers hannless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or detenninations taken, done or made plior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising fi'om or in any mmmer relating to the perfonnance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Easement Holder and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, plior to any Zoning Clearance fi'om the COlmnunity Development Director, Easement Holder and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold hannless and Defend, which shall be subject to plior approval as to fonn and content by the Conununity Development Director. B. COlVlMUNITY DEVELOPl\1ENT 4. Compliance with Plans. The Project, including the approved tree removal shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A", dated April, 2009, incorporated by this reference. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. 5. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete constmction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Conununity Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Pennits. The constmction plans shall, at a milumum include the following: a. Drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit "A" on file with the COllli11Unity Development Depmiment and referenced in Condition No. B.4 above; b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or plivate vellicles shall be parked or stored witllin the root zone (five feet beyond the dripline (the area under the canopy) or a greater distance as determined by the City Arbol'ist) of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site; c. This signed and dated Resolution shall be printed onto separate construction plan pages; d. A boundary survey, wet-stamped and ,.vet-signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authOlized to practice land surveying. The stamp shall reflect a CUlTent license for 5 Application No. APPC09-0001; 21990 Via Regina 121820 Via Regina 170 the land surveyor/engineer, the document shall be labeled "Boundary Survey," and the document shall not contain any disclaimers; e. City Arb Oli st Report dated August 4, 2009 shall be plinted in its entirety onto a construction plan page; f. All additional drav\,ings, plans, maps, repOlts, and/or matelials required by the Building Division. 6. Noise limitations during construction. Because this project maintains an easement serving a residential propelty, the City's noise regulations for residential construction shall apply. The noise level at any point twenty-five feet from the source of noise shall not exceed 83 dBA during residential construction, and residential construction, alteration or repair activities which are authOlized by a valid City pem1it, or do not require the issuance of a City pennit, may be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday tlu'ough Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Residential construction shall be prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, \vith the exception of that construction, alteration or repair activities which are authOlized by a valid City pennit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure may be conducted between the hours of 9: 00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday holidays. A notice of applicable construction hour restlictions shall be posted conspicuously on site at all times for all extelior residential construction activity requiring a City pennit. C. CITY ARBORIST. 7. Compliance with Tree Regulations and City Arborist Reports. All requirements in the City Arborist Review dated August 4, 2009 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. This includes, but is not limited to, the following conditions of approval: a. Tree Bond. Plior to issuance of any Building Pennit or Grading Pennit, the Project Applicant or Easement Holder shall obtain and submit to the COlllinunity Development Department a Tree Bond, or similar funding mechanism satisfactory to the Conununity Development Director, in favor of the City, in the amount of $18,350 to guarantee: (1) the maintenance and preservation of all existing trees except any approved for removal under this Tree Removal Pennit appeal; and (2) the replacement of any removed trees or rehabilitation of any damaged trees in a maImer satisfactory to the City Arborist. The Tree Bond is separate from the tree replacement requirement for the trees approved for removal. b. Release of Tree Bond. Prior to the City's inspection for final approval of the completed Project, the City ArbOlist shall inspect the site to velify compliance with all conditions of approval related to trees. The Tree Bond required above shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a site inspection by the City Arbolist finding compliance with all tree-related conditions contained in this Resolution, and payment of any outstanding City Arb0l1st fees. c. Additional tree removal or tree encroachment permits may be necessary in order to use the subject easement for ingress or egress or to install a sewer line. 6 Application No. AP PC09-000 J; 2 J 990 Via Regina 12 J 820 Via Regina 171 8. Tree Preservation Plan. The Easement Holder and Applicant shall sign and date the arbOlist report (signifying that that they are submitting it as their Tree Preservation Plan for the project), include it in the final plan set, and comply with all requirements of the Tree Preservation Plan in accordance \\lith City Code § 15-50.140. 9. Protection of trees from grading and trenching. Grading and trenching (including for underground utilities) shall be shovm on the plans submitted to the Building Division and demonstrate adequate protection of trees to the satisfaction of the City ArbOlist, or, in the altemative, the City Arborist shall be present and have authOlity dming the grading and trenching to require hand digging for any tree roots judged at the discretion of the City ArbOlist to need additional protection. 10. Application of Arborist Review to tree #5. Requirements #4 and 14 of the ArbOlist Review dated August 4, 2009, shall apply to the 3 trunks of tree #5 hereby authorized for removal. 11. Replacement trees. TlIis condition modifies Requirement #7 of the Arborist Review dated August 4, 2009. It will allow the planting of some of the required replacement trees on the propeliies of21818 and 21820 Via Regina, if those respective propeliy owners, Max and Fan-ah Keyashian and Hamid Lotfizadeh, will pennit it. Tree planting locations shall be approved by the owner of the property and the City ArbOlist, plior to planting. All other conditions specified in Requirement #7 of the Arborist Review shall remain intact. 7 Application No. AP PC09-000 1; 21990 Via Regina 121820 Via Regina 172 PASSED A.l\D ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Plmming Commission tIlls 23 rd day of September, 2009 BY THE following vote: AYES: ZHAO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, HLAVA, RErs, ROBERTSON, RODGERS NOES: NONE ABSENT: No. IE ABSTAIN: NONE YanZI Chair, Planning Commission J 1 . Livingstone, AI Secretary to the Planning Commission ACCEPTANCE BY APPLICANT AND EASEMENT HOLDER This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant/Easement Holder. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved tenns and conditions and agrees to fully confOlm to and comply with said tenns and conditions within the time required in tIlls Resolution by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. Applicant!Easement Holder Date 8 Application No. APPC09-0001; 21990 Via Regina 121820 Via Regina REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location APPC09-0001; 21820 Via Regina Type of Application: Appeal of a Tree Removal Permit Application to Remove Four Oak Trees Applicant/Easement Holder: Dale Parsley, 21990 Via Regina Property Owner: Hamid Lotfizadeh, 21820 Via Regina Appellants: Max Keyashian, 21818 Via Regina Hamid Lotfizadeh, 21820 Via Regina Staff: Kate Bear, City Arborist Meeting Date: September 23, 2009 APN: 503-69-013 Department Head: John Livingstone, AICP 21820 Via Regina Page 1 of 7 173 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Arborist review for installation of sewer (06-320) 5/2/06 Withdrawal of project for sewer line connection 11/13/06 Neighbor complaint about work under trees along easement 2/19/08 Application for grading permit from Building Division (09-466) 5/7/09 Application for retaining wall permit from Building Division (09-467) 5/7/09 Application for After-the-Fact Tree Encroachment permit (ATFTR09-0009) 5/8/09 Submittal for arborist review of retaining walls (ARB09-0030) 7/20/09 Tree Removal Permit Application (TRP09-0222): 8/10/09 Appeal Application filed – Keyashian (21818 Via Regina) 8/19/09 Appeal Application filed – Lotfizadeh (21820 Via Regina) 8/27/09 Notice published: 9/8/09 Mailing completed: 8/28/09 Posting completed: 9/17/09 APPEAL DESCRIPTION: Two adjoining neighbors are appealing the Community Development Director’s approval of an application for a Tree Removal Permit. The Tree Removal Permit application is for four coast live oak trees located within an ingress/egress/utility easement recorded in favor of property owned by Dale Parsley of 21990 Via Regina (Applicant). The easement measures 10 feet wide and extends across the south end of the property at 21820 Via Regina (see Map attached to Exhibit 16). One Appellant is Hamid Lotfizadeh, the owner of the property on which the easement occurs at 21820 Via Regina. The other Appellant is Max Keyashian, the neighbor to the south of the easement and the owner of the property at 21818 Via Regina. One tree requested for removal is in conflict with a proposed retaining wall on the south side of the easement and crowds another, larger coast live oak tree on the adjoining property at 21818 Via Regina. The other three trees grow within inches of, and crowd, a fourth coast live oak to be retained on the north side of the easement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission allow the four oak trees to be removed, thereby denying the appeals, subject to the condition that no Court Order has determined that the Applicant is precluded from removal of trees within the easement prior to their lawful removal under a City Tree Removal Permit which has become final and not subject to further appeal. STAFF ANALYSIS Page 2 of 7 174 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant, Dale Parsley, represented by his daughter, Linda Parsley-Yelavich, and son-inlaw, Mike Yelavich, has submitted a site plan to the Building Division for over-the-counter permits to grade his easement across the adjoining property, to install retaining walls along a portion of both sides of the easement, and remove four trees, for the purpose of maintenance of a portion of the easement. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Staff Report and the accompanying Resolution. The easement measures 10 feet wide and is located at the lower (south) end of property owned by Hamid Lotfizadeh (21820 Via Regina). The permit for the retaining walls required an Arborist Review prior to issuance and the Arborist Review, in turn, required a Tree Removal Permit prior to the removal of the protected trees and issuance of the Grading and Building Permits. The Applicant applied for a Tree Removal Permit for a coast live oak tree (#3) and, on the recommendation of their arborist, Ian Geddes, they included three additional coast live oak trees on the Tree Removal Permit application. They grow as a cluster, together with another coast live oak, that they plan to retain. These four oaks were collectively considered as one tree for the Arborist Review (tree #5). The four coast live oak trees requested for removal (tree #3, and 3 trunks of tree #5) meet the criteria set forth in the City Code, Section 15-50.080 overall, and qualify for removal. The Applicant has, on occasion, verbally indicated that he plans to ultimately use the easement for vehicular ingress and egress and/or to install a sewer line to connect to the public sewer system, although no plans or information about such uses or related improvements have been submitted to the City as part of this Application. The Applicant has not requested the removal of other protected trees growing within the easement as part of the tree removal permit application, some of which appear to interfere with use of the easement for vehicular ingress and egress and which may be impacted by installation of a sewer line. Additional tree removal or tree encroachment permits would be necessary in order to use the subject easement for vehicular ingress or egress and possibly also to install an underground sewer line. In consultation with the Assistant City Attorney, staff has been advised that the following issues are private civil matters not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission: (1) validity of Applicant’s recorded easement in light of this Appeal (and civil litigation) by fee owner Lotfizadeh claiming that the easement has been extinguished; and (2) extent of the Applicant’s property rights under such recorded easement (assuming its validity) to maintain their easement by removing trees in the easement for which the City has granted final approval of a Tree Removal Permit. The Applicant has submitted evidence in the form of a recorded easement and a survey stamped by a Licensed Civil Engineer contending that the trees sought to be removed are within the recorded easement and that Applicant holds a sufficient property interest to obtain the Arborist Review and obtain the required Tree Removal Permit without a signed consent from the property owner on which the easement is located or any adjoining property owner. Under these Application No. APPC09-0001/TRP09-0222; 21990 via Regina, 21820 Via Regina Page 3 of 7 175 circumstances, the Assistant City Attorney recommends that the Planning Commission proceed on the basis that such recorded easement is valid and sufficient to allow the City to approve the requested Tree Removal Permit so long as it complies overall with the criteria set forth in the City Tree Regulations and there is no Court Order precluding the Applicant from proceeding. BACKGROUND: In 2006 the Applicant applied for a permit and arborist review to install a lateral sewer line to connect to the City’s sewer system (see Attachment 7, application 06-320 and Attachment 8, arborist report dated May 2, 2006). Later that year, staff was informed that the Applicant didn’t want to install a sewer line, but wanted to maintain ingress/egress access along this easement and that the fire department required it (see Attachment 9, letters dated November 13, 2006 and November 27, 2006). Letters from the fire department stated that it would be acceptable to use the easement for secondary access of horses and vehicles, but that they did not require it because there was adequate access using the existing driveway (Attachment 10). In February 2008, staff received a complaint from the adjacent neighbor and Appellant (Max Keyashian, 21818 Via Regina) that grading and removal of vegetation was occurring. They wanted to know if the Applicant had permits for such work. Staff went to the property to investigate and called the Sheriff’s office for assistance as well. Work was stopped (see Attachment 10, Stop Work Notice) and an incident report was filed. Staff sent a follow-up letter indicating mitigation necessary to repair damage to trees encroached upon (see Attachment 12). The Applicant hired Ian Geddes to inspect the trees and perform mitigation work (see Attachment 13). The Applicant was notified in subsequent conversations that permits were needed to continue the work. In May of 2008, they were issued and served with a Notice of Violation and Continuation of Stop Work Order prepared by the Assistant City Attorney and signed by by the Building Official and the City Arborist, notifying them in writing that the required permits had not yet been applied for (see Attachment 15). Between May 2008 and May 2009, City staff corresponded with or met with the Applicant and their attorney trying to obtain compliance. In May 2009, in addition to an Application for a Grading Permit and a Building Permit for Retaining Walls, an After-the-Fact encroachment permit was applied for and obtained (Attachment 14). In July 2009, an Arborist Review for their proposed retaining walls was applied for and provided (Attachment 5). Also in July, 2009 the Applicant applied for a permit to remove four coast live oaks on their easement (see Attachment 3). In 2006, the owner of 21820 Via Regina, Appellant Hamid Lotfizadeh, was found to be in violation of City Code Article 15-29 for a fence constructed of materials not approved by the City and for enclosing a space greater than 4,000 square feet. A notice of a Code Violation has been recorded against the Lotfizadeh property. TREES Application No. APPC09-0001/TRP09-0222; 21990 via Regina, 21820 Via Regina Page 4 of 7 176 The Applicant has requested City approval to remove four (4) protected trees. The total appraised value for tree #3 is $2,400. The three being removed as part of tree #5 should be replaced on a one for one basis, with three new 24 inch box sized trees, the standard condition for tree removal permits. New trees, equal to $2,400 in value should be planted to replace tree #3, in addition to the required three 24–inch box trees. Criteria for the Removal of a Protected Tree The findings required for issuance of a Tree Removal Permit pursuant to City Code Article 15-50.080 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making those required findings overall: Criterion #1: The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services. The request to remove coast live oak (tree #3) does meet this criterion in that it is in the path of a proposed retaining wall. The other three oak trees (collectively called tree #5) do not meet this criterion in that they do not appear diseased. They also do not appear to be in danger of falling and are not causing damage to structures. Based on the information provided by the applicant, they do not interfere with utilities. Criterion #2: The necessity to remove the tree for physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The request to remove oak tree #3 does meet this criterion, in that, if it is not removed, it could cause damage to the proposed retaining wall. The other three oaks (#5) do not meet this criterion. Criterion #3: The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. The four oak trees do not meet this criterion, in that they are actively having a positive effect on the prevention of erosion. They grow on a slope and their roots are holding the soil in place. Criterion #4: The number, species, size and location of existing trees on this and neighboring properties and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and established standards of the area. The proposed tree removals do not meet this criterion, in that the removal of the four oaks will have an impact on the privacy, shade, and potentially, the value of the property available to the southern neighbor. Criterion #5: The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. The proposed four tree removals do meet this criterion, in that all four are too close to other trees for good forestry practices. Oak tree #3 is within about two feet and grows completely under the canopy of another, larger oak with better structure. The three oaks (#5) are within inches of another oak and, in the near future, if they continue to grow together, by the time they are mature they could fail as a result of the trunks pushing against each other. Criterion #6: Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. The proposed tree removal does meet this criterion in the long term, in that there are alternatives to removing the four oaks. All four could be retained. However, retention of oak #3 will impact the effectiveness of the retaining wall on the down slope side of the Application No. APPC09-0001/TRP09-0222; 21990 via Regina, 21820 Via Regina Page 5 of 7 177 easement, and leaving the cluster of four oaks (#5) on the north side of the easement will result in four poorly-structured trees as they mature. As a result there are no equally effective long term tree protective alternatives. Criterion #7: Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. The proposed tree removal does meet this criterion, in that approval of the request to remove the four oak trees is not in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article, which is to preserve and protect healthy, mature trees in the City. In this situation, all four trees are right next to other, preferable oak trees and in competition with them. Criterion #8: Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010. Removal of the four oak trees does meet this criterion. The owner of the easement claims to have sufficient property rights to maintain the easement by removing these trees. Criterion #9: It is necessary to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Removal of the four oak trees does meet this criterion. It enables the easement holder to maintain the easement. In summary, removal of the four oaks is adequately supported by Section 15-50.080 of the City Code. The Applicant meets the burden of proof for tree #3 in that Criteria 1, 2 and 5 – 9 support the removal of the tree. The Applicant also meets the burden of proof for tree #5 in that criteria 5 – 9 support the removal of the three trees. Overall, the Appellant has not met the burden of proof for the retention of the four oaks. NEIGHBOR CORRESPONDENCE City staff has approved a Tree Removal Permit Application and received the two appeals of the Tree Removal Permit Approval. GROUNDS OF APPEALS The Keyashian Appeal is largely based on opposition to grading and the use of the easement for vehicular ingress and egress. These issues are not within the purview of an Appeal of a Tree Removal Permit. The Building Official has determined that the grading and retaining wall plans comply with applicable regulations. An appeal of the Tree Removal Permit requires the Planning Commission to review the criteria for tree removal set forth in City Code Section 15-50.080 and as set forth above, and determine whether overall the criteria support removal of the trees in question. The Keyashians Appeal does mention that the trees in question add value, privacy, shade, and their roots prevent soil erosion. These issues should be the focus of the Planning Commission consideration of their Appeal. The analysis of the criteria above provides the City Arborist evaluation of the tree-related issues raised in the Keyashian Appeal. The Lotfizadeh Appeal requests that the Planning Commission not approve removal of any trees in the easement until litigation filed September 9, 2009, by Lotfizadeh against Parsley-Yelavich as to the continued existence of the easement is finally resolved by the Superior Court. Local planning Application No. APPC09-0001/TRP09-0222; 21990 via Regina, 21820 Via Regina Page 6 of 7 178 Application No. APPC09-0001/TRP09-0222; 21990 via Regina, 21820 Via Regina Page 7 of 7 agencies (including the City of Saratoga) generally consider it to be for the Courts to make any determination of whether a private easement remains valid, and the extent of an easement holder’s right to maintain the easement. Local planning agencies generally proceed to make land use decisions independent of the Court process, but condition their decision on any Court Order which may be issued. Hence the Resolution contains a condition of approval providing that the Tree Removal Permit (assuming it is approved by the Planning Commission) may be exercised so long as there is no Court Order prohibiting Applicant /Easement Holder from doing so. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and deny both Appeals, so as to uphold approval of the Tree Removal Permit with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution denying Appeal, allowing the removal of four coast live oaks 2. Appeal applications and letters from Max Keyashian, 21818 Via Regina, and Hamid Lotfizadeh, 21820 Via Regina 3. Tree Removal Permit Application TRP09-0222 4. Arborist Review for retaining walls, August 4, 2009 5. Map showing relationship of properties, easement and ownership 6. Public Hearing Notice, List of Addresses for mailing 7. Application #06-320 for sewer connection (2006) 8. Arborist report for application #06-320, May 2, 2006 9. Letter requesting withdrawal of project and response 10. Letters from fire department 11. Stop work notice 12. Letter dated March 10, 2008 from City Arborist 13. Letters dated March 20, 2008 and June 12, 2008 from Ian Geddes 14. After-the-Fact Tree Encroachment Permit for work done in February 2008 15. Notice of Violation and Continuation of Stop Work Order 16. Recorded easement 17. Documents from Applicant 18. Exhibit “A” – Easement Maintenance Plan 179 180 CITY OF SARA1'OGA APPEAL APPLICATION (Revised July 2007) RECEIVED «r 0 6 2009 Appellant Name: ___(i /A·-....'LL/--:--X'-''--_....I.K~....:£::;;;,.-:. ...t.: ..:·.-' t:.1_(;;:.·._k-'---'1'-·-~_""' .I :-_____________ Address: __'2, -."..".., '.\. .. ../-',7~,--IL-...~,;:·" "'__·:Le .:/...---!i, ...~!}_-----.:r--2---.:i:..:..:.------G.:=J.-"-"--.:./._'..,/;)_..· _____________ Telephone #: ___ L-' -"l; _. C·_<..7.0.:.~_-__~. , _L_' _£_ __1:_ 7---.:./..._.£7.._ ________________ Name of Applicant 0fdi~re~ilianAppe ll an0:· _________________________ ~ Project file number and address: Decision being appealed: Grounds for appeal (Letter may be attached):. ----'t'-, ~_,-,_-?_"2.-e..-_ _'s:::::.:_-' <=e=' .---<=_ ~/--L~_?,_-6_7_.!~"f__~....i:....(::O _/-" ~,:=--L=' /I \" A pp I'l cant SI' gnature: --f/(-}-L,. ,~!----tf>l-/-/~ --'-=-=-""-_-/-//-:/.....--D at e: __. \. :.0.----I.:.f..:._/.:'-. .C:= ---q---'-_____ o o o o o City Code Section 2-05.030 (a) appeals: • • No Hearing With Hearing City Code Section 15-90.010 90.010 appeals (Zoning related): • Appeals from Administrative Decisions to the Planning Commission City Code Section 15-90.020 appeals (Zoning related): • Appeals from Planning Commission to the City Council City Code Section 13-20.060 appeals • Appeals from Heritage Preservation Commission to the Planning Commission. City Code Section 15-50.100 (a) appeals (Trees): • Appeals from Administrative Decisions to the Planning Planning Commission Request for a Continuance: • First Requests • 2nd Request $1 00.00 $600.00 $400.00 $600.00 No Charge $500.00 No Charge $250.00 Date Received: ___ _______ _ Hearing Date: _______ __ _ Fee: ___ ____________ Receipt#: ___________ _ C:\Appeal Application.doc 181 October 6, 2009 Re: Tree Removal Appeal -21990 Via Regina Dear Honorable City Council, Our neighbor at 21990 Via Regina is planning to cut down four coast live oak trees within a 10' easement which they have from another neighbor at 2 1820 Via Regina adjacent to our property at 21818 Via Regina. The following is the background and reasons for the appeal. BACKGROUND Since June 2005 when we bought the house, my family and I have fallen more in love with our Saratoga home. The beautiful trees that sunound our home are not only pleasant to look at but also provide the privacy our family so dearly appreciates. Shortly after we bought the property we decided to demolish the existing house and build our dream home on the same footprint. We hired an architect and took all the necessary actions by respecting the laws and codes of the City of Saratoga and obtained the planning approval. We can't forget the joy when our plan was reviewed and approved by the City back in January 2008, but unfortunately the happiness was short lived. A few weeks later on February 19, our neighbor Mr. YelavichiParsley, without any notification to us or the city proceeded with extensive unauthorized grading within a 10' wide easement along our property line to make an alternate roadway to his property. Trees and branches were destroyed within the beautiful landscape that we cherished. The grading OCCUlTed for roughly 200' along our driveway running towards our home and then curved above our house, 10-15 ' high within 25' from our living room. My wife stopped by our property on 2119/08 and she was shocked when confronted with the extensive damage done to our property, privacy, view and the lack of respect shown to us and the City of Saratoga. She informed the City immediately and with the help of the City Staff and Sheriff the unauthorized work was put to a stop. We had no other options! I had to cancel all of our open contracts and we paid heavy penalties for doing so. We filed a lawsuit for damage occuned to our retaining wall and we have been living with this injustice ever since. Mr. Parsley has recently applied for a grading permit for ingress/egress/utility and also installation of the retaining walls at part of the 10' easement and is requesting to cut four more trees. 182 REASONS TO APPEAL 1 -PROPOSED USES If the proposed use of the grading is for a horse trail or pedestrian walking path or utility then there is no need to cut the trees. There is plenty of space and should be sufficient for horses and/or people to pass through and installation ofthe retaining walls. If the proposed use is to drive a car and have a driveway on the easement then It IS mandatory to comply with the driveway codes that require a minimum width of 14' . The tail of our existing retaining wall is crossing the easement and the width is currently less than 5'. Please refer to the following common sense City code that requires proposed uses to comply with the applicable provisions. 16-1 7. 180 (f) Compliance with other ordinances. The Building Official shall not issue a grading permit for any grading at a building lot or site unless all proposed uses shown on the grading plans for the lot or site will comply with all applicable provisions of both the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City, and with all other provisions of this Code, or unless such grading and the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan. Any grading pennit issued in vio lation ofthis Section shall be void and of no force and effect. 2-SAFETY As an example of safety issues we have attached a picture of a motorcycle accident that occurred on the easement. A member of our neighbor'S family was thrown into our backyard after going for a motorcycle ride on top of the controversial location. If it wasn't for the fence the motorcycle would have been in our living room. Luckily no one was harmed in this accident, but the memory remains as a lesson to us. Refer to the City code 16-17-110; the toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundarv line than one-half the height of the slope with a minimum of two feet. It is expected the setback to be extended beyond of minimum 2' due to the proximity of the graded area with our existing retaining wall. Considering the width of the new proposed retaining walls for erosion control will leave less than 7' (10' -15 'high within 25' from our home) to use. It is scary to imagine a car driving on this narrow easement and we are very concemed about our safety. 3 -PRIVACY & VIEW These trees add value, pnvacy, shade, and their roots prevent soil erosion which we highly appreciate. 3 out of 4 trees (#5) have nothing to do with the scope of the project and there is no interference with any retaining wall or ingress/egress. Therefore, the decision to cut the trees should be with the owner of the land and not Mr. Parsley. The other tree (#3) is within the 2' clearance as required by the City code 16-17-1 10. This tree can easily be saved by moving the proposed retaining wall by a foot. 183 DISCUSSIONS Mr. 'Parsley's main motivation is to use the easement as a second driveway as stated in the Planning Commissionaires meeting. There might be no need to appeal or to cut any trees if City clarifies its position that using this nan·ow easement as a second driveway does not meet the City codes and it is not doable or acceptable. We hope the City Council to consider the following: 1 -Permission for the termination of these trees is denied. 2 -The applicable City codes, including the minimum 2' clearance between the toe of fill slope and the site boundary line are observed. 3 -Restate the grading permit and installation of the required retaining walls does not provide any right for Mr. Parsley to drive on this easement. Thank you for your support. Max & Fara Keyashian 21818 Via Regina Road Saratoga, Ca 95070 Email: mkevashian@gmail.com Cell phone: 408-306-6719 184 CITY OF SARAfOGA APPEAL APPLICATION (Revised July 2007) Appellant Name: ___.' -LM-l---"''C-\>-xLJ------'-K~;e=__;/""'".k.~:....'-'J~' h-'--'/---=4-""'---------____ Address: --=2:-:::...~.. >.-~-=--,'__~'=<--_V~\ ..t.L.4JL..--.....~..,""-'~""---G"~-( ..r!_'V_'I<f...,L...._------_____ Telephone #: ~4'_'O~~_-__"'3__o_£· -_ b....7.:--'-1_4-'----_______________ Name of Applicant (If different than Appellant):-_________________________ _ Project file number and address: Decision being appealed: Grounds for appeal (Letter may be attached):,_+/~~::=:..I<:~:...._...;";-t..=--~_L ..t1.Il../Q.H._L~4"_'v<::L~J.a.--"'--____ Applicant Signature: ---fI''}-\-r-.'I7 ----p-'+--"r=--L~~--:-:r----Date: __O-=-/~\_'.\.:J(LJQ,",--'\-\-. _____ o o o o o City Code Section 2-05 .030 (a) appeals: • No Hearing • With Hearing City Code Section 15-90.010 appeals (Zoning related): • Appeals from Administrative Decisions to the Planning Commission City Code Section 15-90.020 appeals (Zoning related): • Appeals from Planning Commission to the City Council City Code Section 13-20.060 appeals • Appeals from Heritage Preservation Commission to the Planning Commission. City Code Section 15-50.100 (a) appeals (Trees): • Appeals from Administrative Decisions to the Planning Planning Commission Request for a Continuance: • First Requests • 2nd Request $100.00 $600.00 $400.00 $600.00 No Charge $500.00 No Charge $250.00 Date Received: ~) I g f 0C1 Hearing Date: __________ _ Fee:$ 500 { ~ Receipt#: __________ _ _ P:\Forms & Procedures\Appeal Application .doc 185 August 19, 2009 Community Development Department City of Saratoga We were informed that our neighbor has planned to cut four coast live oak trees on 10' easement on the property at 21990 Via Regina adjacent to our property at 21818 Via Regina. Our neighbor has done extensive unauthorized grading on <t~is 10' easement back to 2/19/08 to make a second driveway. This has put our safety at risk and damaged our privacy and view. Refer to the following City code if the proposed use is to drive on the easement then it is reasonable to enforce the driveway codes that require minimum of 14'. Removing the trees to drive on the easement is in violation of this code and can not be justified. 16-17.180 (f) Compliance with other ordinances. The Building Official shall not issue a grading permit for any grading at a building lot or site unless all proposed uses shown on the grading plans for the lot or site will comply with all applicable provisions of both the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City, and with all other provisions of this Code, or unless such grading and the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan. Any grading permit issued in violation of this Section shall be void and of no force and effect. These are beautiful trees and provide privacy and view to our property and we strongly request City does not allow these trees to be removed. Thank you fO~OUco~n sideration. II? -~ . . Max and F ereshteh eyashian 2.1818 Via Regina Saratoga, CA 95070 Ph. 408-306-6719 186 AMENDED CITY OF SARATOGA APPEAL APPLICATION (Revised July 2007) Appellant Name: Hamid Lotfizadeh Address: 21820 Via Regina, Saratoga. CA 95070 Telephone #: (408) 377-9899 (Applicant IS) Name of Applicant (If different than Appellant): Michael E. Stone, Attorney A.....,t"---"L""a""w""-_______ _ Project file number and address: Parsley!Yelavich 21990 Via Regina, Saratoga, CA Decision being appealed: Tree Removal Permit Grounds for appeal (Letter may be attached): See attached lette~r ________ _ Applicant Signature: --~-L:.~~2:.-'-"R.c--i~Y----==-'{::----Date: ,Sept . 1~ 0 9 o D D D x D City Code Section 2-05,030 (a) appeals: • No Hearing • With Hearing City Code Section 15-90,010 appeals (Zoning related): • Appeals from Administrative Decisions to the Planning Commission City Code Section 15 -90,020 appeals (Zoning related): • Appeals from Planning Commission to the City Council City Code Section 13-20,060 appeals • Appeals from Heritage Preservation Commission to the Planning Commission. City Code Section 15-50,100 (a) appeals (Trees): • Appeals from Administrative Decisions to the Planning Planning Commission Request for a Continuance: • First Requests • 2nd Request Date Received: __________ _ Hearing Date: Sept 23 i 2009 C:\Documents and SettingslCompaCLAdministra torlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslContent. IE510KW8N9VRlAppeal%20Appli cation[ I) .doc $100.00 $600.00 $400,00 $600.00 No Charge $500,00 No Charge $250.00 187 !vIICIlAEL E. STONE Via Federal Express Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 August 27,2009 Re: Appeal of Decision On The Application Of Parslev/Yelavich To Remove Trees On Property At 21990 Via Regina Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: A'n'ORNEY AT J.,\ w I represent Hamid Lotfizadeh, the owner of the real property identified above. Mr. Lotfi zadeh is presently out ofthe country (and will be for another thl'ee months) but has asked that I file this appeal on his behalf. While the Parsleys and the Yelavichs seem to believe that they are entitled to remove my client's trees from my client's property, because there is an old recorded ingress/egress easement, we disagree. For years that easement was abandoned and unused, and access to the Parsley/Yelavich property was by way of a driveway off Regina to the north of my client's property. A couple of years ago, bitter over a fence dispute, the Parsleys/Yelavichs mounted a tractor and without warning, permits or engineer plans, began grading what they referred to as "their easement". However, besides doing illegal grading and filling (for which the City took them to task), they also went outside the boundaries of the recorded easement, created unsafe conditions on the Lotfizadeh property, including but not limited to unsupported cuts in excess of 36" in height ( a confirming soils engineer's report is available upon request), and damaged existing trees. We are in the process of litigation now to not only collect damages (the soils engineer estimates $145,000 to repair the property) but to extinguish the easement for over burdening the Lotfizadeh property. Consequently, the City is asked to NOT approve any further work by the Applicants, including removal of trees, on Mr. Lotfizadeh's property until there is final resolution in the Santa Clara County Superior Comi as to what rights, if any, the Applicants have to use the Lotfizadeh propeliy. If necessary, please schedule a hearing on this before the Planning Commission. Thanking you for your attention to this matter, I remain MES/td 3425 SOI'Tl! BA~C01>1 AVI'NIJJ:, Sl'ITE I C,\,\II'III'II, C,\III'ORNIA 95008 (408) 377-9899 • FAX (408) 377-5270 /1>L\lI.: l'lIK/:I'S'/\ )NEC£!!YAJ 100.<.'01>1 Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF 188 1'iICHAEL E. STONE September 1, 2009 Via Email and US Mail Community Development Department Attn: Kate Bear City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Appeal of Decision On The Application Of ParslevlYelavich Dear Ms. Bear: ATrORNI;Y AT LAW Belatedly, but not too much so, I hope, it was discovered that the address on the Parsley/Yelavich application is their own, not the address of the Lotfizadeh property from which they are seeking to remove the trees. Consequently, I have amended our Appeal Application, and enclose it herewith. I also need to correct the first line of my letter dated Aug., 27, 2009. Hamid Lotfi'zadeh is not the owner of "the real propeliy identified above" (which was 21990 Via Regina), but rather the owner of21820 Via Regina, which is the real property on which the trees in question are located. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused. Thanking you for your attention to this matter, I remain MES/td cc: client 3425 SOUTII llASCOl'\ AVENUE, SU:TE I CAl'IPllEI.I., C,I\.IH)I<!NIA 95008 (408) 377-9B99 • PAX (40B) 377-5270 El'IAIL: 1'11I~1, I ' STO NE(a!y AJ 100. COl'I Very truly yours, LA W OFFICES OF 189 City Qf Sarat~ga Tree Perm;~AppliC?ation City Arborist, Kate Bear -(408) 868-1276 9 13777 Fruitvale Ave, Saratoga, ( OFfiCE CSE O,\LY: Date Received: ----~~~~~~ Pemut No.: TRP Status of Pennit: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deadline to appeal denial of pernut: Propel1y Owner: DilLS' FkfL~ L6Y Mailing Address: Z, I ~q D V t /( r2{ (JllJir Expiration date for approval of pennit: (w k) _ _______________ Address where \vork \vill ~e performed: &~4ftf(((:/:(I( 'Z--;8U: VI,1"-/2{rz,j/vA ~~~~gf~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L-~ ~~~-----------------N ear-est Cross Street: __________________________ Tree Company P erfomung ,,v ork: ______________________ I understand that the tree(s) may be removed, pruned, or encroached upon, only according to the criteria established by l<\rticle 15-50 of the City code, and that by sig:tung tlus form, I am agreeing to the conditions of the pemut. If trees are requested for removal, my signature cel1ifies that they are located solely on my property. Signature of Propel1y Owner Date Tree Removal pernuts are required for the removal of the follmving trees"': 1. ~a tive Trees with a DBH (diameter at breast height-4 12 feet above the ground) of 6" or greater (19"in circumference). 2. 0ther trees with a DBH of 10" or greater (3l"in circumference measured 4 lh feet above the ground). 3 . Any street tree (tree within a public street or right of ,yay) regardless of size. 4.Any Heritage tree (tree designated by HPC and CC) regardless of size. *EXCEPTION: If trees are to be removed in conjunction with a proiect. an .Al·borist Deposit is required. Call for infonnation. Please list all trees below. Indicate if the tree is to be removed, if it is to be pruned in excess of 25%, or if work that does not require a buildina permit will occur underneath its canopy bv checkina the appropriate column :::: , , '" Prune Species >25% Encroach Remove Reason 0" 0" 0" j ·(tl6 (,0,1, ,5'"( 0 \ VO QIi1L-/////I IV (oJ fi-I C ·r lv jLJJ/0.{ -1" 0~~IVi.) (.o/.s-r L--i l/2r C\ A1L I I I V ''ou (A-D}Z. <:: .-I r-,' -5 " :l (.~~ It) 07)+J,-7I0Z':f \... . t\ I I I I Location of Trees: Prepare a small sIte plan in the area below, showmg all trees to be removed from the property; include i dimensions from property lines and existing structures. 1 i ~YfJ ( l;)f0' FEES P.AlD: RS.CEIPT NO: _______ ----,-..,.--,-_:--:--_-:-_ _____ _ Permit cost for pruning> 25% OR removal: ~Jf 100.00 Make checks payable to the City of Saratoga Permit cost for encroachment: .tuborist Deposit Tree Removal Pennits will be held for a period of ten days after inspection approval pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code section 15-90. 050(a) for a n ~' interested party to appeal the admi nistrative decision to the Planning Commission. P:"X bear Tree KemO\'a: Pe;':nirs F onm.tree app l4.9.!}3 !' QOC I 190 '--..-11 1 Uk-':) _'-\1\_/\ 1 UU.~ V '=-/7 FRUTVALE A \"E, S AR--"l TOGA, CA 95r'j .------------------------------~------------~----~------. APPLlC\.:'H: PERJvfIT #-To Be Cdf.mleted Bv A Field InsDector /'~fv( ;\'otificc.tion Req.u ired o APPROVED Tis tree remOY2] peu-ni is :\PPRO\'ED L, accoraance with :i>~i cle 15-.50 orthe City Coae based on the following: _ \1 reelS Criteria (j) ~~O V~-\ The tree is DLW \ ') 0 The condition of the tree \~,-ith respect to disease: irillllL.Jent danger of felling: prcxinlity IO the mucmre, and irnerference with utility seryices. The necessity to remoyc the tree becaUSe of pbysical damage or threat ened d2m2ge to impro"ements or imperYious surfaces on the property. The tOpography of the l2nd and the effect of the remoyal upon e;-OSiOIl, soil retention ana the ciiwrsion or increased flow of surface waters. The number, species, size and location of the existin.g treeS in the area 2nd the effect the Reruoya would h2ye upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property \'alues, erosion controL and the general v"elfare in the area. The age and number of healthy trees on the property is able to support according to good forest practices. \Vhether or not there are any aitematives that would alIov, for reraic-ung or not encroaching on a protected tree. \\thether the approyal of the request would be contrary to or in conI1ict with the general purpose or intent of .A.rticle 1.5 -.50. The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is n o other feasible altemative to the removal. o n n o D D D o Does '\ at \1 eel Criteria n I I o o u D o o Conditions of Approval: ________ _ ________________________ _ PER.\1IT EXPIRA. TIO_ T DATE: _________ _ • Replacement tree(s) shall be planted "..-irhin 3 months from rhe approyal date . The City will ie -inspect to ensure compliance '.',·ith aJ conditions of appro\·al. o DL :IED This tree remoyal pemlit is DE,\lED for the foilov,ing reasons -------------------------------------------S ignarure of Inspector ___J \-·-+-J..J.!2"-'-r"?"A'-__v_v_-__________ _ i • Date of Inspection ?II () I () 'l --~~~~/~~J-------..~ , ..,... ~. .. '.,'"-.' ~. /.'). &/LJ -~ ~ __ ~~~L-~~~~ _______________ _ Effectiye Date of Pemur 'Conlmuniry Development Representative 191 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 By Kate Bear, City Arborist Phone: (408) 868-1276 Email: kbear@sarato2:a.ca.us Report History: #1 INTRODUCTION ARBORIST REVIEW Application #:ARB 09-0030 21990 Via Regina Owner: Dale Parsley APN 503-69-014 Date: August 4, 2009 The applicant has submitted plans for grading and for the constlUction of two retaining walls along a portion of a ten (10) foot wide easement they have across the adjacent property. The required grading permit and building permits have been reviewed and are ready for issuance upon prior compliance with all conditions of approval ArbOlist Review (including Applicant having obtained a final Tree Removal Permit for tree #3). Six trees were inventoried for this report. One coast live oak (tree #3) is requested for removal. This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed, with the conditions noted below. SITE VISIT, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION A Site Survey of the easement area prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. and dated April 2009, was provided for review. Also provided for review, was a letter from Ian Geddes with an appraised value for tree #3. Six trees protected by City ordinance and potentially impacted by conshuction were inventoried for tlus report. Data for each tree is included in a Tree Inventory Table at the end of this report. Locations oftrees are marked on the attached copy ofthe Site Survey. Inventoried trees include five coast live oaks (#1 -5) and one Arizona cypress (#6). City Code Section 15-50.070(a) requires that an application for a tree removal, plUning or encroachment permit shall be signed by the owner of the property upon which the tree is located and if the applicant is not the owner of said property shall include a statement that the owner consents to the activity described on the permit application. The Site Survey by Westfall Engineers, Inc. dated April 2009 shows three of the six trees as being located entirely within the easement and three outside of it, two on property owned by Lotfizadeh and one on property owned by Keyashian. As owner of the easement, Applicant appears to contend that as to the three trees within the easement, he holds a sufficient property interest to obtain this Arborist Review and obtain any required Tree Removal, PlUillng or Encroachment Permit without a signed consent from the fee owner or any adjoining property owner. The City does not act as a court and make determinations as Page 1 of 5 J 192 21990 Via Regina to the legal rights of an easement holder. If the City receives information which strongly indicates that an applicant does not have the legal rights he/she claims, the City may require an applicant to obtain a Judgment to Quiet Title. Based upon the cun'ent information before it, the City intends to proceed on the basis that as to the three trees shown on the Site Survey as being located entirely within the easement, the Applicant here holds sufficient title to obtain this Arborist Review and obtain any required Tree Removal, Pruning or Encroachment Permit without a signed consent from the fee owner or any adjoining property owner. However, because both the fee owner (Lotfizadeh) and an adjoining property owner (Keyashian) have retained legal counsel related to Applicant's work in the easement area, a copy of this Arborist Review is being sent to such legal counsel, as well as the Applicant's legal counsel. One coast live oak is in conflict with the proposed retaining wall, and requires removal to construct the wall. Overall, it meets the cliteria in Section 15-50.080 for removal of a protected tree, as stated under the section below titled "Findings." A Tree Removal Permit is required and among the recommended conditions of approval for such Tree Removal Permit will be installation of replacement tree(s) totaling $2,400 in value. Excavation for piers should remain at least six feet from tree #4. The first two feet of the hole for the footing should be hand dug. If roots measuring two inches or greater are found, they should be retained and preserved. The hole for the pier should be relocated to miss the root. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may be cut using a sharp pruning tool. The drain pipe for the wall extends beyond tree #6, and ends at a bubble up dissipater measuring approximately 2 x 4 feet. This will have a significant impact on tree #6 and possibly cause it to die as a result of excavation through the root zone. The root zone of a tree is defmed at Section 15-50.020(t) as a specifically defmed area commencing at the trunk and moving outward to form an irregularly shaped circle that follows the contour of the tree canopy and extending beyond the dripline of the tree by five feet or such greater distance detelmined by the City Arborist. Dripline is defined at Section 15-50.020(j) as the outermost edge of the tree's canopy. When depicted on a map or plan, the drip line is the irregular shaped circle that follows the contour of the tree's branches as seen from overhead. Canopy is defmed at Section 15-50.020(e) as all portions of the tree with foliage. As context requires, the telm also describes the area inside the drip line. This dissipater suucture should either be located on the east side of the tree and outside the canopy so that it is not necessary to trench through the root zone, or the hole for the drain pipe should be bored unde11leath the tree at a minimum depth of 3 feet below grade, and the energy dissipater located outside the canopy of the u'ee. This will will provide better protection of tree #6. Per City Code Section 15-50.080, a security deposit in the amount of$18,350, which is equal to 100% of the appraised value of trees # 1, 2 and 4 -6, is required. Owner shall obtain, and file with the Community Development Director, the required security deposit prior to the receipt of building permits. The security deposit may be in the fOlm of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond. Appraisal values are calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9£il Edition, published by the Inte11lational Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000, in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Weste11l Chapter of the ISA, 2004. Page 2 of 5 193 21990 Via Regina FINDINGS Per City Code Section 15-50.080, the project was reviewed and the removal of tree #3 is pennitted on the basis of overall evaluation under the following criteria: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services; (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property; (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes; (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, plivacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare ofresidents in the area; (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices; (6) Whether or not there are any altematives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree; (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article; (8) Any other infOlIDation relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible altemative to the removal. Tree #3 meets critelia #1, 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the criteria listed above. The tree is in conflict with the proposed wall. Removal of this tree will have a minimal impact on shade, privacy and erosion control, in that it is within a two feet of another, larger oak. It grows within a two feet of an oak which overshadows and crowds it, and its removal would allow more room for the tree adjacent to it. Approval of this request is not contrary to the general purpose of Article 15-50, the Saratoga Tree Regulations. Based on a review ofinfOlmation provided, and as conditioned, the project will comply with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120. Section 15-50.140 of the Saratoga City Code requires that all protection and mitigation measures be set forth in a Tree Preservation Plan, for any project for which an Arborist Report is prepared. The Tree Preservation Plan shall clearly indicate all protection and mitigation measures to be taken as required by the Arborist Report. The Applicant shall include this ArbOlist Report in the final plan set on a page titled "Tree Preservation Plan". REQUIREMENTS 1. This entire report, including the Tree Inventory Table and map showing locations of trees and protective fencing, shall be incorporated into the final set of building plans on a page titled "Tree Preservation Plan" . 2. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. It shall bc comprised of fourfoot high 2 x 4 pieces of wood held in place against the trees ' trunks using orange snow fencing. Once established, the tree protection must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until City sign-off of approval after final inspection. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1 276 for an inspection after the Page 3 of5 194 21990 Via Regina tree protection has been installed. Tlus is required prior to obtaining building division pelmits. 3. No protected tree autholized for removal, pruning or encroac1m1ent pursuant to tills project may be removed, pruned or encroached upon, until the issuance of the applicable pelmit from the building division for the approved project. 4. Owner shall obtain a Tree Removal Pem1it and such Pem1it must be final and time to appeal expired prior to removal of tree #3. 5. Applicant shall place a 4 -6 inch layer of wood chips as shown on the attached map for tree protection. 6. Applicant shall obtain and submit to the Conmmnity Development Department a Tree Protection security deposit in favor of the City of Saratoga in the amount of $18,350 (for trees # 1, 2 and 4 -6) prior to obtaining building division pelmits. The security deposit shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project to ensure the protection of trees. Once the project has been completed, inspected and approved approved by the City Arbolist, the bond can be released. 7. Prior to receiving a final inspection on the project, applicant shall plant new 24 inch box trees of value equal to at least $2,400. New trees shall be from the City's list of native species. Acceptable species include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), blue oak (Quercus douglasii) , black oak (Quercus kelloggii) , big leaf maple (AceI' macrophyl1um), California buckeye (A esculus californica) , Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). The new trees shall be planted as near as reasonably feasible either on the easement (if Applicant has the legal right to do so) or on Applicant's property willch adjoins the easement on which the grading and retairung wall construction is proposed. 8. Excavation for drainage and the concrete piers at the wall shall be done by hand or air spade to a depth of two feet. Any roots measuring two inches or larger shall be retained and tunneled under or otherwise worked around; roots measuring less than two inches may be cut with a sharp pruning instrument. Installation of utilities, other than drainage for the wall, is not permitted as part of this project. 9. Holes for piers for the down slope retaining wall shall be at least six feet from tree #4. 10. The energy dissipater shall be relocated to the east side oftree #6, outside of the root zone of the tree. If tills is not possible, the hole for drain pipe shall be bored under the root zone of tree #6 at a nurumum depth of 3 feet below grade. 11. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced area (even after tree protection is removed). These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trencillng, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill) , and equipmentlvelucle operation and parking. Page 4 of5 195 21990 Via Regina 12. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site must be perfonned by a state licensed tree contractor under the supervision of an ISA Cer1ified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 13. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited under tree canopies or an)"vhere on site that allows drainage to areas under tree canopies. Herbicides shall not be applied under tree canopies. 14. Nothing in this Arborist Review authorizes removal, pruning or encroachment as to any tree other than the six trees inventoried in it. Nor does this Arborist Review authorize removal of any tree other than tree #3 and then only after Applicant has obtained a final Tree Removal Permit for tree #3 and complied with all conditions of approval attached to such Pemlit. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Map showing tree locations and tree protective fencing Page 5 of 5 196 TREE NO. 2 3 4 5 6 TREE NAME Coast live oak Ouercus aari{olia Coast live oak Ouerclls af!,ri{olia Coast Ii ve oak Ouercus agri{olia Coast live oak Ouercus aari(olia Coast live oak Quercus af!,ri(olia Arizona cypress Cupressus f!,labra 15, 12, 9,8, 7 11 , 9.5, 8, 7 8.5 11 7 11 .5, 20 Replacement Tree Values TREE INVENTORY TABLE 35 30 10 15 10 20 II ?f. o o §~ ".;3 (; -0 ::: c II U?f. -;:::;0 ~ ~ () (j "i'"..c 75 75 75 75 75 25 II ~ o o 75 75 75 75 75 25 Good Hiah Good High Good High Good High Good High Fair Moderate 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $ 1,500 48 inch box = $5 ,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $ 15 ,000 2 3 3 2 3 Should any tree listed above become damaged owner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. 21990 Via Regina g g:o U (j c: a x x x x x x x o ::l -a > $8,700 $4,730 $2,400 $2,430 $1,040 $1,450 $20,750 July 29, 2009 197 ~2'. Se I2E~ ROL.L "~, --, '-'-. .~;:.;.~ :~-:""~I;-~ .~r-I:.:[[j[ STA1<:: '.3/Lf"x·3/'~'" I.' Cl C MP·}: DETAIL ROLLS . 5,"1.,' 1< -, .................... ~,,::2. ~r . •. 63!S, 31 " "" !JRI!lti" .~ y '-, '-". " .' .... APN 503-G9-013 21820 VIA ~lGINA . 627, 4;' ' . " " 62!. 12 21990 Via Regina . 638 . \.'5 .. PARKiN(; TOP or ~LOP [ ~.f2.L.2L GAR. Legend Protective Fencing Tree Canopy Wood Chips I. . .. . . . . .'.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 198 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council of the state of Califomia, has set Wednesday, the 4th day of November, 2009 at 700 pm in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, Cali fornia , as the time and place for public hearings on: APPLICATION #APPC09-0003 (APN 503-69-013) -21820 Via Regina; Appell ant -Keyashian: Appeal of a Planning Commission approval of application APTR09-00 1 to remove fOLlr coast live oak trees. The application shows the trees as being located within an ingress/egress/utility easement at 21820 Via Regina; the easement is held by Dale Parsley of 21990 Via Regina. One tree is in conflict with a proposed retaining wall and crowds another larger live oak tree on the adjoining propelty. The other three trees grow with in inches of, and crowd, a coast live oak to be retained. In order for infOlmation to be included in the City Council's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before October 26, 2009. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge the subject projects in comt, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice in written cOlTespondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearing(s) is on file at the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale A venue. Questions may be addressed to the City Clerk, 868-1269. Is/Ann Sullivan, CMC City Clerk PUB 10/20/09 199 ' .-,':>" 200 8/19/2009 Parcel Number Parcel Address 503 14008 50314008 13 765 PIERCE RD 50314009 1378 1 PIERCE RD 50314028 1361 2 VAQUERO CT 50314029 13624 VAQUERO CT 503 14032 50314032 13635 VAQUERO CT 50314033 13627 VAQUERO CT 503 14034 13615 VAQUERO CT 503 14035 13636 VAQUERO CT 50314036 13641 VAQUERO CT 503 14042 VAQUEROCT 50314043 503 14043 13648 VAQUERO CT 50357006 50357006 13463 OLD OAK IVY 50357007 50357007 13485 OLD OAK WY 50357008 50357008 13497 OLD OAK WY 503570 11 503570 11 13553 OLD OAK WY 503570 16 135 19 OLD OAK WY 5035701 7 13531 OLD OAK WY 50369003 50369003 21790 VIA REGINA 50369006 50369006 2 1780 VIA REGINA 50369007 50369007 2 1786 VIA REGINA GEO IO City of Saratoga Radius Notification Parcel Report 21990 Via Regina Owner Name Owner Address MCCABE DAVID A AND PAMELA J POBOX 707 LA.NDGRAF MICH."..EL W A.ND STACY L 1378 1 PIERCE RD ZHANG DAVIS S AND LI CHRISTINA 13612 VAQUERO CT IOANNOU M ICH,"..EL J AJ'iD SHEILA K 13624 VAQUERO CT BONKE NEIL R .A.J'iD KAREN L 13635 VAQUERO CT JUELSGAARD JOHN M AND SCHRANK 13627 VAQUERO CT COCHRANE JAMES B AND CATHERINE 13615 VAQUERO CT USHER JOHN A .A.J'iD MARSHA B TRUS 13636 VAQUERO CT WATKINS DANIEL R AND CYNTHIA F P.O. BOX 3051 HUENING LISA E 13648 VAQUERO CT HUENING LISA E 13648 VAQUERO CT JOHNSEN ROBERT L TRUSTEE & ET 13463 OLD OAK WY PE l SHIYOU AND DONG JlELIN 13485 OLD OAK WY MATAJCICH GERALDL'iE .A.J'iD DAVIDS 13497 OLD OAK W'{ VOKAC J.A.J\'IES P .A.J'iD BABA STACEY 13553 OLD OAK WY HARMON MICHAEL L 135 19 OLD OAK WY HIDY JAY AND WRIGHT SUSAN C 1353 1 OLD OAK \vY VIA REG INA ROAD INC 18809 COX A V STE-200 RASHKIN MICH."..EL AND ZDENKA TRU 21780 VL<\ REGINA HOEBER ANTHONY N Al'iD LINDA Q 21786 VIA REGINA Page 1 of 2 Owner City, State Zip ZE."-LA SARi' TOGA, CA 95070 SARA TOGA. CA 95070 SARA TOGA. CA 95070 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 SARi, TOGA. CA 95070 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 S.t>.K<\ TOGA, CA 95070 SARATOGA, CA 95070 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 CRW A SSOCIAT61 201 Parc el Number Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Address Owner City, State Zip 50369008 50369008 2 18 10 VIA REG INA KOEPERNIK NORMAN L PO BOX 966 SAN .lOSE. CA 95108 50369009 VIA REGINA SIMPSON MICHAEL IV ET AL 2 18 18 VIA REGINA SARATOGA. CA 95070 50369010 21800 VIA REGINA MCLAUGHLIN MAUREE!\ TRUSTEE & E 865 COLLEGE AV MENLO PARK. CA 94025 503690 11 VIA REG INA SA.1VILIPPO DELOR/, 18809 COX AV STE-200 SARA TOGA. CA 95070 503690 12 21818 VIA REGINA KEYASHIAN MOSTAFA .'\.1'1D FRESHTEH 1479 VALCARTIER ST SUNNYVALE. CA 94087 50369013 21820 VLl; REG INA LOTFI Z.'\DEH H.'\.1\1 1D 2 1820 VIA REGINA SARATOGA. CA 95070 50369014 2 1990 VIA REGINA PARSLEY DALE S AND EVELYN R TR 11990 VIA REGINA SARA TOGA. CA 95070 503690 15 VIA REG INA SANFILI PPO DELaRA J.IV . TRUSTEE 18809 COX AV STE-100 S}\RA TOGA, CA 95070 50369016 2 1834 VIA REGINA SANFILIPPO DELaRA lW. TRUSTEE 18809 COX AV STE-200 SARA TOGA, CA 95070 50369017 2 1842 VIA REGINA KOHLER IVILLEM A AND SANDRA R 21842 VIA REGL'iA SARA TOGA, CA 95070 503690 18 2 1995 VIA REG INA JONATHAN JLA..NG 1550 SOUTH MARY AVENUE SUl\TNYVALE, CA 94087 50369019 21846 VIA REGINA PERRY RUSSELL G AND SUSAN M 2 1846 VIA REGINA SARATOGA, CA 95070 50369020 21848 VIA REG INA RAJ PRITHVI AND ANITA P 1 1848 VLl; REGINA SARA TOGA. CA 95070 50369021 2 1860 VIA REGINA INTRACORE LLC 1 1860 VIA REGINA SARATOGA, CA 95070 50369022 21950 VIA REGINA FRIES ALEXANDER E AND JILL M 2 1950 VLl; REGINA SARA TOGA, CA 95070 50369024 2 1970 VIA REG INA BRUNO BRUCE E JR AND VITA P TR 2 1970 VLl; REGINA SARA TOGA, CA 95070 50369025 VIA REG INA REDD JANET FET AL P.O. BOX X SA. ' JOSE, CA 9515 1 50378001 21720 VILLA OAKS LN NG BENG KUI AND HELEN C Y TRU5 2 1720 VILLA OAKS LN S /\l~A TOGA, CA 95070 50378037 50378037 M05TA"''1 PARVlZ AND aURA IE FARZ 15571 LaMA VISTA AV LOS GATOS, CA 95032 53 Affected Parcels GE01 0 CRW ASIOCUtYI£$ 202 Planning Department use only APPLICATION NO. O~-3;;;lJ· FEE $_~----,I; ;;',---,-1 5_()_O_.__~ ______ Requestedentitlement(s)-.;dI.=-.!..>~~.::..::...~-==----=:....!-_________________ _ Project Location _j_ " _/_~--,---C;_O---,~--,/,--,-a.,....:.-..._R,-e"-J+-,/-,-f)~CV::c.::..-.. ______________ Assessor Parcel Number (APN)-.-..::S"--O-=3'-------.=.0....:....Y_-_O_I_'7 _______________ _ Project DeScriPtion._=LL-=...:::f--C.,--'/....:....,..J...f..:;_1 __ ...e.... ... o... a..s""'-'-e"'-./Y}!...L.Joe'-'-Yi..!....Ct'""'-_--' _____________ Applicant Name----'L.=....<- /f)~da.=__'_~_""'o""_rs::::...~'-"e+v·---'~'--'e~!tL-"QL!OJ/.....!./....Io<c=n.· .i-____________ I Applicant Address· /(P 7 7 ~ ) Q 11 e l' jJ J/e.... City San 50 se.. CtJ I Applicant Phone &tJf) 777 -315' <Z FAX Email loda; @C"v,f?er/;riQ. 0') Property Owner Name Dale S. ?orsle Yt l}CJf) fbrs/ey/J//?da. Pars/tv -/L{,/av/t:!; Property Owner Address d 1990 0 ci J? fqlOa: S omhyCk elf 9507 (/~ ) Property Owner Phone ________ FAX _____________________ _ Email -----------------------------------------------------------I, the undersigned, under penalty of perjury, hereby declare and agree that I am the applicant for this request, that the owner of the property has approved the filing of this application and that all the facts, maps, documents and other information submitted herewith are true, correct, and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. If the application is granted, the undersigned agrees that the conditions, if any, upon which the application is granted, will be carefully observed and that the project \'lill proceed in accordance with all City, State and Federal laws. I agree to hold the City harmless from all costs and eXpenses, including attorney fees incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court challenging the City'S actions in any way with respect to this application and any amendment or revisions to this application. ~~ ~~-tk~l'. SltUreOf Applicant or Pe[# Owner 203 Application Number: City of Saratoga Community Development Department Deposit Agreement Project Location: J./7'10 V;.1 ~~ Initial Deposit Receipt No.: Date: 3,h;b (", Amount: ;?, 5lD. "'" " I, lInda /lr,;/ry-Yt!av'lf!as the applicant for the above-referenced application, hereby authorize the City of Saratoga to process the above-described application in accordance with the City fee schedule in effect at the time fees ¥e charged. I understand and agree that the City operates on a deposit system. The initial deposit required for this application is $ 21 SeA ~ based on the estimated staff, consultant and City Attorney time and expenses required to process this application. I further understand and agree that one or more additional deposits may be required ifthe initial deposit is not sufficient to cover the time and expenses associated with processing the application. The charges will include a City indirect cost recovery/staff analysis fee set at a percentage of consultant billings specified in the fee schedule. Application processing includes all aspects of project review including review for completeness and conformity with City codes and policies, review by the City arborist, traffic engineer, surveyor, attorney, and other experts as needed, preparation of staff reports, public notices, participation in public meetings related to the project, responding to inquiries from applicants and the public, review of any appeals, review of construction drawings for compliance with planning conditions of approval, final planning inspection and all other activities that staff detennines are necessary to ensure compliance with applicable City codes and policies. ' I will be notified if staff detennines that additional funds will be required to continue processing the application. I agree to provide the additional funds within 30 days of the date ofthe notice. I hereby request the City to withdraw my project from application review and further consideration or, in the City's sole discretion, to deny this application if if I fail to provide the additional required funds within 30 days of the date of the notice. I understand and agree that such withdrawal is irrevocable and any withdrawal or denial is final and that any further consideration of a proposed development project on the property that is the subject of the application referenced above will require filing a new application. Any funds not used will be returned to me by the City within 60 days of a final building inspection approval, which occurs at the end of construction. If the application is denied, unused funds will be returned within 60 days of a final decision. If no construction is Page 1 of2 204 il involved in the application, funds will be returned within 60 days of a final decision on this application. The final decision typically occurs at the end of the appeal period after application denial or a, determination by the approving authority that final plans are in confonnance with all applicable City regulations and earlier project approvals. I understand and agree that the deposit will be maintained in a non-interest bearing deposit fund and no interest will be earned or paid on unused fun~s. Upon my written request, the City will send me reports documenting the work performed, amounts billed against the deposit account, and the amount remaining in the deposit account during the course of project review. Reports will not be provided more than monthly. I further understand that I will not be charged for time spent on any of my inquiries regarding the amount charged against the deposit account. All reports and notices concerning this deposit should be sent to me at the following address: Telephone: (IjO~ Cflfp -f£:;2?' JIm (t;()f) 771-3/!;~ '{f)OrL E-mail: /;12r1ClU @Cu!2ertzI20, cJrq r!' <.J I hereby agree to the terms of this deposit agreement. If! am not the owner of the property referenced in this application I certify that I have been authorized by the owner to agree on my own behalf and on behalf of the owner to the terms of this agreement. Date: 4l2~/O 0 Page 2 of2 205 --~. Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, catifornia 95070 21990 Via Regina ARBORIST REPORT APN 503-69-014 Owner: Linda Parsley-Y elavich INTRODUCTION Application #: 06-320 May 2, 2006 A/ilA.NY'" Prepared by Kate Bear 1'1 (J -ISA Certified Arborist WE 22S0A The property owners of 21990 Via Regina have requested a preliminary arborist review prior to the installation of a lateral sewer line to replace their septic system. The owners have a ten-foot easement across a neighboring property, adjacent to the southern property line, in which they have the right to install a lateral sewer line. A total of 12 trees protected by City Ordinance 15-050 were inventoried for this project and are exposed to potential impacts from construction. They include seven coast live oaks (# 1-5,8, and 9), two Arizona cypress (#6 and 7) and three valley oaks (#10-12). Data for each tree is compiled in a table at the end of this report. Tree locations are noted on the attached copy ofthe Topographic' Survey dated November 30, 2005. Site Observations, Plan Review and Technical Discussion Seven trees are not shown on the plan provided and have been drawn on the attached map in their approximate locations. The owner should have these trees surveyed and shown on their plans when they submit their project to the City. There is no north arrow on the topographic survey; this should be included when the plans are submitted. I recommend that the sewer line be as Close to the property line as possible to allow the greatest protection of the largest number of trees. This will require the removal of one oak (#3) and two cypress trees (#6 and 7). Their combined values equal $11,320. To compensate for their removal, I recommend that the owner plant replacement trees equal in value to the trees removed. Acceptable species can be found in the list of natives in City Ordinance 15-50.020. Values assigned to replacement trees may be found at the end of the attached Tree Inventory Table and are based on container size. When installing a sewer line, I recommend that trenching be avoided. It would have significant negative impact on the trees along this easement. Up to 12 inches offill would be acceptable in the vicinity of trees #1-4 as measured at the property line. Boring under the root systems, especially in the vicinity of trees #9-12, is recommended. Per City Ordinance 15-50.080, a bond amount of $42,900, which is equal to 100% of the total appraised value the trees to be retained, is required. This bond amount is based on the retention of9 trees (#1, 2,4, 5, and 8-12). Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guidefor Plant Appraisal, ~ Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. Page 1 of3 206 21990 Via Regina RECOMMENDATIONS Design 1. This entire report shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans and be titled T -1 (Sheet L3.0 is acceptable) Tree Protective Measures. 2. Include a North Arrow on the drawings. 3. Topographic Survey must clearly show all existing trees and those to be removed. 4. Method of installation of the sewer line must be clearly indicated, showing all grade changes under all trees. 5. Design installation of sewer line so that it is as close as possible to southern property line within the easement. 6. A grading and drainage plan and a utility plan are needed to assess impacts to trees. Tree Protection Measures 1. Tree protective fencing shall be installed as shown on the attached map and established prior to any grading or the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot taU, two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. 2. Owner shall provide a tree protection bond, in the amount of $42,900. The bond shall be equal to 100% of the value of retained protected trees and the amount listed here is based on retaining trees #1,2,4,5, and 8-12. 3. Owner shall replace any tree approved for removal in the project with approved replacement trees. Acceptable species are listed in City Ordinance 15-50.020 under the definition of "native tree". The value of replacement trees shall be equal to the value of trees removed as determined in the tree inventory table attached to this report. This value is currently determined to be $11,320, based on the removal of trees #3,6 and 7, but may change as plans are finalized. 4. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 5. Any approved grading or trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually perfOImed using shovels. 6. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist or ISA-Certified Tree Worker and according to ISA standards. Page 2 of3 207 21990 Via Regina 7. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath tree canopies. Additionally, fuel shall not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 20 feet of the tree's trunks. 8. Herbicides shall not be applied beneath the tree canopies. Where used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees. Attachment: Tree Inventory Table Tree Location Map Page 3 of3 208 TREE NO. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NAME Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Quercus awifolia Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Quercus af!.rifolia Arizona cypress 15, 12 9,8, 7 35 11 ,9.5, 8, 7 30 8.5 10 11 15 7 10 Cupressus Arizonica 20, 11.5 20 Arizona cypress Cupressus Arizonica Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Quercus am/olia Valley oak Quercus Zobata Valley oak Quercus lobata Valley oak QlJercus lobata 16 9.5 12 9 10 8 20 10 20 15 15 15 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 25 25 25 25 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 -~ <1.> ;. o Good Good Good Good Good Fair High High High High High Moderate Fair Moderate Good High Good High Good High Good High Good High 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Total Appraised Value Replacement Tree Values 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 Should any tree listed above become damaged O\'lner will be required to repair the damage. Should any tree listed above be removed owner will be required to replace that tree with trees equal in value to its assessed value. Address: 21990 Via Regina "0 v en o c. e p.. .;; .~ x x x x x x x x x $8,700 x $4,730 $2,870 x $4,730 $1,980 $5, 100 $3,350 x $3,550 x $5,600 $4,510 $5,500 $3,600 $54,220 May 2,2006 209 ( . ~ ; , !e> .~.6·6~· ·~ I /"-J :~ • ~j-;'1i'-..... '-. . ..... ~ .... \ ~-, ~ i~l! ---CI ,nsJ '-t."" I.e·;~~ " .-:';"' ·"·:-t l-~ __ ' ..... _...--' ;.) ( . . _-f. 210 ij u~~u ~ ~ NOV 2 7 2006 I!» CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT November 13, 2006 City of Saratoga City Hall Attn: Kate Bear 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Kate: Please return the balance of the deposit we sent in several months ago. We wrote a check for $2,500.00 and I was quoted the report cost $750.00, therefore the refund check should be in the amount of$1,750.00. Since the report you wrote was incorrect for our needs will we be charged for it at all? You may make the check payable to: Linda Parsley-Y elavich 21990 Via Regina Saratoga, CA 95070 Please include a receipt with the breakdown of all the charges. The ingress/egress and utility easement should be "grandfathered in" since it has been on the title and deed prior to the incorporation ofthe City of Saratoga. It would be nice ifthe City cared enough for its older residents to protect their property rights. Even the Fire Battalion Chief wrote a letter saying it would be a beneficial emergency exit for us to escape in case of a fire. I will definitely keep that letter in my file in case we have a major loss of life and livestock in the event of a fire up here. Sorry the City of Saratoga was unable to help my father's case. 211 ];3 , 77 FRUITVALE AVENUE " SAHATOGA, CALlFOHNIA 95070 • (408) 8G8-1200 incorporated Octoher 22, l U56 November 27,2006 Ms, Linda Parsely-Yelavich 21990 Via Regina Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Parsley-Yelavich, RE: Permit application # 06-320 ( 'Ol ;\CIL ME:\IUEnS Aileen Kao Kathleen King Norman Kline Nick SlreiT Ann Wallonsmlth I have received your letter requesting a refund of the arborist deposit for your property and a breakout of time spent. The refund will be in the amount of $1 ,630 and processed in approximately 45 days. I have attached a table showing the associated costs for work on your project. In your letter you state that the arborist report I prepared for you, dated May 2, 2006, was incorrect for your needs and that you should therefore not be charged for it. The report provided to you addressed the project of a lateral sewer line as described in the application submitted in March of 2006. Nowhere in your application or in the site meetings while working on the report did you or Mr. Yelavich indicate that the project was anything other than a sewer lateral line. My first indication that your project included a road in the easement occurred following your comments to the City Council on June 21, when you indicated that the Fire Department supported the road. Although the Fire District is not opposed to the road, they do not require one. I have attached a copy of the letter from the Fire District in response to your request for the road. I hope this clarifies the intent of the arborist report for your property. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (408) 868-1276. Sincerely, ~~ Kate Bear Arborist Attachment: Account of time spent for 21990 Via Regina Copy ofletter from Joseph Parker, Saratoga Fire District 212 Incorporat.ed October 22. Hl~,li 21990 Via Regina Arborist Report Time spent on the account: Dates work performed Description of work Ap_ril 24, 2006 Meeting with owners at site May 1,2006 Data collection in field May 2,2006 Prepare report June 29, 2006 Meeting with owners July 17, 2006 Phone conversation with Mike Yelavich November 27, 2006 Letter in response to letter dated 11/13/06 Total COUNCIL !I1E.\'IBE r~S : Time spent on project 1 Y2 hours 112 hours 3 hours 12 hour ~hour 12 hour 7.25 hours Aileen Kac Kathleen King Norman Kline Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith Cost $180 $180 $360 $60 $30 $60 $870 213 SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE SINCE 1923 Mike Yelavich 21990 Via Regina Saratoga, CA 95070 Mr. Yelavich, ,JUL 1 7 2006 CiTY OF S/\ :U,TUC --.. . . .... ~ After your recent call regarding your proposed egress road I again visited the site as well as speaking with the employees of the City planning and code enforcement departments as you suggested. As I stated in my original letter several months ago I do see how the proposed egress road could increase your family's ability to remove horses and vehicles from the property in an emergency. However, the existing road and driveway provide adequate access for fire and ambulance vehicles to serve your residence and outbuildings. Access and egress in much of the hillside area are less than ideal and your property is not unusual in this regard. If I felt that it was imperative to create a new egress road across your neighbor's parcel I would take a more active role in conjunction with the City staff. However, my opinion is that the egress road would be nice to have rather than a necessity. I don't feel that it warrants Saratoga Fire District's involvement in forcing an easement upon your neighbor. City staff did tell me that the illegal portion of the fence on your neighbor'S property must be removed and hopefully that action will enhance your emergency egress options. Joseph Parker Battalion Chief 14380 Saratoga Ave. • Saratoga, CA 95070-5953 • (408) 867-9001 • Fax (408) 867-2780 • www.saratogafire.com 214 SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE SINCE 1923 November 4, 2005 Ms. Linda Parsley· Yelavich 21990 Via Regina Saratoga,~ 95070 Ms. Parsley-Y elavich: This letter is a follow-up to our November 3 meeting _ at your property on Via Regina regarding an access/egress road. In walking the property, I did note that the route across the recorded easement could be useful as a secondary escape route for your vehicles or horses. Although there is a possibility that fire or ambulance apparatus might use the proposed road, our primary route of access would continue to be the existing paved road and your existing driveway. The current road and driveway give us adequate access to your dwelling and outbuildings for the purposes of firefighting. Saratoga Fire District 14380 Saratoga Ave .• Saratoga, CA 95070·5953 • {408) 867-9001 • Fax (408) 867·1330 • www.saratogafire.com 215 .. NOTICE ill s l pwork Ie VIOLATION -BY ORDER OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CITY of SARATOGA CONTACT THE BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION WITHIN 72 HOURS. NO FURTHER WORK MAY BE DONE ON THIS STRUCTURE WITHOUT CLEARANCE FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL I (! INSPECTOR _.L..S."-,h--,-ye~-,/-~-,----._.,-/---=;-_vt----C,!",,.---=-e,----1,''-~-''--_______ CITY OF SARATOGA BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408) 868-1201 ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON REMOVING THIS SIGN WILL BE PROSECUTED 216 13777 FRUITVALE AVE NUE· SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 1r~O:.n:m-22,19.5G COUNCIL MEMBERS; Jill Hunter Aileen Kao Kathleen Kmg Chuck Page Ann Waltonsmith March 10, 2008 Mr. Dale Parsley, Ms. Linda Parsley-Y elovich, and Mr. Mike Yelovich 21990 Via Regina Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Parsley and Mr. and Mrs. Yelovich, On Febmary 19, 2008 I received a complaint that protected trees had been removed without a permit over the weekend. I visited the site, along with a building division inspector and a sheliffs deputy. When we arrived Mr. Yelovich was using a bobcat to create a level area about ten feet wide on a utility easement Mr. Parsley is said to have on his neighbor's property (21820 Via Regina). He said he was doing the grading work for the installation of a sewer line connection to the main line that was recently installed in Via Regina. The work was under the canopies of protected oak trees. No permit for the sewer line was on file with the building division and the inspector stopped work until plans to to install a sewer line connection can be submitted to the City, reviewed and approved. No encroachment permit was on file at the Conllmmity Development Department for working under protected trees and it appears that one protected tree was removed. In addition, four coast live oak trees were damaged by the grading. Per City Code 15-50.050, any native tree larger than six inches in diameter is protected and requires a permit to encroach upon it. Per City Code Section 15-50.170, any person who violates the code by damaging trees, must repair the damage. The trees impacted by the work were inventoried in 2006 for a project to install a sewer line. The application was withdrawn later that year and a refund was issued. They were trees #1,2,3,5 and 12 on the tree inventory. Tree #1 has had approximately 20% of its roots damaged through compaction of the soil. Tree #2 has had about 15% of its roots tom by a soil cut. Tree #3 has not had any roots cut, but has had soil compacted around it and piled up against the tmnk of the tree. Tree #5 is considered a total loss and should be replaced. Tree #12 was was removed entirely. Roots were tom on all of the damaged 217 trees, allowing them to become susceptible to decay. These roots need to be cut with a sharp pruning tool at a point beyond the tear so they can heal. Please complete the following conditions by April 15, 2008. Failure to complete the following work may lead to a recordation of a violation on the title ofproperty located at 21990 Via Regina. 1. Stop all work on the propeny until plans for any proposed work can be submitted to the City's Community Development Department for review, approval and issuance of the proper pennits. 2. Hire a licensed tree contractor with a certified arborist on staff to perfoml repair work listed in item #3. The contractor shall be approved by the City and the owner of 21820 Via Regina prior to perfomlance of any work. 3. Repair all damage to the trees as specified below: a. Cut all tom roots cleanly with a sharp pruning instrument and cover cut roots with burlap or other loose jute netting to maintain moisture and prevent soil erosion. b. Remove all soil from against tree trunks #1 and 3 by hand with a shovel. c. Relieve soil compaction around trees #1 and 3 by injecting compressed air into the soil around these two trees to a depth of2.5 feet and at a spacing of 4 feet on center. 4. Pay the SlIDl 0[$3,150 into the City'S tree fund. This value is equal to 100% of the appraised value of oak trees #5 and #12. 5. Pay the sum of $360 (3 hours) to the City's Community Development Department for Arborist time spent on the code violation. 6. Contact the City's Code Compliance Specialist, Jana Rinaldi at 868-1214 for inspection following completion of work. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (408) 868-1276. Sincerely, ~ Kate Bear City lub0l1St 218 Mr. Mike Yelavich, 21990 Via Regina Saratoga, CA 95070 I)~N <3ED DES ----AND ASSOCIATES ARB C) RICULTUf~AL CONSULTiNG P.O. Box 2962 " Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 374-8233 • Fax: (408) 374-8262 www.drtrees.com March 20th 2008 Re: Oak tree inspection. Dear Mr. Yelavich, Thank you for the opportunity to become irfvolved in yom tree related issues. Following my visit to the above referenced residence (the Parsley residence) on February 251h 2008 and inspecting several damaged oak trees, I report as follows. The property is one of the few remaining true ranch/farm properties within the jurisdiction of the city and is home to many trees large and small. It is as much an operational ranch as it is a home and the trees have been managed to farm standards rather than modern arboricultural practice for many years. The trees in question are all relatively young California Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia), and are relatively healthy specimens reaching heights of between fifteen and twenty five feeL They have apparently needed or received no professional attention to date. Three of the trees are of sufficient size to fall under the protection of the local authorities tree protection ordinance; others in the line are much smaller. During recent grading operations for sewer upgrades a soil cut was made to a depth of approximately 3 to 4 feet in close proximity to several of these trees. The trees, most likely self seeded specimens (or scrub oaks) grow in a rough line for approximately 40 feet following the line of the cut, which has been made within 2 to 3 feet of the trees trunks. Roots have been severed and torn by tractor blades and aie visible along the face of the cut, it is difficult to estimate the: amount of root loss, but in the worst case scenario it may be that between 30% and 40% of root mass may have been lost. No roots greater than 2 inches in diameter were observed to have been cut, most being less than 1 inch in diameter. Root damage can manifest itself in many ways, and depending upon many circumstances can be easily overcome or be fatal. In this particular instance, that while injurious, to the trees, I believe they cim be successful1y retained. We are proud members of the following professional organizations. 219 Mr. Mike Yelavich, 3/20108 Page 2. Certain factors will allow Ihis to occur, firstly that the trees are relatively young is very much in their favor, younger tr,ees have a greater ability to overcome adversity than do ageing specimens, good physiological health at the time of wounding is also beneficial, which was indeed the case with your trees. The species grows within its native range, in natural soil and therefore environmental conditions are suitable for survival. The species has also demonstrated a good ability to tolerate and recover from damaging situations (Matheny and Clark, 1998), where root abuse or loss has occurred. Trees that have lost root mass have also lost a degree of anchorage. There .is a slight chance that during winde,rents, one or more of tlfe -trees may blow over, in this event little if any damage is likely to occur, as the target area is little utilized, and as stated, the trees are relatively small. Time and replacement of roots will assist with rebuilding anchorage. You may see some slight although temporary decline in the fullness of the trees canopy, annual shoot extension may appear sub-normal for a period of years, an increase in interior deadwood is likely. Growth, including caliper expansion (the annual growth increment of trunk and branch), is likely to be slowed during the recovery period, and bud-break this year may be slightly delayed. Your trees have sufficient dynamic mass and stored energy reserves to be able to re-root and continue the growth process. They have taken, but will tolerate a significant degree of abuse, which, barring wind assisted failure, they should overcome. To aid recovery, the application of sumdard horticultural practice should help. Damaged and torn roots should be cleanly severed back to the face of the cut, thus minimizing the surface area to heal and minimizing the harbor for disease and decay organisms. Supplemental irrigation during hot summer moths is likely to be of benefit, and pruning to eliminate deadwood and structural faults may be be advisable in the coming months or -years. A layer of organic mulch laid intb.~Temrunivg uQ.da,mage<! root zone will naturally fertilize the trees over time and provide fortification. Please feel free to call this office if any further assistance is required in this matter. Yours sincerely, Ian eddes, ONDH(Arb), MIoD ASCA Registered ConSUlting Arbarist #308 WCISA Certified Arboris!: #593 ~ IAl\! GEDDES Ar\lD ASSOCIATES. 220 Mr. Mike Yelovich, 21990 Via Regina, Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mike, mAN <3Ef"JDI--S ------A ND p,SSOC1ATES -------ARBOR!'GULTURAL CON SULiii'-.;C3 PO. Box 2962 0 Saratoga, California 95070 (<;'08) 374-8233 • Fax: (408) 3?4-H262 www.drtrees.com June 12'iJ 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to re-visit your property to inspect the oaks damaged earlier this year by grading operations. The 5 live oaks were inspected o~_f~ b!'u a ry 25th at which time a report was generated documenting the nature of the damage, their condition at the time, recommendation:> for care and a likely prognosis. The trees were, at your request inspected again on May 22nd and photographed. It Cippears that all damaged roots have been pruned in the prescribed manner, leaving none torn or otherwise damaged. Pruning or mulching has not been canied out. All of the subject trees are alive and growing, From visual observation little has changed insofar as tree function is concerned. This years leaf emergence has occurred as expected, and annual shoot elongation is occuning. Very little, if any increase in the quantity of deadwood since initial inspection was observed , and no dieback at growing tips was observed. No pest or disease presence as a result of the abuse was noted. As previously stated, growth is likely to be slowed over the next fe,w seasons and inspection is recommended at the conclusion of this years growing season, sometime around November. It is still advisable to carry out celtain tree husbandry techniques to aid recovery, including previously described pruning, mulching, and supplementB.1 summer irrigation (tree fertilization remains an optiOD jf this years growth is serio usly sub-normal). Restoration of original grade by the removal of piled soil at the base of tree number 3 is also recommended. The long-term prognosis is positive for the trees, especially if further environmental disturbance is kept to a minimum, and with the application of standard horticultural practice. Please feel free to maintain contact with this office, and please contact us in the event of a change in tree circumstances. YAurs pi,nce~y~ : ;1 7.;;I:~l~7" 77i1;i1i\I/' ..?'{0'-'\1 I~~0e¥s, ONDH(Arb), M[oD ASs;;P!Registered Consulting Arborist #308 We:rSA Certified Arborist #593 We are proud members of the rai/owing professional organizations. 221 ~OTICE OF VIOLATION AND CONTINUATION OF STOP WORK ORDER To: Mr. Dale Parsley, Ms. Linda Parsley-Yelovich, and Mr. Mike Yelovich 21990 V ia Regina Saratoga, CA 95070 Date: May 15, 2008 The purpose of this ".:\rotice is to notify the above addressees (hereinafter "you") that the grading and tree removal or encroachment into the root zone offive (5) ordinanceprotected trees performed by you or your agents in the easement serving your property at 21990 Via Regina, Saratoga, California (APN 503-69-014) (hereinafter "Subject Easemenf') constituted one or more violations of the Saratoga City Code as described in more detail below. Both the grading and the tree removal or root encroachment reqUired a pennit from the City of Saratoga prior to being performed. A STOP WORK. ORDER was issued on by the City Building Inspector on February 19, 2008 as to both the grading and the tree remo,'al and root encroachment and you are hereby notified that such STOP WORK ORDER remains in effect and will remain in effect until you have obtained all required penn* for the work you had commenced unlawfully. If you do not apply for the required permits within 20 days from the date of this Notice and obtain the reqUired pennits and comply with any and all conditions of approval within a reasonable time thereafter, the City of Saratoga reserves the right to pursue any and all legal remedies it may have to obtain compliance with the Saratoga City Code. Violation ##1 , SARATOGA CITY CODE SECTION 16-15.010 Adoption of I California Building Code. Requirement for Grading Permit. The California Building Code (1997 Unifonn Building Code Vols. I. II, and III as compiled and published by the International Conference of Building Officials and amended by the State of California), including appendix Chapters ... 33 [Excavation and Grading] ... , hereinafter referred to as the "Building Code," is hereby referred to and, except as to additions, deletions and amendments hereinafter noted, such Code is hereby adopted and made a part [of the City Code], Code], the same as if fully set forth in this Article ' [16-15]; and shall be the Building Code of the City ..... . . Section 3306.1 of Appendix 33 of the City Building Code provides that: "Except as specified in Section 3306.2 of this Section, no person shall do any grading without first having obtained a Grading Permit from the Building Official." Certain types of earthwork activities are exempt from the requirement for obtaining a Grading Permit, such as: "Excavations for ... utilities" (eBC 3306.2 (5)). At the time of the site visit in response to a complaint on February 19,2008, Mr. Mike Yelovich was using a bobcat to create a level area about ten (l0) feet wide on the Subject Easement. He stated that he 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION -PARSLEY-YELOVICH II 222 was doing grading work for the installation of a sewer line connection to the main line recently installed in Via Regina. The City Building Official has determined that no pennit has been issued for any work or improvements on the Subject Easement and that the work perfonned far exceeds excavation for trenching to bury a sewer pipe. Furthermore, it appears that you were aware of the requirement for obtaining a permit for the work being perfonned because in 2006 Linda Parsley-Yelovich submitted an application for a sewer line pennit and related arbarist report in the Subject Easement, and later that year Linda Parsley-Yelovich and Mike Yelovich added a request for a road · for ingress/egress along the Subject Easement and indicated that the project application they had submitted earlier in 2006 was for a road, no1 a sewer line connection. Those two parties stated at that time that the Fire Department agreed 'that a ro'ad was necessary. Communication by the City with the Fire Department determined that, although the rood would be useful, it was not required by the Fire Department to access your property. The 2006 project application was withdrawn and the arborist report deposit refunded. As a result. there has been a violation of the Saratoga City Code by you because the work perfonned in the Subject Easement required a Grading Permit at minlln~ prior to commencement. In order to cure this violation, you must: (1) apply for the required Grading Permit wi~ 20 days from tbe date of this Notice; (2) obtain all required permit{s) for the work you have perfonned and intend to perform as part of the project you commenced; and (3) comply with any and all conditions of approval for said permit(s) within a reasonable time (as determined by the City) thereafter. As a condition of approval of the Grading Permit you may be required (~ong other things) to repair any damage to retaining walls and fences in the vicinity of the property line. You may present any evidence you have that this repair work has been done or is unnecessary as . part of your application for a grading pemrit and/or a tree removal and encroachment pennit. The City's decisiomJiaker on the Grading Permit application will detenni'lte what related condition( s) of approval (if any) 10 impose on the Grading Pennit to be issued. If you do not timely cure this Violation #1, the City of Saratoga reserves the right to pursue any and all legal remedies it may have to obtain compliance with the Saratoga City Code. Violation #2 SARATOGA CITY CODE SECTION 15-50.050 Removal of Tree or Encroachment Upon Root Zones of Certain Trees Without Permit. Except as otherwise provided in Section 15-50.060, it is unlawful for any person to remove, damage, prune, or encroach upon, or cause to be removed, damaged, pnmed, or encroached upon any protected tree, located on any private or public property in the City v.-ithout first having obtained a tree removal, pruning or encroachment pennit issued pursuant to Article 15-50 and authorizing the proposed action. A protected tree shall shall consist of any of the following: (a) Any native tree having a DBH of six (6) inches or greater (b) Any other tree having a DBH often (10) inches or greater. (c) Any street tree, as defined in Section 15-50.020(y), regardless of size. (d) Any heritage tree, as defined in Subsection 15-50.020{l) regardless of size. NOTICE OF VIOLATION -PARSLEY-YELOVICH 2 223 (e) Any tree required to be planted or retained as a condition of any approval granted under Chapter 15 or Chapter 14 of this Code. . Cf) Any tree required to be planted as a replacement, as provided in Subsection 15-50.170 of this Article 15-50. The City ATboris! has detennined that one protected tree was completely physically removed (Tree #12 in the original 2006 inventory), and four ordinance-protected coast live oak trees were damaged by the grading work which was performed without the reguired permit to encroach upon them. One of the trees (Tree #5) which was damaged qualifies as being removed because under City Code Section 15-50.020(s), "remove" and "removal'~ includes the "destruction of a tree or causing the death of a tree through, damaging, pruning, encroaching or other direct or indirect action on the canopY or root zone." Furthennore, it appears that you were aw~ of the requirement for obtaining an . arborist report and tree removal and encroachment permit for the work being performed because in 2006 Linda Parsley-Yelovich submitted an application for a sewer line permit and related arborist report in the Subject Easement, and later that year Linda Parsley~ Yelovich and Mike Yelovich added a: request for a road for ingress/egress along the Subject Easement and indicated that the project application they had submitted earlier in 2006 was for a road, not a sewer line connection. As set. forth above, the 2006 project application was \\ithdrawn and the arborist report deposit refunded. The four trees damaged in 2008 were among those inventoried pursuant to the application file4 and withdrawn in 2006. They were identified as trees #1. 2, 3 and 5 on tbe tree inventory: As a result of the work perfonned in 2008 without the required pennit: Tree #1 has had approximately 20% of its roots damaged through compaction of the soil; Tree #2 has had about 15% of its roots tom by a soil cut; Tree #3 has not had any roots cut, but has had soil compacted around it arid' piled up against the trunk ofthe tree; and Tree #5 is considered a total loss and should be replaced. For all trees damaged, roots were tom, rather than cut cleanly, a1loV\ring them to become susceptible to decay. In additi9n to the damage to Tree #5 qualifying as "removal," the above-described damage also qualifies as "encroachment" which is defined at City Code Section IS-50.020(k) as follows: "any intrusion or hurrian activity occurring within the root zone. of a tree, including, but not limited to structural pruning in excess of International Society of Arboriculture Commission (ISA) Pruning Standards (2001 Edition), grading, excavating, trenching, parking of vehicles, pennanent or temporary storage of materials or equipmen~ or the construction of structures or other improvements 'within the root zone of a tree." SARATOGA CITY CODE SECTION 15-50.170 Violations; penalties and remedies. The violation of any provision contained in the Tree Regulations (Article 15-50) is declared to be unlawful and shall constitute public nuisance and an infraction. As either a public nuisance or an infraction. the violation shall be subject to the penalties or remedies as described in Chapter 3 of this Code and any other remedies authorized by the City Code, including, but not limited to the following: . 3 NOTICE OF VIOLATION -PARSLEY-YELOVICH f· 224 II (a) Requiring that the violator obtain a tree removal. pruning or enu()achment permit for the previously conducted unlawful activitx, including one or more of tbe following conditions as appropriate: (1) the violator shall replace each unlawfully removed tree with one or more new trees which can be accommodated on the site of the violation according to good forestry practices and, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, will provide equivalent value in terms of cost (as determined pursuant to the City Arborist's calculation of the value of the removed tree/s in accordance with the ISA Tree Valuation Fonnula adopted by reference), aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other characteristics of the 1ll11awfully removed tree; or (2) where replacement trees cannot be accommodated on site, I according to good forestry practices, or cannot provide equivalent aesthetic or environmental quality of removed tree/s on site, the violator shall either plant repla~repla~ement trees off site or make a cash payment to the City Tree Fund (based on the City Arborist's calculation of the value of the removed tcee/s in accordance with the ISA Tree Valuation Formula I adopted by reference), or any combination thereof, in accordance with the following: . (A) To the extent that a cash payment is required for any portion or all of the value of the removed tree, such payment sball be doubled to reflect the estimated installation costs that would be incurred if replacement trees are planted; and, (B) To the extent that the planting of offsite replacement trees is required, the retail cost of such trees~ as shown by documentary evidence satisfactory to the Community Development Director, shall be offset against the value of the removed tree, but no'credit shall be given for transportation, installation. maintenance and other costs incidental to the planting and care of the replacement trees; or (3) Where the unlawful activity did not result in tree removal, but did result in tree tree damage, the violator shall enhance the condition of the remaining trees or portions of trees according to good forestry practices which in the opinion of the Community Development Director, will provide equivalent value in tenns of damage to the tree(s), aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other characteristics of the unlawfully damaged tree; provide equivalent enhancement of the condition of trees off site or make a cash payment to the City Tree Fund (based on the City Arborist's calculation of the equivalent value of the unlawful damage to the tree). (b) Any person who is required to plant replacement trees pursuant to this Section shall pennanenlly maintain such trees in a good and healthy condition, for a minimum of five (5) years to ensure permanent establishment of any such tree/s, · as determined by the 16 City Arborist. Such person shall post a maintenance bond or security deposit in a form prescribed by the Community Development Director 4 NOTICE OF VIOLATION -PARSLEY-YELOVICH 225 and execute a maintenance agreement with the City, which shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. (c) As part of a civil action brought by the City, a court may assess against any person who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this Chapter a civil penalty. 'Where the violation has resulted in removal of a protected tree, the civil penalty shall be in an amount not to exceed $5,000 per tree unlav.fully removed unless the replacement value of a tree unlawfully removed is greater than $5,000 in which case the civil penalty for removal ofthat tree shall equal the replacement value (excluding installation) of the tree. (d) Payment (to the extent authorized by law and detennined appropriate by the Community Development Director) of any criminal, civil, administrative, or other penalty or restitution order into the Tree Fund. . (e) The violation of any provision contained in this Article during the conduct by any person of a tree removal, structural pruning, landscaping, construction or other business in the City shall constitute grounds for revocation of any business license issued to such person. (f) All remedies provided in this Section shall be cumulative and are not exclusive. As a result. there has been a violation of the Saratoga City Code by you because the work performed in the Subiect Easement required a tree removal and encroachment p~rmit, at minimum. prior to commencement. In order to cure this vio~ation, you must: (1) apply for the required tree removal and encroachment pennitwithin 20 days from the date of this Notice; (2) obtain all required permit(s) for the work you have performed and intend to perform as part of the project you commenced; and (3) comply with any and all condition(s) of approval for said permit(s) within a reasonable time (as determined by the City) thereafter. The City Arboristhas informed you as to the conditions of approval she has recommended be imposed on the required permit(s), as follows: 1. Stop all work on the Subject Easement until plans for the work performed and any additional proposed work are submitted to the City's Community Development Department and reviewed and approved and all required permits issued. You have not submitted the required application and plans to date. 2. Hire a licensed tree contractor with a certified.arborist on staff to perform repair work listed in item #3. The contractor shall be approved by the City and the owner of 21820 Via Regina (whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld) prior to performance of any work. You have not submitted the name of any licensed tree contractor to the City or the owner of 21820 Via Regina for approval to date. 3. Repair all damage to trees #1, #3, and #5 as specified below: a. Cut all tom roots cleanly with a sharp pruning instrument and cover cut roots with burlap or other loose jute netting to maintain moisture and prevent soil erosion. By email to the City Arborist dated April] 5,2008, NOTICE OF VIOLATION -PARSLEY-YELOVICH 5 It 226 I' ---------,-----------you have stated that you hired an arborist arid he came out and walked the entire easement with you and agreed that what you describe as the small tertiary roots you disturbed should be pruned with a sharp tool to prevent any decay from fonning. Your email states that you have done this. Once all required permits have been obtained by you and performed, the City will inspect to confirm. that you have done so. b. Remove all soil from against tree trunks #1 and 3 by hand with. a shovel. By email to the City Arborist dated April 18, 2008, you have stated that other than paying $3,150, "all other recommended work has been done." Once all required permits have been obtained by you and perfonned,the City will inspect to confinn that you have done this soil removal work. You may present any evidence you have that this soil removal has been done or is unnecessary as part of your application for a tree removal and encroachment pennit. ' The City's decisionmaker on such application will detennine what related condition of approval (if any) to impose on the tree removal and/or encroachment pennit to be issued. The decision on the tree removal and encroachment application is appealable. c. Relieve soil compaction around trees #1 and 3 by injecting compressed air into the soi] around these two trees to a depth of2.5 feet and at a spacing of 4 feet on center. By email to the City Arborist dated April 18, 2008, . you have stated that other than paying $3,150, "all other recommencie4 work has been done." Once all required pennits have been obtained by you and performed, the City will inspect to confinn that you have lionel this soil compaction relief. You may present any evidence you have that this soil compaction relief has been done or is UlU1eceSSary as part of your application for a tree removal and encroachment permit. The City'S decisionmaker on such application will determine what related condition of approval (if any) to impose on the tree removal andlor encroachment pennit to be issued. The decision on the tree removal and encroachment application is appealable. 4. Pay the sum of$3,150 to the City Tree Fund, an amount equal to 100% of the appraised value of Oak Trees #5 and # 12 or plant a number of oak trees equivalent in value using 24-inch box trees (Quercus agrifolia, coast live oak; Quercus lobata, valley oak; Quercus douglasii, blue oak; or Quercus kelloggii, black oak) on the property at 21820 Via Regina (in the vicinity of the mutual boundary line with your property and in a location agreeable to the property ov.rner) to replace Oak Trees #5 and #12. Your April 15, 2008 email to the City Arborist states that thearborist you hired did not see any indication that you caused sufficient damage for any of the trees to die and that they should all recover within a year's time. You may present any evidence you have to support this position as part of your app1ication for a tree removal and encroachment NOTICE OF VIOLATION -PARSLEY·YELOVICH 6 227 permit. The City's decisionmaker on such application will determine whether Tree #5 has been damaged beyond repair, whether Tree # 12 was physically removed by an act of nature (winter storm), and what related condition of approval (if any) to impose on the tree removal and/or encroachment permit to be issued. s. Pay the sum of#360 (3hours) to the City's Community Development Department for Arborist time spent on the code violation. If you do not t:i~ely cure this Violation #2, the City of Saratoga reserves the right to pursue any and all legal remedies it may have to obtain compliance with the Saratoga City Code. . Date: May 15. 2008 CITY OF SARATOGA -).-Q., _ ~ A ~ •. ~.~~ u-~--vV---t.:-5 I. Brad Lind, City Building Official Date: May 15,2008 CITY OF SARATOGA 'I NOTICE OF VIOLATION -PARSLEY-YELOVICH 7 II 228 City of Saratoga After-the-Fact Tree per -t ' City Arborist, Kate Bear -(408) 868-1276 • 13777 Fruitvale Ave, Saratoga, CA 95070 OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: 5/~I OS I I Status of Permit: Permit No.: ATFTRP 0 j -600 l Code No.: tfOc-l-ono/----------------~~--------------------------------------------------------Conditiommustbeoo~~ct~by: ______b_ _ ~ ~~ _____________________ ____________________________ Type of After the Fact Tree Permit: 0 ENCROACHMENT 0 REMOVAL 0 PR(JNING >25% propertyowner: __ i'lI)~AZ~;-Z::~~IaW{~Phone: (lUll) 801-if?? 3 (wk) ]71 ... 3/<'>1-c/Mailing Address: tlCJto "'{A--k{J7;Jkc; 5qpCClvra CAAddress where tree(s) was/were ~16 ,t@e/pruned/e-ncroached upon: 1-/5 ~D V (A--~J.,/k Compan5 ' that 1 emo~ edfplUned/encroached upon the tree( s) : -LtL-=-LILjI/Cl.<d'i-L"CI'-->.Lr!-------,/w'/, --'-'bu.b""",'-,..2"--_____________________ Contractor's License No.: ___-I·~W4LJ~'-'f}'-:'J -------------Saratoga Business License No.: _________________ Please read the following and sign below: 1. 1. By signing tlus fonn, I am certifying that the tree(s) that were removed/pruned/encroached upon was/were solely on my propelty and iUthey were removed/pruned/encroached upon without a pemut according to Atticle 15-50.050. 2. I agree to comply with Atticle 15-50.170, and to I) plant replacement trees equal to 100% of the value of the unlawfully removed tree(s) as appraised by the City At'borist, or 2) to complete reconunended reconstructive prUillng or mitigation measures as detemuned by City ArbOlist. 3. I acknowledge that failure to complete conditions may result in a recordation of a code violation against my property. 4. If a code violation is recorded against my property, it can be removed after I either: 1) plant the replacement trees or pay 100% of the value of tile unlawfully removed tree(s) into the City'S Tree Flmd OR 2) complete the recommended nutigation measures to restore the tree(s) to good health and stlUcture. Date LOCATION OF TREES Prepare a small site plan in the area below, showing all all trees removed/pruned on the property. Include dimensions from propelty lines and existing stlUctures, Explain 11'171' the trees were removed/pruned/encroached upon. FEES PAID: ~j\S -W RECEIPT NO: ___ _ ----,--___________ _ PERMIT COST: $75.00 + $240.00 for arborist review fee Make checks payable to The City of Saratoga 229 I CITY OF SARA TOGA AFTER-THE-FACT TREE PERl\1IT 13777 Fruitvale Ave, Saratoga, CA 95070 To Be Completed Bv A Field Inspector APPLICANT: ADDRESS: PHONE: (q 0 f( ) 1-"1 1-,?' l S;-;;L ( t.f (J 7') '%''« -d-<0 Permits are required for the fo llowing: Removal of a) Native species with a DBH (d iameter at breast height measured 41,1., feet above the ground) of 6" or greater (19"in circumference). b) Other species with a DBH of 10" or greater (3 J ., inches circumference), c) Any street tree (tree within a public right of way) regardless of size. d) ,A.ny heritage tree regardless of size. Pruning of more than 25% of a tree's canopy, or in a maImer not in compliance with proper pruning guidelines. Encroaching upon (perfonlling work within 5 feet of tile canopy of a protected tree (see a -d above). Trees listed below are protected by City Code and were removed/pruned/encroached upon without a pelmit in violation of Section 15-50050 APPRIASED SPECIES DBH H S S -L S -C s-p VALUE I I ,..,) 0}'; ~vY L [2J~\ P" I I I );jJJ--U'-I I H -Health: S -Structure: S -L -Location; S -C -Contribution; S -P -Placement T rees rI ste db e Io w are requeste dtlo r remova 11Ip rum.n g,/encroac 1l ed u)on. N otl' fiI catlOn R eqU.i re d D CONDITIONS: Penalties and mitigation required for work \-vithout a required pemnt (City Code 15-50.170) are listed below. 1. Owner shall obtain an After-the-Fact Tree Pennit. Date: 51 7( 05 2. Contractor shall obtain a business license for the City of Saratoga. Date: 3. Once remedies have been completed, contact city's Code Compliance Specialist, Jana Rinaldi, at (408) 868-1 2 14 for inspection of the propelty. Date: NY-} 4. Remedies must be completed by --b=-.:crr-e.....'--'----""""'---------"s/~-''('f+--O''''----t1 ------5. 4 Mw-3/r2 .QIQ~ I Replacement Tree Values: 15 gallon = $150; 24 inch box = $500, 36 inch box = $1,500; 48 inch box = $5,000; 52 inch box = $7,000; 72 inch box = $15,000. Signature of City Arborist _ -------jf-"I--I'---.: ___ --+r+-""-=-__ -"r--_ Date of Inspection Signature of Code Compliance Specialis ~~~~""""~!:...-~~--_ 230 Sep 09 09 02:39p ~'-'_-9526 .....z j). _""""ING _£QuE1R"" oat! -1-71R WTGC t S3 419576 III AHD ~c .. aa;:o_DCD ".n.. TO N ... r:-'!r. , :u-s. Dale S. parsleJ _ 205aS Debbie Lane O'h,a. Saratoga .. cali.fornia --'L ~ S ..... e aC4ress as above· 5Q3-13-80 Jnbibibua[ Yoint &rumrp iDttb ~ ~I'o-..o.'10'11 as JOINTTENAtiTSoIltluoc ~I""P""JAcualcialb: Cl.ty Qf Saratoga. Coun11'" Sanu Clara. K. or. J;LZHE EOR DBSCEn'TIOII or PREMtSES sa 'EXIn:SU A' ArTIICIIEO IIEJ!£TO J\....-O MADE .A P.1-..a.: :c:JlEO'P. x -.)' L .. i. <, it t( (I''<-.L~ SlBIU. PI. MAJiCIlESTEa pea NQ1lUrI" ....... 0. ~p @'Mw.a rT. .... ..K LINE ~u.uc .""ITA. c:L..UI4 COUIOrT."'_ .' IVC&--..~'.I'" 231 Sep 09 09 02:40p , "ElCRISIT A" t.o Deed .fro:o !t&nel>cat.c.r eo Paraley. Tho ... paxce15 gf .!.and in the CJ:ty of SaratOga. CQunty .of s .... ta ClAr .. , Stat.. of Californi ... deacr1bed ... foll.ows: P~_RCr:T, O::r: I:;'I:;!:: :I rart of the :;ot"t!'!!1\,-t 1/11 or t'.~ '·or~_!o\:':"~t. 1/11 oj' !'ect~cr: ;!~ '.1.'.". r. !:., r#. 2 ~: ••. :. !: .. !!. I. :.: ... ~pd d~:;cr~l:D(! a:: fo)]er.·}s: PEGI:;:I!;;C: :1t n r'o!r.t 'n tt:e J/h :"'!'ctlon ]i!,,! !'J::tenn!, ": ;;orthet"l~ :ot,...~ :!oul.~(t'!"!~; t~ro\:r~! th-e c!'rt:er or ~tl1~ ~~ct.!rtn~, rli:otart · ther~on ::. 00 :'2J' ~:-.. 77'3 .. 7n re~t rro=:: thll!' lib ;·~cr.!on f"I'orner-! I"! the :!ort:h~T"l~1 l lnt' of :ori:! ;;ect1on 2. :;n.1d roolnt of l.o;!r:~l'r.1nr. nl~o t.e'nr. t:he r.:ort.h~3:;t corn~1" of the flarc",l of' ln~n ';~sc!"~~~r! 11'1 t;~~ ~r~nO:!T1t 01'" Sill'".! l~e"t":.-;eer Al J":rf.-d :-. l..: '\";'t!"'!:. et lJX It \~~r.dor::;. to Jo:;~nh r:. L~r.. Jr". ~t. u::t. 1."~r:dee~ ,. ,.ecord£s.r! ~ar.u:lr:." f., lO~. ~~ ;'00): 3~3~7t: Orr1e1.n:: Heeo,.d:;,. l"~~~ l)~; t.~!'ncc fro::: :laic! flO'!r.<t; o~ "'~r:fnn~rr.: a1onr: the r;e.."lt!l'ai : _Ctl'th!!>rl~ lin'! "f t!:e oar!:!>l ·of' land !;O (!e~cM.1 ~d ~n sa1 It f.(:ro!!e:n!!f't 0:' ::al e ::. 11" 05' .~. 1.~7 .17 !'!!'!t am) :-, TJo II;?' l~. ~7. 51 1'eet to t.;,!: ~;cut!",o:!=t ccrner OJ ttle narce] of land !'!r<=tl', nesc:-~ ~e" in t~Je );""0 tc :-icmt..-=e:-:' ~. :;cott.· et ux, recorded (,or-I 2, 1~J/:!). Hook C9ot: \:S!'.1c!al rct:c:rcts .. ':'":;-~~e Q7; t~!t"'nee alor.r, t~),: ~a:<;terl:t" a •• d :;outhea"~l:r1Y 1:i.n~:; or t~e narcel so descr:'!:~ lr. the ,-eed to ;-cott. the !'ollo,-1nr cour:oe:; :md d1O't:mCe::;; ::, 3° ~2' l~" ~:. ;>71,811 re!!t. F. 62° b3' 115" E. e~,c2 f<-et and I;, 12° lll' !-;. (,l',!l'l reet to the ;;outhea.:;t \;ounaCir.t of tho:! narc!!l of 1ar:d con'\te ... o:!~ to 'Jl\.le 1':. <a d:'1=. et lU, 1:· ... , .. ~erl :-e=ordC!d I!over~oI!l"' 25, 1~5B., !=eo1! JJ?~c, ()~!'tc'!.al !\eeo:rd~ I 1J~t',,~ \'5~j ;~lH::nl;~ i;. 77C! :t~1 CZ. alont' .... n;d jlu~. liov.!Jl :~~\.. t.v 0.. u.:.::, .. t, 1n :laid ]/~ :-~etl<:'n line above r!":''!M"~d to; t):o:!nc~ r.. 0" ;>11' W. alon" BB:1d l/~ ::'ect:Son Lin". 42!J.17 r"et to t!>e point or her:innin". PAFlCl:L -r-.;o: An en::er;ent '13 nnpurtenant to !'Rrcel ;;0. 1 hert!J nlli'o'V"" "",",cr1.bed. for jnf.re~~ ~~d ~~r~:Js ar,d rc~ the :1~c.tall~t'on n~d ~atnt~anee 0:ut111ty line:;. oT~r. algnr ar.r. r.:n(I~r n rart Q~ the ·;:ot"th"e:;t 1/.11 oS: !:ect.J on 2. .... 8 ::.. [to 2 :: •• be:1nr a :;tr!n ot llUld 6~ r"...t ,<l<!e. t.J,e center line 0"£ l!h1ch 10 ,leoC'r1~eC'! as 1"o]lo~rn: IlEIHr;,rl:iC: 1!l. the center line of' Pi ere!!' Pond, di:-tnnt t.." .. reon. :-:. 59° 00' 30· ~. ~G.H7 reet r~ the Qost ::ott'therl~ corner or the par"eI or land een'Ve': .. d to ~olm r'arrett-.. t Ul:. \'; .. 1<e .. " r~eor:led t.UbU~t. 13 .. It) I:.~ :1n nook 18:;4 (::rlc:1al !"',=co?d:;. r;]r.:a 1:'11; thence !'ro!:! :;n111 tloint or b"!f"lnninr.. lea'r1.m-!'ierce :load. >tlon .. thO!! rDl1o"1n~ course:. and c!1!:t;mces: .. " " 1110 :11' 3£1" :::. 7~.flft ~eet; tber.ee ::. 5,!Q to'" 30" ~l. 111i. IOI !'!'!t; th~ne2 ~ • . 310 Mi' 3'1" \'. 8/i.;>f\ r"!ct; ther.r.e ~. 320 2'1' 30" V. 1~7.Jlti r~et; ther,ce .::. 57° 26' 'If. [i1l.50 recti tlwnce en a curve to the rtct.t with a ratf11A3 0:1:' 1~a.:?4 reet. th=::M: :m ~lQ of' 1.>'"911. 1 of " • " ----.-p.2 232 Sep 09 09 02:40p " ~ , .-. 111}0 111' roJ'" ;. dj~tnr:c~ or ~:tr; ... ;'u, :rC!'~t~; '!I"'nc-e ~~. :to :"~. H. ;,w~9. o~ r~~t.; t ' ~ enc:e a;. 1 ~tJ ;-JJ" =.. ] 'r'; ~ ~.r. ~cet. ~ =Incl t!a~nce :! .. 0 0 1'j' !::. l',n .. ';'. :*t.!,:,~ t~ D. f\o1n~ '=In t!.~ ~ ·ort!~oerlV" l:"ne or the ::o!Jt!!f"~:;' t Onl!'-f! u:-artol!r D~ t!lD :' ort:ll""' 2~t or.e-nual"'te,-of !<a! c1 :'''ct:! OT' ~, r.1~ "t. ~r:L t!'(,r<.'('1n ;'. ;;"" I: ~, :,'. ~;>5.!a re~t Trot:. ~n .iron ri)')"e nt. t}l~ :.o:'"t!.!":"tt't, eo~~r-of ::a{c rQut;!:~a~t one-nuertel"" of' to!.".! :~or\.!··..::'-e:.t aJ'l~rH;:trt":!,... or :":Jl'!d r:ection ?, Bnd also d~~tar.t ;1. o~o IJ ~,;t i--. 3n.r""~ r-:;-et !'"ror: t.~~ r:o:ot Lar.t~rly corr~r or tl:e 1:>. "3(." acro;, t:--ac t. or land cOllve:'l'o to :'1. r.. !'iil:;tcd. <!t Ult rv !:~~ ~corderl <~1I1y 25. 1!!41 in Book 1~89 Or:ricinl " ... cord:;. n:w~ 135. M~ easer.ent ns anpurt~nl'U1t, to r>'lrce1 !!o. 1 h~re~.n<lhove rl~scri~ed7 !'er :1nr,ress nnd er--e:os and t'm-tIm i=U!.11at1cr.: !'.!'.nd I"'ainter.m~ee of' 1.it11i:t.y line:;. over. alotI[' er.d und~r n pnrt of" 1;b ... ::c.>rt""c"t l/qoC !"'ec:t1on ;:>. ':'. 13 ::;., E. 2 t: •• he!T'-C a :otr'p of land d"l'e!"lhed as f'ollc;n<s: ru::OJlIllII:C: at. an ~rDn pipe jn tIl': r;orth~rlv line or tht" :!eutl:~a::;t "=,f'~I ... rtP,. n:" t.h ... lIort.h"'''''t: C'lne-t]u:.rt:~,. or sale !:ection 2: d:!."tent Ulereon .'0. e~l" Q5' ~:. ~CJ5.S1 feet !"roc ;"" !ron p1pe> at the " :orth.,,:~t eorner-or ~lld :':outloeast Cn(!-nU91'ter of the :'o!"~~,w"8t ollequarter Q{" :latd ::;ectl.on 2, and <1.1:10 d1:;tant !!. !IS''' uS' F.. GO.!lO reet l'rolr! 'tlle r.o:.t l:.a:;ter17 eorner DC 1.l:e 12.36<) acre tract or land conve:red 1;0 !1. Q. :-I1lsted. et UX. hv £le~a recorded Jul:'''' 25, 1?~7 1n 1.:00]: lJz8q cr!"1ci.al H-:cord:s, nilr.~ 13;;j t:heJ'lce frog :t~i~ Liv! .. t -::~ ~Ginnlnr-. 11. 1.7" 55' 30" ~. ;>17.035 fe."t to an 'roll 1"1, .. ,; th ~nce ':. 51° 38' ).{)" ~:. 17G.GII feet to an iron r:!.r:; t.hence ::. )8" ~2' 20" ~. ~59.~8 :Ce ... t t.o an irer. T'11'e. thence '!. 68° )0' I! . "1.32 r~~t to an iron 'P1~; t~.'!mce ~ : . 46° b5' 1(1" ::. Ilnt>.2C, !'eet to an 1ror. -oSe,,; tl:enl:e Ii. 47° 53' ~:. 53. I!! r"et to an iron rioe; wence ::. e~a l'?' 30" ~:. 102.:33 reet to an !.Tot') 1"1.-. ... an th ... r:ort!,e=t boundBr: or ~ajd 12.JF!l acre tract or lOUld; thenee alOI'", satd hour.dary thl' to1lovinr, cour~es and d!~tarc~: '-. k(.o 1G' ?~. ~. 213.S0 reet to an iron rolpe; th~nce :. ~7~ 26' 30~ E. :11.2h reet ~o aD !~n pipe; then~ ~. 59" a?' ~. 281.07 r~t to nn iron ninej thence f. 50° 01· 1'. 147.,)2 reet to nn !ron p1pe ;\nc1 thenc!!! :::. 100 5(.1 ~;. 111\. tin reet to an iron pipe on the :;a'ld ::orth line or the !"out!lwt'st l/JI of' tl.", I:. ~. l/Jj of ",a1.<1 :::ect1.on 2 at. the ~st £,.:!terl.,. corner or ;sUd 12. 31;q aen! tract or lalld; thence leavl.rn; "aid 12. 3(,n !lere tl'act or lanc1 alone; ::;:1111 :iort1", lir.e or th!!! :-. ~:. 1/4 of the ~:. ". 1/4 ot' "B~<I :ieet.1nn 2, 11. Is!]" Q5' L. 60.00 t'~t to the .,oint; at" h"ein"1n;,,. PARCf:L P(lUR An euer.ent at< an;>urtenant: ta rarcel I/o. 1 herel.T>IIbov~ describEd. ro~ in~" and e~" and rar the lnntallatlon and ~lDt~nnrc~ ..av. 2 of 4 • ,-, _.,::-. .,...-a : p,3 233 Sep 09 09 02:40p q G. , of 'Utl11t!! ljn~!":,. over, alon!"': 2nd t:nd~T' .a u:a.rt or t !I ~·· l'~. l/b of' ~E'ct~O::l ='. ~. 6::., ~:. ;:>. ~ .••• l'!'inr. a 5tr!p of' lantl de::;crll'ec1 as j'ollcr.'.'~,: r>tG:il;l:I:~ "t tit"!" r.or;t. ::~~t~rly corn'!'" or' t.h~ 5. tHI(. ~c!""'!' trar:t of" 1antl C()lw~:::'~d t.o Err.e::t ~:. I'.id",out. et u::. hv Veer! __ cortl"" r.:a~ I, !~!.i3, too:: :!r.:t3 ~ .. ~r~ci:!l i~'!corrl:; .. Pitre 3"':3; t!'-~nc'l ~'. 2~a 09" !;Jpu ,~. 13~.:O5 !""~~t~ ::. 5no 11'" 5r:'" 1-. 1"77.r:4 r-l!l?t anrl :-:. 26G ~2t 2r::" l-:. a7.la~ r~ot.; tt,er.cc ]~avlnr" :oa1d ljn~~ ~ . {;(.o ~1I ' 3Q" fl. 40 reet, r::ore Or !e;;:;, tC"' a :"FJint 1n the ~;out! .~ ar;.t. l!n~ or the C, llS 1!.C1"C tract of l;;.r.d cCll'''~;t'!i:d to F'redE:r~ck r •• r.tI~tl, ~t \l7.. by Deed recorrl,'<1 ;eptc:-:~'er 5, 1<>52. !'ook ;>l'1l2 (,)!Ticlal :;ecort!:'l. pSbe b2~; thenc~ alonG ~&1u l!n~. f, 26° ~2' ~n" ~. 1)0 re~t. J:;,or-e or les~ .. to nn ;"I!!f"':!~ nolnt in sn::!.d lj.n~; thence l!ont1.nu1nr: alon" said l!n-.!y :;, 'jCo r:')' 5(1" ~:. 117.(.C t'e'!t. and :;. 25° ~~. 5')" 1i ~ ~3~.3B :reet. to the r.O:3t :;outl::a~rl" corr.~ 't;lereD~; t!1"'!r.ce :-. 51° 3G' lOA ~. ~O reet. Qore or leS~t to the po~t or be~1nn1nr., PARCEL PIV):: An efl~.~ent i1:7 aT'lfJurter.nnt to ~arc~l lt~. 1 h~rcd.na""(pl"-e dl!sc:::rl~ · ed. tOl' inJ;r""" nml er.r""" nnd fol' the ~,r.stallt\t1on ar.d !:>,untenance o~ ut.U1tl' I1nes. over, nlor.s:; and under a nDrt: or the :·ortt-:.:e:;t 1/11 01" !'~ct1on 2 . 'Y. E !'" '0 l!. 2 !! •• ne1n!" a pill'eel or land de:>crlhed as roDom:: Bl::Gliml:l:' at the l/ll !·ect1or. corner 1n the :;ortherl~' 11ne or r.a!d Section. 2., :m~ d ~oint or he{;1nn1o.,: b~inr; the i:orth<;!n::;t corn-;:r or trot' narcel or lruHl descrih"'''' 1n the !)ee<l ·o1" 'i'ru::t executed hy "'lrr~rt :-!. :E::vanG, et. uz, ns -:ru:;tor!l, to !:an JO!;t! Al'stract r.. ':':!.~l~ Co •• ~~ Trt1ctee~ and ~r.'! F...,'U1t~hle !,,-t.fe Ansu'rar.c4! .'joc:1.et-cl t~:~ United !'!'tat ~~., a~ !".ener1ciar:'. record<ed ,ehruar:1 "n. 1"5(,. "no\: ::IJj~(-t}rf1.c:l ~1 !',>cord", J)~r:e" 1 q; thence alen'" ti:ie olJa::"tl!r · !"ection 1.1ne e~~erH1~ n .. ~!nrt'1eri·' .and t'.()utherl~' t!1l"'Ol::-~ t.h~ <:en~er n!'" !"'a:!..d ~·~ct1on~.., ~. 00 ?ll' :~. 773.7 ~ i'eet to the !'"o .. t""?:l~t eo~,!,~ o~ :;:lid 1 a':ld" !;O iI~gcri~D" in ~:}1d P.e!!d or Trm:t; t"~nee ;,10n,. the :"outberl', l~e therioor •• :. 77" n<j' 1-', lt1.r: feet, ~. 73" li2' ~', nS.{I !'~et Pond ::, 770 ;:>S' 40" ~ .• til .f18 f'e'!'t to t.ll!" true point or l.er!rin1nr 1.n the :;ortherly l1n<: or tl"at aerta' n rarc..,l or land d-:scZ"1I'ed 1n t!le Deed o!' 'l'ru:>t executed bv ,\1 l":red :-.. i~vn"s. et ux. '."ru."ttor!'i~ to John ::. l:asen. 211 ':'rtUt~lf. and Hel~n ~. lIa~~Jj, J,ene!"icliu"''>. r'!cort!o;>d Jnn=~ 1.'1. 1"55, nnal: 31J6:! r1"1"!c1al !!e c:nrtb, PaGe 565; thenee !'rot:: S:lfd tZ"lle pOint 01" ~ennn1nr. otlonr; w'! 11ne d1.vld1n!' na1d l~nllr. de::cJOU'ecl 1n =,,10 ;Jeed:; 01' '!'ru" t y :!. (j(.D 5/;!' 3C w, 11G.~B r~et to an nnr.l~ no1nt no1nt 1n ~~1d d1vld1nr, line; t~er.ee ;c'0Iit.1nu1.~-alor.r ::a1d d!v1d!.nr.: 1.1~e-. ::. ?Go ';?' 21)" ~' .. 'J~ • .I!:!) -r~et; th~c~ leav~,~ ~atd dividlw: line alon~ a ~outherlv line or ~ald lan cl~ so dco t'l"1l;ell in ::':1.14 !le'Jd: or 7ru:lt to i!el~" '['. j'ano:.-n. ' :. 8t:" ~f ·· 211-E. 5~.21 feet to an anr.l~ PQ~nt 1n :'laid line; thence len~tnr. ~Btd line ~~te~ly 1n a d1reet l1ne, 6~.Q reet, ~rl' or le~n. ~ 5ald true point or be,.!nm.ol". ~·1~{f Page 3 of " • • :1,'1111 ~ ,r· '( -._-. .--.. ~~.~ pA 234 Sep 09 09 02:41 p :--., .,. ----\-, ,. PJlRCEL ::1:-: A non-ey.cluslvp ~n~er.~r.t Tor 1nlres~ and ~r~5~ and ~~r t~~ 1n~tallntion and .a1nt9n~ce or pu~11c ut~lltl~R over a ~a--t of' t.h~ !:C!'"th'1~ 5-t l/l( or :-:ect'!on 2.,. ~:. e ~ .• p.. 2 ~. "., ~e!nr; a ,;trlp or land )0 Teet ,:lde. the :"outherlv ~ine of' ... h1eh :1:> oe3crlhed ar:: {'[)lJ.ol<~: RECli:;;!,:;; at tlie 1/~ Sect:\.on cornel" :1n the r:Cll't!lerl"! l!r. .. or said Cection 2; thence rrnm sa1d point o£ ber.1nn!n~. ~. 0 0 ;>/i' ::. alonr-the 1I~ :::ect1on line extend:!.n:-::crt~'!lr!:, and Soutbc,rl"/throu;-~ r.aid Section 2, 773.7') .ree~; thence ll:?'-!.'OI'said l/II ::ectlon ~:1ne, ;:. 77° Q!>' l-'. Ib7.17 ~~c': and ~. 13" 1:2' ~;. ';;7. !II · feet t.~ I;;he ':'mm I'm:r:,;;, 01" lU::CI:;:::r;j(' or s ... !.d ~cut~erl-' line; th~~n:e rror. ~2.1d ':'MJe Po1nt or r:~r::Lnnln:-'". !:.. 730 ~2' ::. 77.4') r""t, 11. 77" 2B' ~o" H. 1l3.0e !'eet and I:. 66° 54' 3:)" W. to the 1:e=lnu:. or "ud· 10 t'oot strIp. A non-~xcluzlve ease~ent ror 1n~nn and ~~es~ And ~or the in~tall~ticn and ~a1ntenance of puhlic utilIties over a nart or the ::orth~;ese lIC, or !"'ect:lon 2, ~. R !Z •• ::. z Of ... ~e 1np-a S~~1p Dr land 12 .. 00 feet ~ide. descrihed a~ fo!l~~s: :!EGTimnm at tt".e ::esterl~' terr.lnus 01' th~ no"t :·orthe,.l·· "ou:-:Ca.,...' ll.ne of t.hat c!!rta;1n 1.131} ncr!! parc~l R5 !f!:O"n on t~e ~eco:-d or' 5urve:1 !~ao filed ';ar:uar:r 5. 1965. POD" lP't) of ~a"s, rar.~ 37 ~ said Hortnerl:: bount!ar;r l1.ne hav1..'1.[" 3 '-.,wr1np' and tl1st:!T:ce (>~ :'. 77" ~(" ". 85.79 teet; thence :-. :tBo 25' ~:. alone t?)~ ::e~te:-l" bDundar.r l1ne 01' ~a1d 1.1)Q acr~ ~areel ~7.QO feet to tr.e true flD1nt or' t.e;:lnn1n:-; thence fiom:! ~ltld tru~ !>o~nt of t--er;!nnins. coat1nl:l!11; Ollonr, e,e :"esterl~ 1.oundar.· line !'.. IS" 27:' ~._ 12.37 f..,et; tbence ::cuthell:rt 50,00 reet~ nore or Ie:::;. to tr.e r:ortherl:! t'2r:::1n<:!l ot' the l:<l::terl:: 1!ounca.r,{ l:1ne of sa1.d 1.1311 acre narcel ~l<v1."1'-t~e bearln .. and <ll:-.t.ance o{' 1:. 3° ~:?' l~" ,:. 271.e~ feet m:d te!r..-!:!er: the :;'out.herly t-en::1n= or :;'lid !::=.terl:' t>Qundar)T 11.ne ~'l.v1n!" !:~.~ bl!1Jr1TlI: and ctl..:;tance or!'. 102" ~l' q<;," .. :. flIt • .'"!1 reet. !:~tnl" an an~le po1nt oC ~~O East hound3J"Y ~1ne or ~~!d 1.1~9 aer~ parcel. thepc::e nl.an;; $i!d .. d. 11.ne. :;. 62<1 ~3· 115" t:. 13.8t") relf't-i t::-le~ce North~e~t in n direct line, GO.OO ree~. ~re or le~3, to the true r,oint of ber-inninr_. -.. \ ",., • !It , 1.; ·L1 .);~/;;/, p.5 235 Sep 09 09 02:41 p p.6 PLA T Or SURVEY /" = t9CJ ' SU~VEY ' Or /NG~ESS . , -. . . & EGJ<?ES~ £"A..s£/v?E'NT Af'I?IL. Z008 "\ , , . \ , VIA Rfel/,/.4 236 ....... Sep 09 09 02:42p ...... , .. ... PAI1.SLEY AP.N. ~tJ3"'-O/~ ClS"E~ A.AIV. ~OJ-IJ.-()a~ [NEERS. INC 5ANf."JlIPf'O A..P.IV. 503· "'OJ" 10AN"''''LI A.I"". ~03-J4--OZ'} PLA T OF SURVEY 21990 \'lA REGINA, SAKATOGA $C",/c: /", 30' p.8 .JOB NO. 2CYA-I:34-OF 237 Sep 09 09 02:41p I I PROl'ERTY L1l<t r><SliMO/T 1m; FDICE ED:lEOf PAVE"L SIMP!JOlo/No. :ey O' .... T[ L R .--+-_-. .. _, [.:a.'.I. S_I_G.~_ _ ___ .____ +fB_ Y :l _O.A.r( o-.n : r4/'NAR'I' . zooS' seA:"=:: ~g;;.. ;-·zo· ~~I-+--~~-------------------.. --__ --_-~~_--_-_-.~~-_--._-_-~~--.~.-~---.~_~~~~.§~~~;,~~~~D~~~.~~--------------1 BY, -j.--· ·--1--·-=~·.:.::.·---·---·----------------- -----·--i· r--' ~G;t-;-----O"TE, "O>iU:R A.P.N. 5'03-,,-an H~~R r ~Aa I ;:f.~ L.S . '\95~ p.7 WESTFALL EI I "'5e3 6[C a ... SjW ',lJ,Y . SAP. 238 September 14, 2009 City of Saratoga Planning Commissioners Regarding: September 23,2009 Planning Commission meeting Public Hearing, "Tree Removal Permit" on easement for Dale Parsley, 21990 Via Regina, Saratoga, CA Thank you for taking the time to review this information packet regarding my Dad's lower driveway/ingress/egress public utility easement. Protected tree #3 is proposed for removal in order to install a retaining wall as well as three other scrub oaks that surround protected tree #5. We realize this public hearing is regarding the request for tree removal, but feel the neighbors who appealed the decision may have another agenda, therefore; I am enclosing several pieces of information that will help with background information that has lead up to this point. Exhibit A -April 27, 2005 Municipal Code Violation Complaint Form regarding fence Exhibit B -Linda speaks during Oral Communications at June 21, 2006 City Council meeting. Ann Waltonsmith requests a staff report that was never done. Minutes Minutes were not approved until May of2008. Exhibit C -Notice of Code Violation dated September 29,2006 Exhibit D -January 2,2007 Linda emailed John Livingstone stating that we were never notified about the neighbor grading and damaging our easement. I also requested direction from the City as to my father's rights regarding damage to the easement and the fence violation that was recorded. Exhibit E -Jana Rinaldi's response to me from my January 2,2007 email to John Livingstone Exhibit F -January 16, 2007 response from Jana Rinaldi regarding Fence Violation. Exhibit G -Letter to Hamid's attorney, dated January 29, 2007, memorializing our telephone conversation, wherein Hamid Lotfizadeh agreed to honor my father's easement across his property. 239 Exhibit H -Letter from Hamid's attorney, dated January 31,2007, in response to our letter, stating they are acknowledging the existence of the easement and will remove a portion of the fence to give us access for maintenance work. Exhibit 1-Email dated March 8, 2007 to Jana that the neighbor has acknowledged the easement but still has not kept his part of the agreement to remove a portion of the fence and Jana's response to my email. Exhibit J -Linda appears at the January 23,2008 Planning Commission meeting public hearing for Keyashians' plan approval to permanently require all Parsley easements remain open and accessible. Exhibit K -January 23, 2008, application approval with condition item #13 never to block any neighboring easements. Exhibit L -Plat of Survey showing two deeded easements for Parsley access. Exhibit M -Copy of Assessor Map dated March 1, 1971 showing all three easement Parcels, (Parcel #5, #6, and #7), which serve the Parsley property. Exhibit N -February 17,2009 Fire District standard homeowner maintenance requirements and recommendations for Fire Code Regulations. (Second paragraph recommends up to 100-feet of defensible space should be provided) Exhibit 0 -Report from the Parsley's arborist, Ian Geddes, regarding tree removal recommendations. Exhibit P -Letter from our attorney, M. Dean Sutton, refuting statements by Mr. Michael E. Stone, Esq. , sent to Jonathan Wittwer. I realize this is a tremendous amount of information but we feel it is important in our defense. Sincerely, Linda Parsley Yelavich Dale S. Parsley Michael Yelavich 21990 Via Regina Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 996-8528 240 Date Received: Complaint ;,: ______ _ City of Saratoga Municipal Code Viobtion Complaint Form __' -_I..:.\_'L_--_I_l_,_>._~-_---__ By: _____ ,-------Via: ------Time: --Staff Assigned: _______. ,.-___. Date Assigned: _______ Date Closed: ____ ) ( -:> L: (./APN: \>.2.. ,( ('-p'" ,(:c -( (-f'" I: . ') Applicable Ordinance Section(s)~ _________________" -.-:..... ____ .~j /t Invest:gation Notes: ------.-------------------------------------------------------------------------~\-~e-rl~·fl~·c-ar~i-o-n~D~a-t-e-:--------------------~--un--i-n-g-L-e-n--------------l-F-o -l-lo-w--U-p·-D--.-te-:--------~---l ' Letter Sent: 2 Follow Up Due: Final Letter S._e_n_t:__ 3 Follow Up Date: , CJ.se STatus: F o... .".." , a r de . A..,.. o C'I ty A. norney: _-\ctiOI1S: -------------------------------------------------------------A 241 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 21, 2006 The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a Joint Session with the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Saratoga Historic Foundation in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 6:30 p.m. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representatives: Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager Michele Braucht, Administrative Services Director, Monica LaBossiere, Human Resources Manager. Employee organization: SEA CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -Anticipated Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (1 potential case) Vice Mayor Kao called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLLCALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Councilmembers Kathleen King, Nick Streit, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Aileen Kao Mayor Norman Kline Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Michele Braucht, Administrative Services Director Lata Vasudevan, Associate Planner John Cherbone, Public Works Director REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JUNE 21, 2006 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of June 21, 2006 was properly posted on June 15, 2006 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items The fo\1owing people requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Citizen Ray addressed the Council. Ray expressed his opinion of the defeat of Measure J and about Highway 9 safety issues. B 242 >" ... ,-: •... r' //Denise Goldberg spoke about the suspension of the Parks and Recreation Commission and requested the reinstatement of it. Phil Nielson, President of Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District, requested that the City Council be part of the recruiting ofa new Superintendent. Two open sessions will be held Monday June 26 at Saratoga High School and Wednesday June 28 at Los Gatos High School --throughout the day at both locations. Two topics will be discussed: the skills and characteristics needed for a new Superintendent; and the challenges for the High School District. Council members can participate via email or by attending one of the two sessions. A selection will be made at the end of August. Linda Parsley spoke on behalf of her father regarding the City's Hillside Ordinance. She said her father had an issue with a neighbor's fence on Via Regina that they've been ~ trying to resolve since their first complaint was filed in 2002. Ms. Parsley's father was told by the Code Enforcement Specialist, upon complaint to the City of the non-compliant fence, that this neighbor was not the only one with an out of compliance fence and they would not be singled out. Ms. Parsley went on further to relay the complaints about communication to the City and the lack of attention paid to the issue, including misplacing the initially filed compliant. The neighbor's fence in question is blocking Ms. Parsley's father's access to his easement, and trees are now grown reSUlting in his inability to participate in a City sewer installation project. Ms. Parsley would like to know how to resolve the issue. Councilmember Kao asked that Ms. Parsley's notes be left with the Council for review and consideration. Ms. Parsley said she would offer them. Two Saratoga High School students presented their school project on the history of Saratoga. They wanted to honor Saratoga WWII veterans. They shared two proposals: I) to combine a WWII Memorial with the existing WWI Memorial; and 2) a stand alone plaque dedicated to WWII veterans. Councilmembers King requested the students remain until the Council gave direction to staff following the end of Oral Communications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the student's request is at a citizen level at this point and asked if there were Saratoga WWII vets who would partner with the students and come up with a proposal. Reporter Jason Sweeney was asked to be a resource for the students. N £.V£I-/Councilmember WaItonsmith asked for a Staff report to be prepared and presented to 00 tJ ( . Council regarding the issue raised by Ms. Parsley. ~ ___"" "7 Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that staff needs to continue to look at the feasibility of restoring commissions, including the Parks and Recreation Commission. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Councilmembers met with Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the Saratoga Historical Foundation. 2 243 Recording requested by: CITY OF SARATOGA When recorded mail to: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 DOCUMENT: 19125178 ,,/I " "'"'!'" II 'U" BRENDA DAVIS SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDER Recorded at the request of Cit y NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GrvEN: Fees . Taxes . Copies . AMT PAID Pages : • No Fees ROE tI 014 9/2 9/2006 10 17 AM THE CITY OF SARATOGA is the party on whose behalf this Notice of Code Violation is recorded. This recorded Notice of Code Violation affects certain real property that is located in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, California, commonly known as 21820 Via Regina, Saratoga, California, APN 503-69-013 ("Subject Property") owned by Hamid Lotfizaden. Violation Sununary: Property owner, Hamid Lotfizadeh or his agent installed a fence in 2003 on the lower portion of the Subject Property enclosing more than four thousand square feet, and using wire that is less than four inches in diameter. This Notice of Code Violation hereby recorded is based on the following violations of the Saratoga City Code. VIOLATIONS SARATOGA CITY CODE SECTION lS-29.020(c) Area of enclosure. Except for fencing around recreational courts and fencing which constitutes part of a corral, no fencing on a single site shall encompass or enclose an area in excess of four thousand square feet (excluding the area of any pool) unless approved by the Planning Commission. SARATOGA CITY CODE SECTION 15-29.020(e) Wire fences. Wire fencing, other than chain link, barbed wire or galvanized wire, shal l be permitted only if the space between the wire is sufficient to allow the unobstructed passage of a sphere having a diameter of four inches and the wire is black or otherwise colored to blend with the terrain. Chain link fencing shall be permitted only for recreational courts and shall similarly be colored to blend with the terrain. Date: September 26, 2006 CITY OF SARATOGA ~~ ??--DAVE ANDERSON City Manager 244 Jana Rinaldi, Code Compliance Specialist City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga jrinaldi@saratoga.ca.us 408.868.1214 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e -mail message is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at jrinaldi@saratoga.ca.us or telephone (408) 868-1214. -----original Message-----From: Linda Yelavich [mailto:LindaY@cuper tino.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:10 AM To: John Livingstone Cc : Jana Rinaldi Subject: Easement & Fence Violation Dear Mr. Livingstone: I appeared at the June 21, 2006 City Council Meeting expressing my concern regarding a fence violation next to my Dad's place. My Dad resides at 21990 Via Regina and has a titled ingress/egress easement across the property at 21820 Via Regina. A£ter several complaints made to the City and no action I came to the Council meeting and presented my frustration to the City Council during Oral Communications. Finally some action was taken. Lata Vasudevan and Jana Rinaldi came to the site and then met with me. The neighbor's fence is blocking my father's ingress and egress easement. The homeowner did substantial remodeling to his home and tore down an old barn. When the barn was torn down our old road was covered by the grading work. My father was never notified t~t his easement would be blocked and during the time my mom was dying 01 cancer. Our family was caring for her around the clock with the help of Hospice. My questions are: Why were we never notified by the City that this remodel would be affecting our easement? Was the job done with proper permits? Jana said that she sent a letter to the homeowner regarding the fence ordinance violation. Then it went to the City Attorney and a violation has been written against the neighbor's property . When I last emailed Jana she told me it was now out of her hands and was sent to Community Development. That was around October 23, 2006. It is now 2007 and the fence is still there. I guess now my questions are: Do I have the legal right to remove the fence myself? What steps are being taken by your department? Could I have a copy of the complaint and violation? The value of my fathers property is being compromised since we do not have full use of our easement. Please respond to let me know what the City is doing and what my father's rights are at this time. I have not seen an approval of the minutes from that June Council meeting to date. Do I need to get on a future Council agenda regarding this complaint and violation of property rights? I would appreciate any advice you can give me. 2 245 Linda Yelavich From: Sent: ro: Jana Rinaldi Orinaldi@saratoga.ca.us] Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11 :26 AM Linda Yelavich Subject: RE: Easement & Fence Violation John, I recorded a family friend that violation would be Mrs. Yelavich that let me know if you me to. Thank you. violation against the property and was told by a the property would be going up for sale and the corrected at that time . I have also informed Mr. and part of their complaint is a civil matter . please are going to respond to her email or would you like Jana Rinaldi Jana Rinaldi, Code Compliance Specialist City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga jrinaldi@saratoga.ca .us 408.868.1214 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure . If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited . If you have received this e -mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at jrinaldi@saratoga.ca.us or telephone (408) 868 -1214. -----Original Message -----From: Linda Yelavich [mailto:LindaY@cupertino .org) Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:10 AM To: John Livingstone Cc: Jana Rinaldi Subject : Easement & Fence Violation Dear Mr . Livingstone: I appeared at the June 21, 2006 City Council Meeting expressing my concern regarding a fence violation next to my Dad's place. My Dad resides at 21990 Via Regina and has a titled ingress/egress easement across the property at 21820 Via Regina. After several complaints made to the City and no action I came to the Council meeting and presented my frustration to the City Council during Oral Communications. Finally some action was taken. Lata vasudevan and Jana Rinaldi came to the site and then met with me. The neighbor's fence is blocking my father's ingress and egress easement. The homeowner did substantial remodeling to his home and tore down an old barn. When the barn was torn down our old road was covered by the grading work. My father was never notified that his easement would be blocked and during the time my mom was dying of cancer. Our family was caring for her around the clock with the help of Hospice . My questions are; Why were we never notified by the City that this remodel would be affecting our easement? Was the job done with proper permits? 1 246 Linda Yelavich From: Sent: To: Jana Rinaldi Urinaldi@saratoga.ca.us] Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:51 PM Linda Yelavich Cc: Brad Lind; John Livingstone Subject: Via Regina Linda, I spoke and met with the family representative on behalf of Hamid. He has informed me that Hamid is out of the Country until the end of February. We walked the lower portion of the fence and I explained what was necessary to bring the property into compliance. He will speak with Hamid and explain what needs to be done. have been told that the correction should be done shortly after Hamid returns. Thank you. Jana Rinaldi, Code Compliance Specialist Ci~).' of Saratoga J 3777 Fruitvale Avenue. Saratoga Mnaldi@Saratoga.ca.us 408.868.1214 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at irinaldi@saratoga.ca.us or telephone (408) 868-1214. 247 Law Offices of Charles T. Kilian 20410 Town Center Lane, Suite 210 • Cupertino, California 95014. Telephone. (408) 777-34031 FAX (408) 777-3401 Cha.rJ~ T. Kilian Eil~M=y Michael E. Stone, Esq. 3425 S. Bascom Avenue #1 Campbell, CA 95008 January 29,2007 Re: Parsley Trust! Lotfizadeh Dear Mike: This letter is intended to memorialize our recent telephone conversation, wherein you indicated that your client Hamid LotflZadeh had agreed that he would honor my client's easement across his property. This easement extends along the southerly ten feet of his property from my clienfs property to the public road which serves both properties. The easement is for the purpose of providing ingress and egress to and from my client's property, as well as allowing for the installation and maintenance of utilities within the easement. The Trust has agreed to accept Mr. Lotfizedeh's proposal which would involve his installation of a gate large enough to facilitate construction equipment necessary to install and maintain access and underground utilities and to provide the trustees of the trust with keys or other means of access. It is my client's understanding that Mr. Lotfizadeh will install the gate at his own cost. It is also understood that Mr. LotfJzadeh will deal with the City of Saratoga regarding any claims that the current fence or any new fence could violate the Saratoga fence ordinance. Since tnere is already a recorded easement encumbering the property, I see no reason to prepare an additiqnal document for your client's signature. However, I do request that if you or your client di.sagree with any statement contained in this letter, that you notify me in writing as soon as possibie . . My client is anxious to commence construction. I therefore, request a speedy response. Charles T. Kilian CTKfdjb cc: Parsley Trust 248 MICHAEL E. STON ATTORNEY AT LA' January 31,2007 Charles T. Kilian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES T. KlllAN 20410 Town Center Lane Ste. 210 Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Parsley TrustILotiHzadeh Dear Chuck: Neither my client not I have a disagreement with what you have stated in your letter of January 29, 2007. Before he installs the gates, however, he is trying to work out (through Mike Masoumi) the fencing issue with the City. Obviously there is no sense in spending money to put in gates if he is going to have to remove or replace the fence. If your-client commences construction before this issue is resolved, we can and will simply have a portion of the fence removed temporarily, sufficient to give your clients access. MES/td cc: client cc: Mike Masomni 3425 SOUTH B:\SCOM AVL'>:liE, SUITE 1 CAMPBEll., CAUFORNIA 95008 (408) 377-9899 Very Truly Yours, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. STONE 249 Linda Yelavich From: Sent: To: Jana Rinaldi Urinaldi@saratoga.ca.us] Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:19 AM Linda Yelavich Cc: Subject: John Livingstone; Brad Lind RE: Easement Linda, I received a call back from a family representative for Hamid. Hamid is still out of the Country until the end of March due to a family illness . I was told that Hamid has every intention to correct the violation upon his return. Thank you. Jana Rinaldi Jana Rinaldi, Code Compliance specialist City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga jrinaldi@saratoga . ca.us 408.868.1214 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at jrinaldi@saratoga.ca.us or telephone (40B) 868-1214. -----original Message-----From: Linda Yelavich [mailto:LindaY@cupertino.org] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:09 AM To: Jana Rinaldi Subject: RE: Easement Hi Jana: The easement issue is resolved in the sense that it has been legally acknowledged that it exists and we have a legal right to it. It is described in our title as our ingress and egress easement to our property. The problem is I cannot make any improvements until the fence is removed or gates are installed . Every day that goes by, the easement becomes more overgrown and the job gets bigger and more expensive. The quicker the fence issue gets resolved the better. Thank you for your attention to this matter . Linda -----Original Message-----From: Jana Rinaldi [mailto:jrinaldi@saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:41 AM To: Linda Yelavich Cc : John Livingstone; Brad Lind Subject: RE: Easement Linda, I have left a message for Hamid to call me regarding the fence violation . 1 I 250 DATE: PLACE: TYPE: MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao None Director John Livingstone, Contract Planner Heather Bradley, Planner Shweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Bill Parkin PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of January 9,2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 9,2008, were adopted with corrections to pages 11, 13,19, 26 ~nd 28. (7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Gene Zambetti, Big Basin Way: • Said he was here to provide a progress report on the relocation of tenants at Brookside Apartments. • Reported that it has been a long and difficult endeavor. • Reminded that he had promised to try hard to find comparable units for his tenants. • Advised that they had meetings with 15 tenants. Some were relocated and others have left. Mr. Colin Gray, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: • Explained that they have reached agreement with all tenants. All of them are on board with concessions we've made. • Added that a lot of effort went into this task and that 60 apartments were available nearby. • Said that they are addressing issues as promised and that the tenants will be out by the end of February. Commissioner Cappello advised that one of the tenants attended the last Planning Commission meeting complaining that little was being done to assist these tenants. 251 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 2 Mr. Colin Gray: • Said that there was some confusion over the mandate over what would/could be done. • Added that many tenants would not return calls. • Assured that repeated attempts were made to address each individual but most were not receptive. • Stated that although monetary assistant had not been mandated , some has been offered . Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Colin Gray if the Commission could reasonably be assured that tenants will not be back before them in two weeks. Mr. Colin Gray replied yes, that should be the case. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -PC DIRECTION TO STAFF Director John Livingstone reported that it is been very quiet on this issue. It is possible that all sides are satisfied. Chair Hlava directed staff to let this Commission know if things come up. If nothing is mentioned, the Commission will assume all is fine. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 17, 2008. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hlava announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICA liON #07-366 (503-69-0120 KEYASHIAN, 21818 Via Regina (Continued from the January 9, 2008, meeting): The applicant requests Design Review approval to add 1 ,977 square feet to the existing upper floor and convert 1,707 square feet to the existing basement creating a lower floor. The total floor area of the new house will be 5,677 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26-foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 25 percent of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 53,562 square feet and the site is located in the HR zoning 252 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 3 district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. (Heather Bradley) Ms. Heather Bradley, Contract Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish an existing two-story residence and construct a new 5,700 square foot two-story. • Described the new home as being a contemporary Mediterranean style with brown tile roof, stone veneer with stucco band, and details including columns and vertical metal railings. • Distributed the color board. • Reported that there would be a decorative entry gate at the street. The driveway will be widened to allow for sufficient Fire access. • Said that two Ordinance-protected trees would be removed and replaced with trees of their value. • Advised that a geotechnical clearance has been obtained. • Said that Design Review findings can be made. • Recommended Design Review approval. Commissioner Nagpal asked about allowing a two-story on a predominately single-story street. Planner Heather Bradley said that there are several two-story homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Rodgers: • Pointed out that there are residences on the opposite hillside that are outside of noticing distance. • Expressed appreciation for the orange story poles that offer those residents an opportunity to realize that something was pending here. • Asked staff if there have been any inquiries. Planner Heather Bradley replied no. Chair Hlava asked if Condition #6 in the resolution is referring to all landscaping or just front yard landscaping. Planner Heather Bradley replied that it refers to the landscape plan. Chair Hlava suggested adding to the Condition #6, "Per Exhibit A." Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. M. Keyashian, Applicant and Property Owner: • Said that he loves this neighborhood . • Reported that they had shared their design plan with the neighbors, who were supportive. • Added that he implemented their input. 253 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 4 Ms. Andrea Costanzo, Project Architect: • Reported that they have worked with staff, who did a great job. • Added that they are available for any questions . Chair Hlava asked if the outer buildings would be removed . Ms. Andrea Costanzo said that two of the four would be removed . Commissioner Kundtz asked if her client is aware of the $70,000 tree bond amount. -Ms. Andrea Costanzo replied yes. She added that they were surprised at the amount. Commissioner Nagpal expressed appreciation for the story pole installation and the fact that they were left in place for two weeks. Ms. Andrea Costanzo advised that they had to go back after the storm to repair them. Ms. Linda Parsley, Resident on Via Regina: • Said her house is located up the hill. • Stated that she had felt bad when the storm blew down their story poles. • Said that this home's design is nice and will be beautiful. • Reported that she has an ingress/egress easement that runs along the Keyashian's driveway although she has not been able to access this easement since another neighbor has completely fenced in their property. • Asked that this project's proposed gate not interfere with access to this easement. Chair Hlava advised that there would be a turnaround on this site for Fire access. Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Parsley if her concern is that this gate might impede their ability to access their property via their easement on the neighbor's property. Ms. Linda Parsley replied yes. Commissioner Kundtz suggested that the applicant be asked if he is aware of this easement. Ms. Linda Parsley said that she would also like to avoid the planting of tall trees on this property that might grow to block mountain views. Commissioner Kundtz said that staff could verify what types of trees are required in the landscape plan. Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Linda Parsley if the easement is only for emergency access use. Ms. Linda Parsley replied that it is an ingress/egress easement located adjacent to the existing driveway on the Keyashian property. 254 ~ -.. /Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23,2008 Page 5 City Attorney Bill Parkin cautioned that this easement issue is a private civil matter beyond the purview of this Commission. He suggested asking the applicant his understanding of the easement and leaving it at that. Planner Heather Bradley clarified that the actual easement is up the hill on the property above the slope and not on the Keyashian property, which is why she did not raise that issue in her staff report. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the gate and/or pilaster would interfere with access onto the easement. Planner Heather Bradley replied that she did not think so but that could also be made a condition of approval and also that it is addressed on the construction drawings. Chair Hlava cautioned that this is about as much as the Commission can do. Ms. Linda Parsley: • Said that the owner of the property on which she has an easement has to be brought into compliance with fencing regulations. • Added that Code Enforcement staff is currently enforcing this fencing violation . • Stated that otherwise, this project is beautiful. Mr. M. Keyashian assured that there would be no interference with the neighbor's easement by his gate. He added that he does not have plans for tall trees but rather prefers to plant fruit trees. Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No.1 . Chair Hlava suggested adding text to Condition 13 that states, "The front gate and pilaster shall not intrude into the easement." Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new two-story residence on property located at 21818 Via Regina, with correction to Condition 6, renumbering of Conditions 7 to 12 and addition of Condition 13 to read, "Easements on construction drawings shall indicated that the gate and pilaster will not intrude on the easement," by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.2 255 RESOLUTION NO. 08-006 Application No. 07-366 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Keyashian; 21818 Via Regina Approval of an addition to the existing two-story home with attached garage WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to demolish the existing 1,993 square foot residence and construct a new 5,574 square foot residence in approximately the same location as the existing footprint. The new residence will be not more that 26 ft. in height and will be situated on a 53,562 (net) sq. ft. lot located at 21818 Via Regina, which is located in the HR zoning district; 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 project, which proposes construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This exemption allows for construction of a single family home in an urban area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook have been determined: NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The project meets this finding in that all of the existing screening (mature trees along the sides of the parcel) will be retained as part of this project. The proposed residence will be constructed in a similar location on the lot as the existing residence. The proposed deck is kept to the rear portion of the structure, with a large setback from neighboring properties. The home is situated with substantial setbacks and consideration is given to the neighbor's views and privacy through window placement, and tree preservation. b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Minimal grading and topographical changes are proposed for this project and the majority of trees on the site will remain. All preserved trees will be protected with fencing during the construction process. This finding can be made in the affirmative. c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The project is consistent with this finding in that no native or Heritage trees will be removed and all the recommendations of the Arborist report have been made conditions of project approval to ensure a high degree of survival for all of the trees retained on site. These trees will be 256 protected during the construction process with tree fencing and the applicant will be required to post a tree bond prior to issuance of City permits, to ensure that no damage occurs to the protected trees. d) Minimize the perception of excessive bulk. This project conforms to the maximum height requirement and the architectural massing and style of the home will reduce the overall appearance of bulle Additionally decorative elements, materials and a varied roofline will create interest and add detail to the fayades. e) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed home is compatible in terms of size and height to other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed home will be constructed of high quality materials and will be in keeping with other two-story homes in the surrounding neighborhood. f) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed home would conform to the City's current grading and erosion control methods. The applicant is required to maintain stormwater on site where feasible and this finding can be made in the affirmative. g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed home conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. The project has taken energy efficiency into account, without sacrificing the neighbor's privacy, by placing the primary living spaces and windows on the south side of the home and the garage on the west side of the home. Section 1. After carenll consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, application number 07-366 for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL There are no permanent conditions of approval for this project. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The proposed home shall be located and constructed as shown on "Exhibit A" (incorporated by reference, date stamped December 6, 2007), with the exception of the energy dissipater, which shall be relocated in compliance with the City Arborist's conditions, and in compliance with all other conditions stated in this Resolution, and the location of tree #4 as shown on the Landscape Plan which shall be corrected in accordance with the City Arborist's report of January 14, 2008. 2. Any proposed changes-including but not limited to fayade design and materials -to the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. 257 3. The project shall use materials and colors as illustrated on the Finish Materials Board dated stamped December 6, 2007. 4. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Reports (see Arborist item below), as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 5. Two final sets of landscape plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director and the City Arborist incorporating all recommendations from the Arborist's reports dated July 3, 2007, and January 14, 2008 prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Landscaping as shown on Exhibit "A" shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 7. Final landscape, Imgation and utility plans shall be incorporated into the construction plan set and shall take into account the following requirements: a) Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. b) Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. c) Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. d) Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. e) Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 8. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the drip-line of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 9. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace per residential structure may be installed. All other fireplaces shall be gas-fired fireplaces (natural or proposed) with gas jets, direct venting, convection chambers, heat exchanger, variable heat output, and flame control, and permanently affixed artificial logs. 10. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 258 11 . A stonnwater retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site to the maximum extent feasible, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If not all stormwater can be retained on site; drainage in compliance with Condition 11 shall be included in the Building Permit Plans in a manner satisfactory to the Community Development Director. 12. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the Cornnmnity Development Department, shall be reconciled with a minimum of $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum of $500. 13. The site plan shall clearly show that the proposed gate, pilasters and fence at the driveway entrance shall not block any access easements to neighboring properties. ARBORIST 14. All recommendations of the Arborist Reports dated July 5,2007, and January 14, 2008 and incorporated herein by this reference shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. 15. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 16. Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant shall obtain a tree bond, or similar funding mechanism as approved by the Community Development Director, in the amount of $70,760.00 (equivalent to the value of all remaining trees on site) to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 17. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees, a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. PUBLIC WORKS 18. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and evaluate all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans and supporting structural calculations (i.e., site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, driveway, and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. 19. The results of the geotechnical plan review shall be summarized in a letter by the Project Geotechnical Consultant and submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of permits for initiation ofproject construction. 20. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for keyways, foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of engineered fill, subdrains, and steel and concrete. The consultant shall be present during the drilling of foundation piers to verify that 259 specified bedrock embedment is achieved and to confirm adequate supporting materials. 21. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to Final (as-built) Project Approval. 22. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 23. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related andlor erosion related conditions. FIRE DEPARTMENT 24. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Saratoga Fire District. CITY ATTORNEY 25. Owner and Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its employees, agents, independent contractors and volunteers (collectively "City") from any and all costs and expenses, including including but not limited to attorney's fees incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project or contesting any action or inaction in the City's processing and/or approval ofthe subject application. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 36 months or approval will expIre. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. 260 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Plarming Commission, State of California, this 23rd day of January 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers, Zhao NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Plarming Commission. Property Owner Date 261 /"=80 ~ -. i· VIA REC//VA PLAT Or SURVEY su~y£y~ :f)r ING~££S & EISIiES-C FASEMENT APIlIL 2008 L 262 t" en ~ .-~ \at l~ ~ \-0 LU >~, ('J .. , "'-'C :"' -'-' .. "--., -.. , -O'! ' li~ J "0 C'" ~ ~ ':I' ~ fMUIIII U .//..., s r-"-' ~ cr-t .... ...-. ! :"': : ..., ~:. //"0 ~ :.z;..-:~~ ., 263 SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT SERVICE SINCE 1923 February 17,2009 50369014 Dale S Parsley 21990 Via Regina Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Property Owner: The fire season will -be upo-n us in afew short mo-nths. We must not become c61nplacentwhen it comes to protecting our homes from hillside fires. Your property, as referenced above, is located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area and preparations for your home needs to be undertaken over the next few months. This information is being sent to all owners of homes in hillside locations in an effort to improve the chances of homes in these areas surviving a fire. Included with this letter, please find a separate postcard, which is to be completed and returned. Creating and maintaining defensible space on your property will significantly increase the chances of your home surviving a hillside fire. This requires removing the native brush, native vegetation, and dry grass a distance of at least 30-feet from any structure. For sloped areas that exceed 20% on on the downhill side of your home, up to 100-feet of defensible space should be provided. The Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs Association has developed the following list of both required and recommended preventative measures. When completed, your property will be in compliance with the applicable Fire Code regulations, which will greatly reduce the risk of loss or damage to your home in the event of a hillside fire. Enforced Safety. Regulations (Items A-E) A. Clear all flammable vegetation a minimum of 30-feet around structures. Remove dead leaves and branches from ornamental shrubs and trees. B. Remove all pine needles and leaves from roofs, eaves and rain gutters. C. Trim tree limbs 10-feet from chimneys or stovepipes, and remove dead limbs that hang over rooftops. D. Cover chimney outlets or flues with a 112" mesh spark arrester. E. Post a clearly visible house address, using at least 4" high numbers, for easy identification. F. G. HI. Additional Safety Recommendations (Items F-J) Limb trees 18-feet or taller 6-feet from the ground. Cut and remove very low growing tree limbs to prevent a fire on the ground from climbing up and into the canopy of the trees that surround your home. Stack woodpiles a minimum of 30-feet from buildings, fences and other combustible materials. Clear vegetation and other flammable material from underneath decks. Enclose elevated decks with fire-resistive materials. PO. Box 937. Saratoqa, CA95071-0937 • (408) 867-9001. Fax: (408) 867-1330. www.saratogafire.org N 264 June 1st 2009 Mr. Mike Yelovich 21900 Via Regina Saratoga, CA 95970 Re Tree Removal Dear Mr. Yelovich, tAN <3EDDES ________ AND ASSOCIATES --------ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTING P.O. Box 2962 • Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 374-8233 • Fax: (408) 374-8262 www.drtrees.com Following our meeting at the above address last Friday, inspection of the Easement Maintenance plans, ingress and egress, dated April 2009 by Westfall Engineers, I report as follows. Plans show conflict with the retention of tree number 3, a 10 inch diameter, selfseeded California Live Oak The tree is a somewhat taU drawn specimen with a bifurcated trunk. It exhibits reasonable physiological health, but is restricted by the presence of other more dominant trees in the immediate area. It bears no historic or heritage value and its overall contribution to the land parcel is negligible in its current location. I recommend that removal of this tree be allowed in order to proceed with the . construction of the retaining wall necessary for the easement. It's loss can be successfully mitigated by the planting of trees equivalent to its estimated appraised value of $2400.00 in a more suitable location. With regard to tree number 5, this tree can be successfully retained and incorporated into the plans as drawn. Several smaller scrub stems surround and compete with the parent tree, and I recommend these smaller stems be removed allowing better access and allowing development of the labeled tree. Please feel free to call this office if any further assistance is needed. e, NDH(Arb) MIoD gistered Consulting Arborist #30a WCISA Certified Arborist #593 We are proud members of the following professional organizations. o 265 1570 THE ALAMEDA #224 SAN JOSE, CA 95126 SuttonLawF@aol.com Jonathan Wittwer, Esq. Asst. City Attorney, Saratoga Wittwer & Parkin, LLP 147 South River St. #221 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 SUTTON LAW FIRM M. DEAN SurrON September 1, 2009 PH (408) 294-2280 FAX (408) 516-9086 SuttonLaw Firm.com 831-429-4055 Ph 408-867-8555, Via Fax, 5 pgs Re: 21990 Via Regina, Saratoga, CA 95070-4863 Dale Parsley, Linda Parsley Ye1avich, and Donald Parsley, Trustees of the Parsley Family Trust; and Mike Yelavich. Dear Mr. Wittwer, Sutton Law Firm represents Mr. Dale Parsley concerning real estate matters, including his home at 21900 Via Regina, Saratoga, CA. I write to you as the attorney for the City of Saratoga. I write to correct the record concerning some statements made in that certain letter from Mr. Michael E. Stone, Esq., dated August 27,2009, transmitting documents for Hamid Lotfizadeh to the City, and entitled "Appeal Of Decision On The Application OfParsleyNelavich To Remove Trees On Property At 21990 Via Regina" Suffice it to say the argumentative statements in the letter are mistaken. He says, "We are in the process of litigation now to not only collect damages (the soils engineer estimates $145,000 to repair the property) but to extinguish the easement for overburdening the Lotfizadeh property." In fact, there is no litigation filed and pending including Lotfizadeh. I called Mr. Stone today to confirm the truth, and he indicates he plans to file a lawsuit in the near future. I am informed that the litigation by Keyashian against Parsley has been settled completely. Mr. Parsley was represented in that action by Mr. Joseph C. Balestrieri, Esq. Mr. Stone, with his well-kno~ impressive talent for flexible rhetorical argument, says the easement has somehow disappeared because: it is ''unused,'' and, at the same time, "overburdening" the dominant property. Huh? Think about that for a second .... The easement owned by Parsley is recorded is not abandoned or unused or diminished in any way. Parsley owes Lotfizadeh nothing due to maintenance of the ingressIegress easment driveway. Again, as explained in prior correspondence, Parsley, as the owner of an easement, not only had/has the legal right to maintain the driveway, he hadIbas the legal duty do so. p 266 Jonathan Wittwer, Esq. City of Saratoga September 1, 2009 Page 2 COMMON LAW RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAINTAIN EASEMENT California Civil Code § 845 provides: (a) The owner of any easement in the nature of a private right-of-way, or of any land to which any such easement is attached, shall maintain it in repair ..... As cited in White v Walsh (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 828, " ... And as stated in Zimmennan v. Young, 74 Cal.App.2d 623, at page 628: 'The right to use the property for road purposes carried with it a right ~. make necessmy and reasonable improvements for the purpose for which it was intended to be used The evidence does not show that the burden on the servient estate has been unreasonably increased, resulting in irreparable injury thereto.' " The law provides for "secondary easements" so that the dominant estate easement owner can get in and out, operate machinery. remove roots. and do what is needed. See: 28 Cal. Jur. 3d Easements and Licenses § 60: In order that the owner of an easement may perfonn the the duty of keeping it in repair,1IN!] every easement includes what are called secondary easements. such as the right to enter the servient estate to make repairs and to do such other things as are necessary for the full exercise of the easement rights. [.EN2] The secondary easements may be exercised only when necessary. and in such a reasonable manner as not to increase needlessly the burden on, or go beyond the boundaries of, the servient estate.fENJJ For instance. the owner of an easement for an irrigation ditch may enter 1he servient land for the purpose of maintaining the ditch. He may remove debris, tree roots, and other obstructions to the flow of water, so long as he removes them entirely from the servient estate.lIN1l or the dominant owner may raise the grade of a roadway easement slightly in order to render it passable in wet weather. if raising the grade does not cause water to be impounded on the servient land.~ Where a roadway runs through hilly terrain, the dominant owner may cut through a hill and use the earth therefrom in a fill,[EN§] or he or she may erect guardrails, similar to the types found along public highways, where the roadymy adjo~ a ~ embankment.W11 [FN2] Joseph v. Ager, 108 Cal. 517, 41 P. 422 (1895); Crockett Land & Cattle Co. v. American Toll Bridge Co. of California, 211 Cal. 361, 295 P. 328 (1931); Ward v. City of Monrovia, 16 Cal. 2d 815, 108 P.2d 425 (1940); City of Los Angeles v. Howard, 244 Cal. App. 2d 538, 53 Cal. Rptr. 274 (2d Dist. 1966) (easement reserved to operate, maintain, repair. and renew power lines for conveying electricity across granted land); Krieger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 119 Cal.. App. 3d 137,173 Cal. Rptr. 751 (3dDist. 1981). [FN3] Joseph v. Ager, 108 Cal. 517,41 P. 422 (1895); Ward v. City of Monrovia, 16 Cal. 2d 815, 108 P.2d 425 (1940); City of Gilroy v. Kell, 67 Cal. App. 734, 228 P. 400 (1st Dist. 1924); Krieger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 119 Cal. App. 267 Jonathan Wittwer, Esq. City of Saratoga September 1, 2009 Page 3 3d 137,173 Cal. Rptr. 751 (3d Dist. 1981). [FN4] Smith v. Rock Creek Water Corp., 93 Cal. App. 2d 49, 208 P.2d 705 (2d Dist. 1949). [FN5] White v. Walsh, 105 Cal. App. 2d 828, 234 P.2d 276 (3d Dist. 1951). [FN6] Zimmerman v. Young, 74 Cal. App. 2d 623, 169 P.2d 37 (4th Dist. 1946). [FN7] Herzog v. Grosso, 41 Cal. 2d 219, 259 P.2d 429 (1953). EASEMENT NOT ABANDONED Somehow, somewhere, the notion has been mentioned and is circulating that the Parsley driveway easement was somehow "abandoned" becaQse they have not used it every day, or because tree roots or limbs have naturally grown in, over, and under the driveway. That conclusion is in error. NO ABANDONMENT BY NON-USE OF EASEMENT BY EXPRESS GRANT Under California law, an easement created by express, recorded grant cannot be lost or abandoned by mere' non-use. See: 28 Cal. Jur. 3d Easements and Licenses § 72: Under common-law principles, an easement created by grant cannot be lost by nonuse nonuse alone for any length of time, no matter how long.[FNl] The nonuse must be accompanied by an ~xpress or implied intention to abandon.1:lli2] The nonuse of certain portions of property does not in itself establish abandonment of a right of way. The mere intention to abandon, if not coupled with the yielding up of possession or a cessation of use, is not sufficient; nor will the nonuse alone, without an intention to abandon be held to amount to an abandonment. In sum, abandonment requires a concurrence of nonuser and an intent to abandon. Thus, where certain railroad companies had not ceased operating a railroad at the property on which they had a right of way, the fact that presently the railroad companies had not made use of all of their right of way was of no conSequence, since they may at Some time want to use more land for side-trac~ or other railroad purposes, and until then they were entitled to have the land clear and unobstructed. A railroad's construction and operation of one track on its location is an assertion of right to the entire width of its right of way.[flQ] Intent to abandon may be proved by the acts or conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances.1!N1] The acts of the owner of the dominant tenement must be of a character so decisive and conclusive as to indicate a clear intent to abandon the easement.~ Thus. a railroad right of way is shown to be extinguished by abandonment where~ in addition to nonuser, the railroad company permitted part of the track to get into such a state of disrepair that operation over it was impossible, and constructed another paraIlelline over which it carried all its 268 Jonathan Wittwer, Esq. City of Saratoga September I, 2009 Page 4 public business.1INQ] In addition, where acts of the owner of the dominant estate have led other persons to treat the servient estate as free from the servitude, he will not be permitted to resume the easement, since he cannot do so without doing injustice to those who have acted on the appearances of abandonmentlENIJ However, leaving a gate in a stone wall built across an easement is inconsistent with an intent to abandon and consistent with an intent to continue to exercise dominion over the easementlINK1 An easement is not extinguished by abandonment where the owner of an easement, expressly reserved as a right of way, places it under cultivation,1.m2J or remains silent while the owner of the fee builds a house on the strip.[FNlO] A road easement is not abandoned by the act of the dominant tenant in making use of another route occasionally[ENll] or in making regular use of another route due to the difficulty of grading the land over which the easement runs.[lN12] (Emphases added by bold and larger font.) [FNl] Smith v. Worn, 93 Cal. 206, 28 P. 944 (1892); Currierv. Howes, 103 Cal. 431,37 P. 521 (1894); Petitpierre v. Maguire, 155 Cal. 242, 100 P. 690 (1909); People onInf. ofWebbv. Southern Pac. Co., 172 Cal. 692,158 P. 177 (1916); Clark v. Redlich, 147 Cal. App. 2d 500, 305 P.2d 239 (4th Dist 1957); Buechner v. Jonas,228 Cal. App. 2d 127,39 Cal. Rptr. 298 (1st Dist. 1964); Zimmer v. Dykstra, 39 Cal. App. 3d 422, 114 Cal. Rptr. 380 (2d Dist 1974); Masin v. La Marche, 136 Cal. App. 3d 687, 186 Cal. Rptr. 619 (2d Dist 1982); Tract Development Services, Inc. v. Kepler, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1374,246 Cal. Rptr. 469 (4th Dist 1988) (one portion of a right of way created in the initial deeds from a subdivision creator by reference to a subdivision map was not extinguished merely by the planting of trees in that portion or by the fact that subsequent owners of the dominant and servient tenements obtained a grant of easement to use another portion of the right of way). [FN2] Smith v. Worn, 93 Cal. 206, 28 P. 944 (1892); Home Real Estate Co. v. Los Angeles Pac. Co., 163 Cal. 710,126 P. 972 (1912); Faus v. City of Los Angeles, 67 Cal. 2d 350, 62 Cal. Rptr. 193, 431 P.2d 849 (1967). [FN3] Cash v. Southern Pacific R Co., 123 Cal. App. 3d 974, 177 Cal. Rptr. 474 (2d Dist. 1981). [FN4] Watson v. Heger, 48 Cal. App. 2d 417.120 P.2d 153 (2d Dist. 1941); Weideman v. Staheli, 88 Cal. App. 2d 613,199 P.2d 351 (4th Dist. 1948); Flanagan v. San Marcos Silk Co., 106 Cal. App. 2d 458,235 P 2d 107 (4th Dist. 1951). [FN6] Home Real Estate Co. v. Los Angeles Pac. Co., 163 Cal. 710, 126 P. 972 (1912). 269 Jonathan Wittwer, Esq. City of Saratoga September 1, 2009 Page 5 [FN7] Smith v. Worn, 93 Cal. 206, 28 P. 944 (1892); Goffv. Shaw, 223 Cal. App. 2d 174,35 Cal. Rptr. 595 (5th Dist. 1963). [FN8] McCarty v. Walton, 212 Cal. App. 2d 39, 27 Cal. Rptr. 792 (3d Dist. 1963). [FN9] Pitcairn v. Harkness, 10 Cal. App. 295, 101 P. 809 (2d Dist 1909). [FN1O] Eltinge v. Santos, 171 Cal. 278, 152 P. 915 (1915). [FNll] Taylor v. Ballard, 41 Cal. App. 232, 182 P. 464 (1st Dis!. 1919). [FN12] Zimmerman v. Young, 74 Cal. App. 2d 623,169 P.2d 37 (4th Dis!. 1946) Modem statutes allow for abandonment of an easement, but only if has not been used at all for over 20 years. which does not apply here. See: Civil Code §§ 887.010 et seq .• 887.050. Here, there is no evidence of intent to abandon the easement, or any taking of the easement by prescriptive conduct by others. Mere non-use, and even allowing trees to grow, does not evidence intent to abandon (supra). CONCLUSION Mr. Parsley respectfully demands that the City issue its permit for the easement maintenance project immediately so that the work can be completed before the rains start. There is reason to stall oilier work, not around the one tree at issue. Mr. Parsley, and this family, have complied with all demands of the City. It is now time for the City to act honorably and without pettiness in this situation. parsley. 034 cc: Michael Stone, Esq. 3425 So. Bascom #I Campbell, CA 95008 Joseph C. Balestrieri, Esq. Robinson & Wood, Inc. 27 N. First St. San Jose, CA 95113 Very truly yours, 408-377-9899 Ph 408-377-5270 Fax Mikeestone@yahoo.com 408-298-7120 Ph 408-298-0477 Fax 270 October 26, 2009 Honorable Council Members: Through circumstances beyond my father's control, he has found himself in a situation to defend himself due to false accusations, lack of action from the City of Saratoga, and just plain being disliked by two of his neighbors. They are trying to have his easements extinguished, even though they were both aware of them when purchasing their homes. If the easements were such a problem why did they go ahead and purchase their respective properties, unless it was with the intent of trying to distinguish them from the beginning. My father is an easy target with his speech impediment, ill health, and age. I haven't yet determined if these actions can be considered "Elder Abuse" discrimination, harassment or all of the above. At any rate my only objective now is to pray you will vote in support ofthe City of Saratoga's staff report and Planning Commissions votes to approve the tree removal permit recommendations determined at the Planning Commission meeting dated September 23,2009. I find it fascinating that my father is being required to pull a tree removal permit for a tree the City of Saratoga already has considered "no longer existing" in a letter written to my father in May of 2008. It is also fascinating that even though we have provided proof beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of his easements, people seem to have difficulty acknowledging their existence. As you can see in the City Attorney, Mr. Wittwer's, report it has been determined my father has legal ownership to their use. How many on City Council would defend their right to ingress and egress if you were to wake up one day and find your ability to access your home blocked by fencing and your access road covered by grading fill? That is essentially what happened to my father, and even though he tried to talk to the city about it he was never taken serious ly because of his speech impairment and was ignored. Because ofthat his neighbor at 21820 Via Regina was allowed, without interference by the City of Saratoga, to illegally grade over my father's easement and put up a fence blocking him from using it, and the neighbor at 21818 Via Regina was allowed, without interference by the City of Saratoga, to illegally construct a retaining wall that encroaches upon the easement also interfering with his right to use his property. (A retaining wall that is of a height that would require a building permit, and yet here my father stands requesting a building permit to build a retaining wall that is only 2 feet in height that would normally not require a permit except for the request to remove a tree that interferes with its construction.) When these two neighbors contacted the city regarding the work my father was doing all hell broke loose. He was accused of illegally grading, killing and cutting down trees without permits and damaging a retaining wall. Had the City responded when my dad called several years ago we would not be here today. I had to move out of my home and move in with my father to protect him from the harassment and encroachments of these two neighbors. I approached the City, on multiple occasions, asking for advice and what my father's rights were only to be turned away and told it was a civil issue. Why did the city not say the same thing to the two neighbors when they called and complained about my father? It seems they were quick to respond to their complaints while ignoring my father's pleas. Ann Waltonsmith was the only councilmember who heard my dad and requested a staff report after I appeared at the June 21, 2006 Council Meeting. Staff never followed through. 271 I appeared at the January 23, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting as the Keyash ians' were requesting approval to build a new home. I appeared in support of their project and only requested that my father's easements not be blocked . Their plans were approved with the condition the easements were not to be blocked. Keyashians could have appealed that decision but chose not to and therefore; accepted those conditions. Now they are trying to prevent my father's ability to maintain his easement by fighting his application for tree removal to complete his project that was started in February of 2008. They have tried every dilatory tactic in the book to ruin my fath er's reputation, and property rights. They have harassed hir:n, called us crazy, taken numerous photographs of us, and consta ntly spy on us every time we set foot on our easement, and they have the gall to complain about their privacy being invaded? I think not, because remember, they purchased their home knowing the easements existed . In conclusion, please respect the decisions of staff, our arborist, the city's arborist, and the Planning Commission regarding their vote to allow removal of tree #3 and the small oaks crowding tree #5. It is for the health and safety of the trees as a whole under good forestry practices. Remember tree #5 will still remain a tree that has the opportunity to flourish, so in actuality we are only requesting to remove one protected tree #3 as it interferes with the retaining wall permit that has already been approved by the building department. Please help us to restore the property rights of my father. He has lived in his home long before either property, 21818 and 21820, was developed and when the City of Saratoga issued the permits for the two homes to be built his easements were supposed to be protected. These easements have been in affect long before the City was ever incorporated. Please do not take his rights away. Sincerely, Linda Parsley-Yelavich Daughter of Dale Parsley 272 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COl\1l\lISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, September 23,2009 -7:00 p.m. PLACE: TYPE: ROLLCALL Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Commissioners Vice-Chair Mary-Lynne Bemald, Manny Cappello, Joyce Hlava, David Reis, Douglas Robertson, Linda Rodgers, and Chair Yan Zhao PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning COlmnission Meeting of September 9, 2009 (Approved 6:0, (Hlavaabstain)) ORAL COMMUNICATION Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or tala'ng action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS-PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF REpORT OF POSTING AGE!'.'DA Pursuant to Govelnment Code 54954.2, the agenda for tins meeting was properly posted on September 17,2009 REpORT OF ApPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b) . All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three lllinutes. AppIicant/Appe!!ants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. PUBLIC HEARING 1. APPLICATION FER09-0005 (397-18-071) Thakur, 14900 Baranga Lane -The applicant is also requesting Design Review approval for a fence exception to replace an existing six foot high wood fence with a six foot high wrought iron fence within the front yard setback. The color and material would match the existing outdoor railing of the main residence. The lot lot is approximately 1.28 acres in size and is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (Michael Fossati) (Approved, 7:0) 2. APPLICATION APPC09-0001 (510-06-021) Keyashian, 21990 Via Regina -The appellant is appealing the approval of a Tree Removal Permit. The permit approved the removal of four coast live oaks. (Kate Bear) (Approved the resolution and denied the appeal, 7: 0) 273 DIRECTORS ITEM COMM1SSlON ITEMS COMMUNICA TIONS ADJOURl,\MENT TO N EXT MEETING Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13 777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to [he meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). POSTING Certificate of Posting of Agenda: 1, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the fo regoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Sa ratoga was posted 0 11 September 17, 2009, at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to plann ing(ii)saratoga.ca.us N OTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 274 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 21, 2006 The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a Joint Session with the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Saratoga Historic Foundation in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 6:30 p.rn. C01\TFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code 54957.6): Agency designated representatives: Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager Michele Braucht, Administrative Services Director, Monica LaBossiere, Human Resources Manager. Employee organization: SEA C01\TFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -Anticipated Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (1 potential case) Vice Mayor Kao called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLLCALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Councilmembers Kathleen King, Nick Streit, Ann Waltonsrnith, Vice Mayor Aileen Kao Mayor Norman Kline Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Michele Braucht, Administrative Services Director Lata Vasudevan, Associate Planner John Cherbone, Public Works Director REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JUNE 21, 2006 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of June 21,2006 was properly posted on June 15,2006 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Citizen Ray addressed the Council. Ray expressed his opinion of the defeat of Measure J and about Highway 9 safety issues. 275 Denise Goldberg spoke about the suspension of the Parks and Recreation Commission and requested the reinstatement of it. Phil Nielson, President of Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District, requested that the City Council be pali of the recruiting of a new Superintendent. Two open sessions will be held Monday June 26 at Saratoga High School and Wednesday June 28 at Los Gatos High School --throughout the day at both locations. Two topics will be discussed: the skills and charactelistics needed for a new Superintendent; and the challenges for the High School District. Council members can paliicipate via email or by attending one of the two sessions. A selection ,,,,ill be made at the end of August. Linda Parsley spoke on behalf of her father regarding the City'S Hillside Ordinance. She said her father had an issue with a neighbor'S fence on Via Regina that they 've been trying to resolve since their first complaint was filed in 2002. Ms. Parsley 's father was told by the Code Enforcement Specialist, upon complaint to the City of the non-compliant fence, that this neighbor was not the only one with an out of compliance fence and they would not be singled out. Ms. Parsley went on fmiher to relay the complaints about communication to the City and the lack of attention paid to the issue, including misplacing the initially filed compliant. The neighbor's fence in question is blocking Ms. Parsley's father's access to his easement, and trees are now grown resulting in his inability to pmiicipate in a City sewer installation project. Ms. Parsley would like to know how to resolve the issue. Councilmember Kao asked that Ms. Parsley's notes be left with the Council for review and consideration. Ms. Parsley said she would offer them. Two Saratoga High School students presented their school project on the history of Saratoga. They wanted to honor Saratoga WWII veterans. They shared h¥o proposals: 1) to combine a WWII Memorial with the existing WVvI MemOlial; and 2) a stand alone plaque dedicated to WWII veterans . Councilmembers King requested the students remain until the Council gave direction to staff following the end of Oral Communications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the student's request is at a citizen level at this point and asked if there were Saratoga WWII vets who would partner with the students and come up with a proposal. Reporter Jason Sweeney was asked to be a resource for the students. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked for a Staff report to be prepared and presented to Council regarding the issue raised by Ms. Parsley. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that staff needs to continue to look at the feasibility of restoring commissions, including the Parks and Recreation Commission. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Councilmembers met with Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the Saratoga Historical Foundation. 2 276 DATE: PLACE: TYPE: MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue , Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao None Director John Livingstone, Contract Planner Heather Bradley, Planner Shweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Bill Parkin PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of January 9,2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 9, 2008, were adopted with corrections to pages 11, 13, 19, 26 and 28. (7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Gene Zambetti, Big Basin Way: • Said he was here to provide a progress report on the relocation of tenants at Brookside Apartments. ;; Reported that it has been a long and difficult endeavor. • Reminded that he had promised to try hard to find comparable units for his tenants. • Advised that they had meetings with 15 tenants. Some were re located and others have left. Mr. Colin Gray, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road : • Explained that they have reached agreement with all tenants. All of them are on board with concessions we've made. • Added that a lot of effort went into this task and that 60 apartments were available nearby . ., Said that they are addressing issues as promised and that the tenants will be out by the end of February. Commissioner Cappello advised that one of the tenants attended the last Planning Commission meeting complaining that little was being done to assist these tenants. 277 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 2 Mr. Colin Gray: • Said that there was some confusion over the mandate over what would/could be done. • Added that many tenants would not return calls. • Assured that repeated attempts were made to address each individual but most were not receptive. • Stated that although monetary assistant had not been mandated , some has been offered. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Colin Gray if the Commission could reasonably be assured that tenants will not be back before them in two weeks. Mr. Colin Gray replied yes, that should be the case . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -PC DIRECTION TO STAFF Director John Livingstone reported that it is been very quiet on this issue. It is possible that all sides are satisfied. Chair Hlava directed staff to let this Commission know if things come up. If nothing is mentioned, the Commission will assume all is fine. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 17, 2008. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hlava announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #07-366 (503-69-0120 KEYASHIAN, 21818 Via Regina (Continued from the January 9, 2008, meeting): The applicant requests Design Review approval to add 1,977 square feet to the existing upper floor and convert 1,707 square feet to the existing basement creating a lower floor. The total floor area of the new house will be 5,677 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26-foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 25 percent of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 53 ,562 square feet and the site is located in the HR zoning 278 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 3 district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. (Heather Bradley) Ms. Heather Bradley, Contract Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish an existing two-story residence and construct a new 5,700 square foot two-story. • Described the new home as being a contemporary Mediterranean style with brown tile roof, stone veneer with stucco band , and details including columns and vertical metal railings. • Distributed the color board. " Reported that there would be a decorative entry gate at the street. The driveway will be widened to allow for sufficient Fire access. • Said that two Ordinance-protected trees would be removed and replaced with trees of their value. CJ Advised that a geotechnical clearance has been obtained. • Said that Design Review findings can be made. • Recommended Design Review approval. Commissioner Nagpal asked about allowing a two-story on a predominately single-story street. Planner Heather Bradley said that there are several two-story homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Rodgers: • Pointed out that there are residences on the opposite hillside that are outside of noticing distance. • Expressed appreciation for the orange story poles that offer those residents an opportunity to realize that something was pending here. • Asked staff if there have been any inquiries. Planner Heather Bradley replied no. Chair Hlava asked if Condition #6 in the resolution is referring to all landscaping or just front yard landscaping. Planner Heather Bradley replied that it refers to the landscape plan. Chair Hlava suggested adding to the Condition #6 , "Per Exhibit A." Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No.1. Mr. M. Keyashian, Applicant and Property Owner: " Said that he loves this neighborhood. s Reported that they had shared their design plan with the neighbors, who were supportive. • Added that he implemented their input. 279 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 4 Ms. Andrea Costanzo, Project Architect: • Reported that they have worked with staff, who did a great job. • Added that they are available for any questions. Chair Hlava asked if the outer buildings would be removed. Ms. Andrea Costanzo said that two of the four would be removed. Commissioner Kundtz asked if her client is aware of the $70,000 tree bond amount. Ms. Andrea Costanzo replied yes. She added that they were surprised at the amount. Commissioner Nagpal expressed appreciation for the story pole installation and the fact that they were left in place for two weeks. Ms. Andrea Costanzo -advised that they had to go back after the storm to repair them. Ms. Linda Parsley, Resident on Via Regina: • Said her house is located up the hill. • Stated that she had felt bad when the storm blew down their story poles. • Said that this home's design is nice and will be beautiful. • Reported that she has an ingress/egress easement that runs along the the Keyashian's driveway although she has not been able to access this easement since another neighbor has completely fenced in their property. • Asked that this project's proposed gate not interfere with access to this easement. Chair Hlava advised that there would be a turnaround on this site for Fire access. Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Parsley if her concern is that this gate might impede their ability to access their property via their easement on the neighbor's property. Ms. Linda Parsley replied yes. Commissioner Kundtz suggested that the applicant be asked if he is aware of this easement. Ms. Linda Parsley said that she would also like to avoid the planting of tall trees on this property that might grow to block mountain views. Commissioner Kundtz said that staff could verify what types of trees are required in the landscape plan. Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Linda Parsley if the easement is only for emergency access use. Ms. Linda Parsley replied that it is an ingress/egress easement located adjacent to the existing driveway on the Keyashian property. 280 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 5 City Attorney Bill Parkin cautioned that this easement issue is a private civil matter beyond the purview of this Commission. He suggested asking the applicant his understanding of the easemen.t and leaving it at that. Planner Heather Bradley clarified that the actual easement is up the hill on the property above the slope and not on the Keyashian property, which is why she did not raise that issue in her staff report. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the gate and/or pilaster would interfere with access onto the easement. Planner Heather Bradley replied that she did not think so but that could also be made a condition of approval and also that it is addressed on the construction drawings. Chair Hlava cautioned that this is about as much as the Commission can do. Ms. Linda Parsley: • Said that the owner of the property on which she has an easement has to be brought into compliance with fencing regulations. • Added that Code Enforcement staff is is currently enforcing this fencing violation. • Stated that otherwise, this project is beautiful. Mr. M. Keyashian assured that there would be no interference with the neighbor's easement by his gate. He added that he does not have plans for tall trees but rather prefers to plant fruit trees. Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No.1. Chair Hlava suggested adding text to Condition 13 that states, "The front gate and pilaster shall not intrude into the easement." Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new two-story residence on property located at 21818 Via Regina, with correction to Condition 6, renumbering of Conditions 7 to 12 and addition of Condition 13 to read, "Easements on construction drawings shall indicated that the gate and pilaster will not intrude on the easement," by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.2 281 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 6 APPLICATION #07-029 (397-25-009) Maesumi, 13921 River Ranch Circle: The applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish the existing home and shed and construct a new two-story home. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage will be approximately 4,355 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 18,839 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-1 0,000. (Susanne Thomas) Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows : • Explained that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the demolition of an existing single-story Ranch-style house and the construction of an approximately 4,300 square foot, two-story Craftsman-style house. • Distributed the materials board . • Said that the project incorporates high quality materials including a carriage-style wood door, high-end front door and windows and using darker earth tone colors. • Reminded that a Planning Commission Study Session was held in February 2007. The project's original design was Mediterranean. Since the original design and following numerous meetings with the applicant, the second floor was reduced , the setback for the second story was increased, and only one window faces the neighbor to the left side. • Reported that neighbor correspondence has been received. • Said that during the site visit the Commissioners also visited the adjacent neighbors' properties to see views. • Stated that the project meets General Plan findings and Design Review findings. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that there is still an objection to the one window upstairs in the master bathroom. She suggested using some method to block any potential view onto the adjacent property such as opaque windows or some sort of screening trellis. Director John Livingstone said that this particular window is a clearstory window used to provide light and ventilation. This sill of this window is at a six-foot height. Commissioner Nagpal said that she is used to more slopes on the second story of a Craftsman-style house. She asked if there was any discussion on how to break the roof up on the front view instead of it being at the 26-foot height all along that view. Director John Livingstone said he couldn 't say as he is filing in for the project planner this evening. He suggested that perhaps the applicant could reply. He added that this is a hybrid design and that more roof means less a visible second story. Commissioner Zhao asked for the size of the bath window on the left side. Director John Livingstone said he would defer that question to the applicant. Commissioner Kumar asked if an operable skylight might be feasible here. He asked what the impact might be if there were no window on that elevation. Director John Livingstone said that an operable skylight is possible. He added that windows are used to break up an elevation and add character. 282 DATE: PLACE: TYPE: [ DRAFt ] MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 12, 2008 Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga , CA Regular Meeting Chair Cappello called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao None Director John Livingstone, Senior Planner Chris Riordan, Assistant Planner Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner Michael Fossati, Planning Intern Rina Shah and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of October 22, 2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of October 22, 2008, were adopted with edits to pages 5, 7, 9, 13, 16 and 19. (7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 6, 2008. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Cappello announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 283 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2008 Page 14 • Concluded that there is no real resolution here. Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Bruce La Fountain what part he does not like. Mr. Bruce La Fountain said the fact that this is a one-size-fits-all Ordinance, which does not work. He added that Hillside properties have different needs and there is inherent unfairness in rules for hillside versus flatland properties. Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Bruce La Fountain what he wants to see in the Hillside District. Mr. Bruce La Fountain replied larger enclosures or leaving the existing circumstances alone. He added that the regulations are taking away the right to protect property when limiting perimeter fencing to just three-feet in height. That was not in the Ordinance to begin with. This is a much more restrictive Ordinance. Ms. Linda Parsley-Yelavich, Resident on Via Reginoo: • Said that she is speaking on behalf of her father. • Thanked the Planning Commission for taking on this immense task. • Pointed out that most people do what they want to do in regards to fencing. • Advised that her father's property has become landlocked due to fencing that has been improperly installed. • Added that for years he never complained until a newer neighbor completely fenced in his entire property, which completely blocked her father's driveway as well as a utility easement. • Said that they complained but the City was very slow to respond. In fact, the first complaint paperwork was lost. • Informed that a violation was recorded in 2006 but today, in 2008, that illegal fence remains in place. • Reported that her father was without power for one week last winter because PG&E could not access their easement to reach the affected power line. The owners were out of the country' and could not be contacted for access. • Said that the new Fencing Ordinance should incorporate requirements that an adjacent neighbor's driveways and easements should not be fenced off or blocked but rather should be accessible at all times in case of fire or emergency. Mr. Steve de Keezer, Resident on Pierce Road: • Reported that he attended the joint Council/Planning Commission study session. • Said that on the plus side is the exemption process, which is a brilliant idea. • Said that he strongly agrees with one Commissioner who wanted to keep things simple. • Added that instead there are twice as many additions as deletions to the draft ordinance. • Suggested eliminating all but essential rules and creating a one-page guide that is much more appropriate. • Pointed out that fences are as diverse as their owners. • Stated that no Councilor Commission member is elected because they are great "art" critics. 284 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2008 Page 15 o Opined that not every property needs to have animal trails. Animals can go around just like we do. G Advised that on his street, only two of the existing fences would be legal under this ordinance. Most fences are only one foot away from the pavement. o Asked, "Is that the Saratoga we know and love?" Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Steve de Keezer what changes he proposes. Mr. Steve de Keezer responded, the three-foot height limitation and materials limitations. He asked , "Who's going to buy a $3 million house and put in a plastic fence?" He continued to say that between the allowance for 4,000 versus 6,000 versus a 15 percent enclosure area allowance, why not leave it to the owners. People aren't stupid . Chair Cappello reminded that as recounted th is evening, some people block off other people's driveways and easements. Commissioner Hlava asked if there is something here that restricts someone from blocking another person's driveway or easement. If not, she added , there should be. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said the he did not think there is and this becomes a civil matter between the property owners. Ms. Marilyn Riding, Resident on Villa Oaks Lane: • Reported that she attended the last meeting. • Said that regarding the lack of public attendance, the community newspaper has not been delivered to hillside properties for at least a year. • Expressed appreciation for the posted signs advising of this hearing as an effective means of notification. • Suggested that people have done what they needed to do (in regards to fencing) to accommodate their terrain and their needs. • Agreed that she did not think that there is a \vi!dlife corridor on every hillside property and that there are plenty of passageways for the animals. • Stated that the split rail solution looks ridiculous with the types of residences being constructed here these days. • Asked that each property owner be allowed to decide what works based upon their specific terrain, terrain, needs and beliefs. Ms. Karlina Ott, Resident on Vintage Lane: • Said that she would like to address enforcement and notification. It Pointed out that a 6,000 square foot enclosure represents just five percent of her lot. It Said that this is a little ridiculous. • Agreed that the standard should instead be a percentage and that the suggestion of 15 percent is reasonable. • Added that she has seen people do some stupid things so there should be some guidelines. 285 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2008 Page 27 Chair Cappello said that this is a much better ordinance in so many areas than when the Commission first got it. He said that most issues have been addressed but he also agreed it is not perfect. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer sought clarification that the provision for three-foot perimeter fencing is being left on Page 5, Subsection (b). Chair Cappello replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked what about the enclosure with separations. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that is included as Option (a). Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission recommended that Council adopt a revised Fence Ordinance with the corresponding Negative Declaration and the City Attorney's edits, with additions including: • Allowing either 6,000 square feet or 15 percent of gross lot size, whichever is greater, in enclosed fence area on a Hillside property; • A provision for three-foot high perimeter fencing on Hillside property; and • An exemption for fencing of agricultural uses (including orchards, vineyards and equestrian uses), sports courts and pools; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Nagpal and Zhao NOES: Kumar, Kundtz and Rodgers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Cappello extended his thanks to all who showed up and participated in this process. It was quite an ordeal. *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Farewell to Newly Elected Councilmember Nagpal Chair John Livingstone thanked Commissioner Nagpal for her six years of service on the Planning Commission. He said it was a great pleasure working with her. Commissioner Nagpal joked that she had planned to write a poem but has been too busy reading the Fence Ordinance. She thanked all of the Commissioners and staff, saying it was a distinct pleasure to serve and to work as part of this team. She said that each person served as a source of strength and she values each one for their friendship. 286 STANDARD GRADING PLAN NOTES I. Prior to the commencement of any earthwork/grading activities, the permittee shall arrange a pre-construction meeting. The meeting shall include the Cit)' of Saratoga Grading Inspector at (408) 868-1 ~Ol, the grading cot1!ractor and the project Soils Engineer. The permittee or representative shall arrange the pre -construction meeting at least 48 hours prior lO the start of any eal1lwvorklgrading activities. 3. 4. Approval of this plan applies only to the excavation, placement, and compaction of natural earth. This approval does not confer any rights of entry to either public property or the private propeny of others. Approval of this plan also does not constitute approval of any improvements. Any proposed improvements are subject to review and approval by the responsible authorities and all other required permits/approvals shall be obtained. It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to identify. locate and protect all underground fac ilities. The perminee shall maintain the streets, sidewalks and other public rights-of-way in a cl ean, safe and usable condition. All spills of soi l, rock or construction debris shall be removed from the public propen)'. All adjacent property, both public and private, shall be maintained in a clean, safe and usable condition. 5. 6. All grading and earthwork activities shall be performed in such a manner as to comply with the standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for airborne part iculates. This plan does not approve the removal of an)' trees. Appropriate tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Community Development Department. Any required tree protection measures shall be maintained throughout construction. 7. All construction sites are to be winterized with appropriate erosion conrrolmeasures in place from October 15th to April 15th of each year. 8. Grading activities are only allowed lvlonday through Frid70 am to 6: pm. //I /////l' MIN. ,I":::' C;V l.. ·ONC . r-"CK //--~-' 0....;. , ';"'/4-# -1-IIE.er. {' # 3T1£5 e C " o/c /r l D;e. 3/1 Cc....e ~ S;EC. I _' ~-------------------"'DOD STAKE 3/4'x3/4' 4 ' O.c. MAX. WALL 1 WA 2. $' 3/'F-( G4t-VA ,oJ/ZE!PJ VVE DG.C ~/VCHoJ2. V6/ZT. APN 503-G9-D13, County o r Szrnl. CIa:".. C"lif(Jf!li:: Mr. Mike Yelavich DESICN CRITERIA Equ ivaient Fluid l'rL'Ssure--__ .is 0.1 r'CF (flat) . 55 Ofl peF (2:1 ~Iop~ } PaS!ilVe,pressu:-e:-:-_____ I UO.l!tl per :!i' -i ' nvc, 1.5 pie: di;u!1(:'kr CoeffiCIent of fncuon----. 0 ]0 Allowllble soil bearing-----i500 1'SF GftAVITYWALL, APN 503-69-013 21820 VIA REGINA &25.07 ([) BLOCV. RET. ~ALL PAPK1NG ENTRENCHMENT DETAIL FOR FIBER ROLLS ......... 621. 12 NO. I BY I DATE I 6-3-09 BUBBLE UP ENERGY DISSIPA TOR REVISiON DRA1NAGE. NOTES AND DETA1LS BY, KAREL CYMBAL R. C. E. 34 534 BY I DATE DATE, APR lL 2009 SCALE, HOR. I' = 10' VERT. DESIGNED, DRA~N, EROSION CONTROL MEASURES I . It is the responsibility of the Owne,rlContractor to insure that no mud or siltation leaves the project site. 2. Install fiber rolls per detail on these pians. pians. 3. Seed all exposed areas. 4 . Install drain age measures as shown on these plans. APN 503-69 -012 21818 VIA REGINA WESTFALL ENG I NEERS) I NCo INGRESS) 14583 B 1 G BAS 1 N ~AY. SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408) 867-0244 GAR. ([) HOUSE EGRESS AND UTILITY APN 503-(,9-013, ";j. ~ ... 1 ,~ If' ..... kj"i '-=-( \1\ ,EVEu/iS [?.D E EASEMENT V I A REG I NA, (T \t/ALL 2 --LEGEND BOUNDARY EASEMENT GRADE BREAK IMPROVEMENTS CONTOUR MAJOi< COUNTOUR MiNOR FENCE RETAINING VIALL EDGE OF PAVEMENT SPOT ELEVA nON NEW ORAIN LINE IT A MAINTENANCE SARATOGA, CA .622.97 PLAN ',---. JOB NO. 2004-13 4 SHEET or ~~~J--=~~~~~~~~ ___~ _____~ _____~ _____________~ ___~ P_R ~E~N~G~R~' __________J -----------------------~~----------------------------------------------------________________________L __~~~ ___________________________----__~ ___________________________________________________________, _"~ __~ _~ • SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Public Works Director Public Works Director SUBJECT: Herriman Avenue Pedestrian Walkway and Bicycle Lane Review ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Receive report and provide direction to staff. REPORT SUMMARY: Background: At the April 4, 2007 City Council meeting, the Council gave direction to staff and the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) to review safety and traffic issues surrounding Saratoga High School. The TSC reviewed a plan presented by the City Traffic Engineer at the June 7, 2007 meeting. As a result of the meeting the TSC made several recommendations: 1. Construct new pedestrian path on the south side of Herriman Avenue between River Ranch Circle and Saratoga Avenue. 2. Construct a pedestrian refuge area (bulbout) and raised crosswalk at the Lexington/Herriman intersection. 3. Standardize existing bicycle lanes. In order to construct the new pedestrian walkway, parking restrictions on the north side of Herriman Avenue from Saratoga Vista to Saratoga Avenue were established to implement the Traffic Engineer’s plan. An option to construct the walkway outside of the travel way was rejected because of its high cost and the impact to mature trees and private landscaping. On September 5, 2007, the City Council approved the parking restrictions via anMV Resolution and directed staff to move forward with the pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. 1-Year Follow-up Evaluation: Included with the adoption of the MV Resolution, the City Council directed staff to report back in one year regarding the effectiveness of the action. In August of 2008, the City’s Traffic Engineer, Fehr & Peers, conducted a follow-up evaluation (Attachment 1) connected to the implementation of the above mentioned safety improvements. 287 2 of 4 In summary, the Follow-Up Traffic Evaluation indicated that the improvements met the goal of separating vehicles and pedestrians. On September 11, 2008, the TSC concurred with the recommendations in Traffic Engineer’s 1-Year Follow-up Review. At the October 17, 2008 City Council Meeting, the Council received the report on the 1-Year Follow-up Review and directed staff to work with the neighbors affected by the loss of parking to determine if there were options that would restore parking while trying to retain pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Discussion: The Herriman Avenue Task Force comprised of affected neighbors, two members of the TSC, the City Traffic Engineer, and City staff. The Task Force met four times over the past year to investigate the issue. It was agreed by the Task Force that any solution that included widening the footprint of the roadway would need the approval from the affected property owner to be considered. Twelve different options or configurations were considered during the course of the investigation. At the fourth and last Task Force meeting it was agreed that four of the twelve options be submitted to City Council for consideration. The four options are discussed in a memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers dated October 23, 2009 (Attachment 2). In summary the four options are as follows: Option 1: (Current/Existing) Keep current configuration of Herriman Avenue. Create raised pedestrian walkway by filling in between the asphalt berm and concrete curb. (Estimated Cost: $40,000) Option 2: (Modified Original, No Pedestrian Path) Return to original configuration of Herriman Avenue by eliminating the pedestrian path. Changes to the original configuration include standard width bicycle lanes and parking limited to the hours of 7PM to 7AM to allow cyclist daytime use of the north side bicycle lane. (Estimated Cost: $25,000) Option 3: (Limited Parking) Modify current configuration of Herriman Avenue by modifying roadway striping to allow five time limited parking spaces (7PM to 7AM ) on the north side of the road between Jerries Drive and Lannoy Ct. to allow daytime use of bicycle lane. Create raised pedestrian walkway by filling in between the asphalt berm and concrete curb. (Estimated Cost: $47,500) Option 4: (Discontinuous Bicycle Lanes) Remove standard bicycle lane on south side of the road between Jerries Drive and Herriman Avenue and replace with 3 foot shoulder. Modifying roadway striping to allow 13 time limited parking spaces (7PM to 7AM) between Saratoga 288 3 of 4 Avenue and Lannoy Ct. to allow daytime use of bicycle lane. Create raised pedestrian walkway by filling in between the asphalt berm and concrete curb. (Estimated Cost: $55,000) Improvements which will move forward in conjunction with the final agreed upon option include closing a small gap in the walkway at River Ranch Circle, repair the section of walkway located along the frontage of the High School to mitigate potential tripping hazards, and the installation of a raised crosswalk at Lexington Court. Additional traffic calming measures are currently being investigated by the TSC for future implementation. FISCAL IMPACTS: · Option 1: Estimate Cost: $40,000 (Fill in Pedestrian Walkway) · Option 2: Estimated Cost: $10,000 (Remove Asphalt Berms and Restore Roadway) $15,000 (Remove and Replace Roadway Markings and Signs) $25,000 · Option 3: Estimated Cost: $40,000 (Fill in Pedestrian Walkway) $7,500 (Remove and Replace Roadway Markings and Signs) $47,500 · Option 4: Estimated Cost: $40,000 (Create Level Level Walkway) $15,000 (Remove and Replace Roadway Markings and Signs) $55,000 City Council has various funding sources available in which to fund the desired Option including the Traffic Safety CIP budget and the Street Improvement CIP budget. Staff recommends all striping/signage work and filling in of the pedestrian pathway work be funded from Streets and the raised walkway be funded from Traffic Safety. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The configuration of Herriman Avenue would remain as it currently is. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. 289 4 of 4 FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Staff will move forward with the implementation of the desired Option chosen by City Council. Subsequent, Motor Vehicle Resolution(s) will be submitted to City Council for approval if needed. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A letter was mailed to the affected property owners on Herriman Avenue informing them of the City Council meeting (Attachment 3). ATTACHMENTS: 1. October 6, 2008 Fehr & Peers 1-Year Review Memorandum. 2. October 23, 2009 Fehr & Peers Memorandum 3. Letter to Residents. 290 ! ! ! "#$ % & "' ( MEMORANDUM Date: October 6, 2008 To: John Cherbone, City of Saratoga, Public Works Director From: Franziska Holtzman/Sohrab Rashid Subject: Herriman Avenue and Lexington Court Improvements Follow-up Review 1025-446-1 Fehr & Peers has completed a review of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements installed on Herriman Avenue in the City of Saratoga. In July 2007, Fehr & Peers prepared the Herriman Avenue Improvement Plan that included: · provision of a new pedestrian path on the south side of Herriman Avenue between River Ranch Circle and Saratoga Avenue, · construction of a pedestrian refuge area (bulbout) and raised crosswalk at the Herriman Avenue/Lexington Court intersection, · and standardization of existing bicycle lanes. This memorandum summarizes the results of implementing the Herriman Avenue Improvement Plan and recommendations for maintaining or improving the pedestrian path and installing a raised crosswalk across the east leg of the Herriman Avenue/Lexington Court intersection. BACKGROUND Herriman Avenue is a two-lane east-west collector street that connects Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue. Saratoga High School is located on the southeastern corner of the Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Herriman Avenue intersection and provides four driveways on Herriman Avenue. Lexington Court is a north-south local roadway that forms a T-intersection with Herriman Avenue approximately 550 feet east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Avenue. One of Saratoga High Schools main driveways is 40 feet off-set to the west of the Herriman Avenue/Lexington Court intersection, and as such Lexington Court is one of the major local roadways used by vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians traveling to and from the school. Designated crosswalks are provided across Herriman Avenue on the east leg of the Lexington Court intersection and the west leg of the Camino Rico intersection. These crosswalks are high visibility crosswalks with lateral striping and are marked with yellow paint to indicate that they are school crosswalks. In roadway sings are provided in the middle of the crosswalks to highlight the presence of the crosswalks to vehicles and bicyclists traveling on Herriman Avenue. Herriman Avenue is approximately 39 feet wide, has a posted speed limit of 25 mile per hour (mph), and carries approximately 4,500 vehicles per day. Recently approved speed surveys indicate that the 85th percentile speeds along the school frontage are approximately 35 mph. 291 tp F E H It & P EE ItS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS John Cherbone October 6, 2008 Page 2 of 5 Prior to implementation of the Improvement Plan, Herriman Avenue provided a sidewalk on both the north and south side of the roadway between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Lexington Court. The sidewalk on the south side continued for another quarter mile east from Lexington Court until Oak Hallow Lane. No sidewalks were provided on the north side of Herriman Avenue east of Lexington Court and on the south side east of Oak Hallow Lane (though there was a dirt path that extended another 150 feet east of Oak Hallow Lane to River Ranch Circle). Herriman Avenue also included Class II bike lanes in both directions of travel for its entire length, although the width the lanes measured less than the standard width at some locations. A parking lane was provided along the north side of Herriman Avenue but parking was restricted directly across from the high school during school hours. During the school’s peak pick-up/drop-off times numerous pedestrians and bicyclists were observed traveling along the entire length of Herriman Avenue. At those locations where no sidewalks were provided on Herriman Avenue, pedestrians were observed walking in either the bike lane or the parking/bike lane on the north side of the roadway. The Saratoga High School driveway opposite Lexington Court is one of the more heavily used driveways during the school’s peak periods. Additionally, because Lexington Court is a major connector to the neighborhoods to the north of Herriman Avenue, the crosswalk at this location is well-used. As discussed above, the driveway and Lexington Court are off-set from each other and form a non-standard intersection. The combination of the geometry with the high pedestrian and vehicle volumes during peak periods results in numerous conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. Many vehicles traveling westbound on Herriman that make a left turn into the school’s driveway block the crosswalk and hinder pedestrians from crossing. Additionally, if pedestrians decided to walk around around the vehicle to cross Herriman Avenue, the vehicles would block the visibility of pedestrians in the crosswalk for drivers in eastbound vehicles. HERRIMAN AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PLAN The goal of the Herriman Avenue Improvement Plan was to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and safety along Herriman Avenue and to improve the pedestrian crossing at Lexington Court. To accomplish these goals, a pedestrian pathway was recommended for the south side of the street between River Ranch Court and Saratoga Avenue. Two options were considered in developing the improvement plan: 1. A pathway could be incorporated into the existing curb-to-curb street width by modifying the existing vehicle, parking, and bicycle lane widths. 2. A sidewalk could be added behind the curb of the existing roadway and utilize five feet of the City’s public right-of-way. This option would require the City to remove landscaping because many residents had developed within the City right-of-way. 292 fp F E H It & PEE ItS TRANSPORTATION CONSU LTANTS John Cherbone October 6, 2008 Page 3 of 5 To provide the least intrusive improvement, the first option was chosen for inclusion in the improvement plan. The pathway would be separated from the roadway by a six-inch asphalt berm and would connect to the existing dirt path and sidewalks west of River Ranch Circle; this design would provide pedestrians with a continuous walkway along the entire length of Herriman Avenue that was physically separated from the roadway. The proposed plan called for a five foot pathway along the south side of the roadway, two approximate 12-foot travel lanes, and two 5-foot bike lanes. A typical cross section of the Herriman Avenue Improvement Plan is shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Typical Cross Section of Herriman Avenue Improvement Plan To incorporate the improvements, on-street parking on the north side of Herriman Avenue had to be removed between Saratoga Vista Avenue and Saratoga Avenue. Most homes along Herriman Avenue do not front the roadway; therefore the removal of parking was not considered a major issue along most of the street. However, homes do front onto Herriman Avenue between Beaumont Avenue and Saratoga Avenue and the removal of parking impacted seven residences. These homes would be required to park vehicles in their garages and driveways or on adjacent side streets (such as Jerries Drive or Lannoy Court). To improve the pedestrian crossings at Lexington Court, the Herriman Improvement Plan included a pedestrian refuge area at the northeast corner of Lexington Court and installation of a raised crosswalk across the east leg of the intersection. Because no sidewalks exist on Lexington Court, the pedestrian refuge area would provide pedestrians with a protected waiting area to wait for a gap in vehicle traffic before crossing Herriman Avenue. The raised crosswalk would increase the visibility of pedestrians crossing Herriman Avenue and serve as a traffic calming measure, since vehicles will have to slow down to cross the raised crosswalk. Figure 2 shows the Lexington Court crosswalk improvement plan. 293 RECONSTRUCT CORNER WITH NEW WHEELCHAIR RAMP NEW 6" AC BERM F E H it & P EE itS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PROPOSED WALKWAY · John Cherbone October 6, 2008 Page 4 of 5 Figure 2: Proposed Crosswalk Improvements at Lexington Court FOLLOW-UP EVALUATION The pedestrian path and striping improvements along Herriman Avenue, was well as the pedestrian refuge area on the northeast corner of Lexington Court were implemented in the summer of 2007. The Herriman Avenue Improvement Plan also recommended the installation of a raised crosswalk at Lexington Court; however funding was not available at the time and this improvement was not installed as of September 2008. In August 2008, Fehr & Peers conducted a follow-up evaluation of Herriman Avenue to determine if the improvements met the goals of the plan or if any modifications should be made. Fehr & Peers conducted field observations in August 2008 before and after Saratoga High School’s bell schedule to capture peak utilization of the pathway. The field observations showed that pedestrians were using the path and informal conversations with several pedestrians and students revealed that the pedestrian path was well-received and considered to be a substantial improvement. A few pedestrians noted that they felt safer traveling in the path than having to walk in the bike lane as was the case before the plan was implemented. Most pedestrians traveling on Herriman Avenue were observed using the path; though a few pedestrians were observed walking in the bike lane on the north side of the roadway. Presumably, these pedestrians had destinations or origins in the neighborhood north of Herriman Avenue. Overall, the pedestrian pathway on the south side of Herriman Avenue was meeting its intended goal of providing a continuous pathway that separates pedestrians from vehicles. Fehr & Peers also conducted follow-up field observations of the Herriman Avenue/Lexington Court intersection. This review showed that 294 "\ --------------,./, '1 fp FE H R & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS PROPOSED "DO NOT BWC PROPOSED AC B RM 8' 5' '-PROPOSED RAISED CROSSWALK John Cherbone October 6, 2008 Page 5 of 5 pedestrians are using the bulbout at the north eastern corner of the Lexington Court intersection and the bulbout is meeting the goal of providing a safer refuge area for pedestrians before they cross Herriman Avenue. Because the recommended raised crosswalk has not been implemented, vehicles continue to block the crosswalk at Lexington Court and reduce the visibility of pedestrians. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The pedestrian pathway is meeting the goal of providing a continuous walkway that separates pedestrians from vehicles in the roadway and is a substantial improvement over the previous configuration. Thus, we recommend that the City either maintain the existing pathway or fill in the gap between the berm and curb with concrete or asphalt to create an actual raised sidewalk. The raised sidewalk would increase the visibility of pedestrians and will likely encourage pedestrians that walk in the bike lane of the north side of the roadway to use the sidewalk. Fehr & Peers also recommends that the City of Saratoga install the raised crosswalk across the east leg of the Lexington Court intersection. Though the bulbout at the northeast corner of the intersection improves the visibility of pedestrians to drivers and provides pedestrians with a refuge area, the raised crosswalk would further enhance the visibility of the crossing to drivers and would slow vehicles to a more reasonable speed closer to the posted limit. 295 11> FE H ~ & P EE~S TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ! ! ! "#$ % & "' ( MEMORANDUM Date: October 23, 2009 To: John Cherbone, Public Works Director, City of Saratoga From: Franziska Church/Sohrab Rashid Subject: Summary of Herriman Avenue Cross-Section Options, Saratoga, California 1025-446-1 Over the past year, Fehr & Peers has worked with the City staff and the Herriman Task Force to address bicycle and pedestrian safety, as well as parking concerns on Herriman Avenue. Based on a recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission in 2007, the City of Saratoga changed the roadway configuration on Herriman Avenue to include a pedestrian path on the south side of the roadway and bicycle lanes in each direction. The reconfiguration required removal of onstreet parking for the section of Herriman Avenue between Beaumont Avenue and Saratoga Avenue, which affected seven homes that directly front onto Herriman Avenue. The residents raised concerns over the loss of parking and loss of a physical buffer (i.e., the painted shoulder area) between their driveways and the vehicle travel lanes. Based on subsequent direction from the City Council, the Herriman Task Force was formed to try and develop alternate cross-sections for Herriman Avenue that would safely accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel in the corridor in addition to addressing the concerns raised by residents. This memorandum summarizes the four cross-section alternatives that the Task Force has decided to present to City Council for consideration at their November 4, 2009 meeting. CROSS-SECTION SUMMARY Figures of the four alternative cross-sections (referred to as Options 1 through 4) are attached to this memorandum and are summarized below. Per the direction of the task force and based on neighborhood input, all of these alternatives are designed to fit within the existing curb-to-curb width of the street and do not encroach into the existing properties. Option 1 – Existing Conditions Under Option 1, no changes would be made to the existing cross-section of Herriman Avenue and the pedestrian path and bicycle lanes would be maintained. On-street parking would continue to be prohibited between Beaumont Avenue and Saratoga Avenue. Under this option, the Task Force recommends that the pedestrian path that is currently separated from the vehicle travel lanes by an asphalt berm be permanently filled in to provide a standard raised sidewalk configuration. Option 2 – Modified Previous (No Pedestrian Path) This option would generally return the configuration on Herriman Avenue back to the way it was before the restriping project and the new pedestrian path except for minor modifications. The raised berm and pedestrian path would be eliminated, but the Task Force recommends that the cross-section include a standard bike lane on the south side of the roadway (approximately 5 feet in width and a shared 10-foot parking/bike lane on the north side of the roadway. In the shared 296 tp F E H It & P EE ItS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS John Cherbone October 23, 2009 Page 2 of 3 parking/bicycle lane, parking would be prohibited from 7 AM to 7 PM seven days a week. This would allow bicyclists to use the bike lane during daytime hours, when most bicyclists are on the road. Pedestrians would have no dedicated right-of-way under this option and would be required to walk in the bike lanes or on the existing informal off-street paths where they exist. Option 3 – Partial Parking Under Option 3, the Herriman Avenue cross-section would be modified from Option 1 (Existing) to include a shared parking/bike lane on the north side of the roadway from Lannoy Court to approximately 250 feet to the east (i.e., towards Jerries Drive). This would provide approximately seven parking spaces, though the parking spaces would not be located adjacent to those homes that front onto the north side of Herriman Avenue. As under Option 2, parking in the shared parking/bike lane would be prohibited between 7AM and 7PM seven days a week. Option 3 maintains continuous pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and the Task Force recommends that the pedestrian path be permanently configured to a raised sidewalk. Option 4 – Discontinuous Bike Lanes Option 4 is similar to Option 3 only that the bike lanes (both directions) east of Jerries Drive would be removed to allow for shared parking/bicycle lane on the north side of the roadway. Again, parking in the shared parking/bicycle lane would be prohibited between 7AM and 7PM to allow bicyclist to use the bike lanes in the daytime. Under Option 4, the eastbound bike lane on Herriman Avenue would terminate near Jerries Drive and would be discontinuous between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue. A three foot shoulder stripe would be provided in lieu of standard five foot bike lanes east of Jerries Drive. The pedestrian path would be maintained under this option with the recommendation that the path be filled in and converted to a sidewalk. CROSS-SECTION COMPARISON Table1 on the following page summarizes the advantages and disadvantages for each of the four options discussed above. SUMMARY Because Herriman Avenue is one of the few direct connections between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue and it provides direct access to Saratoga High School, Fehr & Peers continues to support Options 1 and 3. Both of these options maintain continuous and standard pedestrian and bicycle facilities and provide the safest non-automobile facilities of the four options under consideration. 297 11> FE H ~ & P EE~S TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS John Cherbone October 23, 2009 Page 3 of 3 EVALUATION OF HERRIMAN AVE CROSS-SECTION ALTERNATIVES (BEAUMONT AVENUE TO SARATOGA AVENUE) Alternative Advantage Disadvantage Option 1 (Existing Conditions) · Pedestrian pathway/sidewalk on south side roadway · Dedicated bike lanes on north and south side of roadway · Narrower travel lanes to slow traffic (compared to old design) · No parking on north side of Herriman Reduced visibility out of driveways on north side of Herriman (5 feet between curb and travel lane) · No protected pedestrian area on north side for residents Option 2 (Modified Previous) · Dedicated bike lane on south side of Herriman Ave · Shared bicycle/parking lane on north side of Herriman Ave · Parking permitted along north side of Herriman Ave from 7PM to 7AM · Added visibility at driveways on north side due to width between travel lane and curb (10 feet) · Narrower travel lanes to slow traffic (compared to old design) · No protected pedestrian area on either side of Herriman Ave · No dedicated dedicated westbound bike lane at night time · Parking prohibited along north side of Herriman Ave from 7AM to 7PM Option 3 (Partial Parking) · Pedestrian pathway/sidewalk on south side roadway · Dedicated bike lanes on south side of roadway · Shared bicycle/parking lane north side of Herriman Ave from Lannoy Ct to 250 feet east · Parking permitted along north side of Herriman Ave from Lannoy ct to 250 feet east (7PM to 7AM) · Added visibility between properties and travel lanes (10 feet) on north side of roadway where parking is permitted · Narrower travel lanes to slow traffic (compared to old design) · No parking on north side of Herriman except for 250 feet east of Lannoy Court (not adjacent to front-on housing) · No dedicated westbound bike lane at night time · Reduced visibility out of driveways on north side of Herriman from Saratoga Avenue to west of Jerries Dr (5 feet between curb and travel lane) · No protected pedestrian area on north side for residents Option 4 (Discontinuous Bike Lanes) · Pedestrian pathway/sidewalk on south side roadway · Dedicated bike lanes on south side of roadway · Shared bicycle/parking lane north side of Herriman Ave west of Jerries Dr · Parking permitted along north side of Herriman Ave (7PM to 7AM) · Added visibility between properties and travel lanes (7.5 to 10 feet) on north side of roadway · Narrower travel lanes to slow traffic (compared to old design) · No dedicated bike lanes east of Jerries Dr (not in conformance with the City’s General Plan) · No dedicated westbound bike lane at night time · Parking prohibited in daytime (7AM to 7PM) · No protected pedestrian area on north side for residents Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2009. 298 11> FE H ~ & P EE~S TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS HERRIMAN AVENUE CONCEPTUAL STRIPING PLAN CITY OF SARATOGA DRAFT OPTION -1 (EXISTING: CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES WITHOUT PARKING) 299 , C ~)' 0. 1 0/\ T/! I /---\ I I I « 5.D' CUh!& ry)' In' , ~ L-LLOLC . , 0 '/f-I I ('W ! _LL,-J ~ ~ 1 . ~~, , /,--:J T/~!. 1/'/, \/, I I /API/; ' , ~ 1 1 --, c ' !~ /TI-:J " I /'1' , \/~ v I V f ~C .IJ ' /j/i(; L, AI. \I'~~ 1///1 1~----------------------------~IA i DESCRIFTIOI; B,( ~ c'~Q FIX ~8;: ~JO. R EVI51 0 .. ~ S ~c' I /\ ~~~ __ ~~t_-----------------r_---r_---~ "*'o"lt:: LZw ----+------------------~---~- --~ c~of<-r=: wZ I ---::' c~~ CLn...C;:: Fchr &-Ptxrs, its t::l11ployees. ita officers or IJ801tH sMJJ not be responsihle mr the lICC1JI8cy or comp/dr::nt:SS of ckctronic copies of this piml sht:Ct /1 11> FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 16C \}./. SCJIl-::O C 'YO St Suite 075 Seil J:Jse, C.4. 95113 (405) 278--700 o \\'alnIJt ::-e8k, CA o l~n~P\fill~, C;l, o Son II'oncisco, CPo o Sail Jose, CA o Socrol--ellio, CA :J ~ir:lt laKe Citf \, I :J I-)pn\ffcr, (~O :J Reno, ~JV :JD-o'-':Je Cou-~y, CA :J Los Allgeles Co., CA In ul 0::: 0/LU -J nc;~iC lrri Ry: FH A lJ II A, L .~--" H=-RI211\/14 \1 L\\,\I,\I\ \ \ \ <:I U r « CC <-1 en \ \ \ Oro,," Oy:_-"F,-,:\,,-~\,"N ________ t----------------------------------------------------------I ::he.cked 13y: __F '-'~ _______ Da-::e: ALI;JLlst 14, 2eD7 ~rnlr: 1 "-4J' SHE::T OF 4 HERRIMAN AVENUE CONCEPTUAL STRIPING PLAN CITY OF SARATOGA DRAFT OPTION -2 (MODIFIED PREVIOUS: NO SEPARATE PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES) 300 FACE OF CURB 5.0' BIKE LANE 1 1 .7 ' DOUBLE YELLOW TRAVEL LANE r-~ l-L =l±'_ _-_ ) (' 4 ti = i 1 1 .7 ' TRAVEL LANE FACE OF CURB ® 1 .0' BIKE/PARKING LANE (NO PARKING 7AM to 7PM) :\. G 8 t t 8 ' _ ~x REVISIO\JS '-' ~x __ --c--,---------c-=-~=_cc----- -,___c__=c__;-c_____1 ~J, 8 ~W. DESCRIFTIO~ O/ITE BY "#.-§: I ~~"*' I \ ~ *~~+-------------r--~--___1 ~o"l-to L Z w __ -+-------------1------1--___1 c~f -(:): :<2r:: __-+-------------1------1--___1 wZ ~ ~::J ---+-------------1------1-----1 CLn...C;:: __ -+-------------r--~--___1 SECTION B N.T.S. Fchr &-Ptxrs, its t::l11ployees. ita officers or IJ801tH sMJJ not be responsihle mr the lICC1JI8cy or comp/dr::ncss of ckctronic copies of this piml sheet 11> FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 16C 'W. 30n-::a C,yo St Suite 675 Seil J:Jse, C.A. 95113 (408) 278-'700 o WalnlJt ~;~e8k, CA :J ~;r:lt I ake City l, I o 1~()~FVill~, C:A :J IJFnWcr, CO o Son Ironcisco, CPo :J Reno, NV o San Jose, CA :J D~a'-':Je Cou~~y, CA o Socroienio, CA :J Los Angeles Co., CA Ct:' o SEE 1)C:~iC 1C;ri Ry: FH B DETAIL~ HERRIMAN AVE. 40 c 40 80 1" -40' Drow" Oy:---'"'-"VlcccW'---_____ t-------------------------------------------I ::; h e eked lly:_"--F~'___ ___ _ Dace: jI,UgList 14, 2e07 ~calr: 1 "-4J' SHE::T 2 OF 4 HERRIMAN AVENUE CONCEPTUAL STRIPING PLAN CITY OF SARATOGA DRAFT OPTION -3 (CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES WITH SOME PARKING) 301 c ~ ~ FACE OF CURB FACE OF CURB * f ~ DOUBLE YELLOW § C C C h=l 1iIi-~ -~ V 5' V 5' /11.75' V 11.75' /7.5' //////PATH BIKE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE BIKE LANE LANE C,~ ____________________________________________ ~rc7 SEE SECTION 5' PATH SECTION C N.T.S. SEE SECTION D FACE OF CURB 5' BIKE LANE 11.75' DOUBLE YELLOW TRAVEL LANE 11.75' FACE OF CURB f ® 10' TRAVEL LANE BIKE/PARKING LANE (NO PARKING 7AM to 7PM) 1 Ol~------------------------------------------~JO SECTION 0 N.T.S. 5 ON-STREET PARKING SPACES lON-STREET PARKING SPACE --------PATH E E I I ~ R,~ I tv! fV~ AV to . (1:: o V) W Ct Cl:: LIJ ~ SEE SECTION E FACE OF CURB BIKE LANE 1 1 .7 ' DOUBLE YELLOW TRAVEL LANE 11 .7 ' TRAVEL LANE FACE OF CURB BIKE LANE EI~ ______________________________________ ~rEl SECTION E N.T.S. 'uJ :--> <:C <"( () C) \« 4~O= """':'"iiiiiiiiii. C... ==-iiiiiiiiii~4C..' ..' "="iiiiiiiii. .....G. G. I ] 1" ~ 40' 1~~ArHIC SCALe "" . ----------------------------------~~------------~------------- -----------------------------------~------------------------------------------P--------------------~--------------------------------------------------------------------~--------.. ry.~8 REVISIO\JS ,0 I ;:: __ -c-,----------cc=-~=c-----,__c__=___,____c_-_I 'CD " ~Wc DESCRIFTIO~ D!ITE BY WN~ __ ~~--~~==~~---~~_+-=~_I ~S·~ I \ r-. '" ~~~----------+_-_+--_I COI L Z w __ -~----------+_-_+--_I c~f -(:): :<2r:: __-~----------+_-_+--_I wZ ~ ~::J ---~----------+---+---I ~~~ ---~----------+---+---I Fchr &-Ptxrs, its t::l11pJoyees. ita officers or IJ801tH sMJJ not be responsihle mr the lICC1JI8cy or compJdr::ncss of cJectronic copies of this piml sheet 11> FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 16C 'W. 30n-::a C,yo St Suite 675 Seil J:Jse, C.A. 95113 (408) 278-0 700 o WalnlJt ~;~e8k, CA :J ~;r:lt I ake City l, I o 1~()~FVill~, C:A :J IJFnWcr, CO o Son Ironcisco, CPo :J Reno, NV o San Jose, CA :J D~a'-':Je Cou~~y, CA o Socroienio, CA :J Son to ~~o-ico, CA o Seattle, VIA :J Inlord EIl~pire, CA nc;~iC1c;rl Ry: FA. Oro,," Oy: RVlW & FA SHE::T 3 ::hecked lly:_F,-,C~ __ _ OF Dace: JLlv 2a c 2009 ~calr: 1 cC_ 4J' 4 HERRIMAN AVENUE CONCEPTUAL STRIPING PLAN CITY OF SARATOGA DRAFT OPTION -4 (DISCONTINUOUS BIKE LANES WITH PARKING ON NORTH SIDE OF HERRIMAN AVENUE) 302 o Cl ~ t /5' /PATH /FACE OF CURB f 5' BIKE LANE //D DOUBLE YELLOW 1.10. ~ 11.75' /TRAVEL LANE /FACE OF CURB a l1li :: f 11.75' v 7.5' /TRAVEL LANE /BIKE LANE /Ft~ __________________________________________ ~jFl SEE SECTION F 5' PATH SECTION F N.T.S. FACE OF CURB 5' 11.75' SEE SECTION G DOUBLE YELLOW 11.75' BIKE LANE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE FACE OF CURB ® 10' BIKE/PARKING LANE (NO PARKING 7AM to 7PM) Gi~ __________________________________________ ~iG7 SECTION G N.T.S. 6 ON-STREET PARKING SPACES --------2 ON-STREET PARKING SPACES PATH . cr: o Ul IJJ cr: (1:::: uJ ~ SEE SECTION H FACE OF CURB TRAVEL LANE WITH EDGE STRIPE 5 ON-STREET PARKING SPACES 1 ' TRAVEL LANE WITH EDGE STRIPE FACE OF CURB 7' BIKE/PARKING LANE (NO PARKING 7AM to 7PM) HT~ _________________________________ _______ ~TH7 SECTION H N.T.S. 40 G 40 80 CRAP-1IC SC~ Lc o:~8~ t--------------R-F-V-IS-IO-\-JS---------------~------------_P--------------------------------------------------~------------------------ ----------------~~------------------~~------------------------------------------------------------------r---------t ~J, § ~Ncc-8.---,-------cCc=EcccSC=R=IF=TlcccO~----,--ccD-cc.U=E---,----=BY-c-· ---I 8~~ ~~---~~~~----~~_r-=-~ -'2,,;: .~ I \ r: . . , Q.I .-.---'--I-----------t__-_r--~ '-ci I " ::z W ~_____j-----------+__--+--~ c~u~-2t: •_ __ _____j-----------+__--+--~ Wz ~o w ~-----j-----------+__-_r--~ _a:---.J ~~~ ~-----j-----------t__-_r--~ Fcbr,&.Peers, its employees. its ofIicers or IJjft1D.ts shJ!ll1lOt be responsiblt: fOr the accurtJcy or completeness of t:ltXtronic copies of this piJw sMet. FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS -6(' W. San-::a C me st. Sl'tc C. 75 Seil Jose, C.A 9j11 j (400)?7R 7r.O o Walnu t Creck, CA :J 5clt Lake City, L T o Roseville, C.A. 0 Jsnver, CO o Son Francisco, Cl'i. 0 ~e n o, \JV o :;(]n ,Insp., CA 0 :)~anGR C()IJ~ty, CA o S(Jr:r(]~Ip.nto , CA 0 ~;(lnt(] \1or,ic(]. CA o Seattle, 'NA 0 nland E~pire, CA Desig1ed By:_~FA,----___ _ SHE::T nrnl,'m Ry: F'\t1W & -::-A 4 C":recked []y:_C-'FC~ __ _ 8F LJce: Jll'i 28 . 2JO'J Sec Ie: 1·'~4::J' 4 C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A 1 37 77 F R U I TVAL E AVE NU E ∙ SAR A TOG A , CA 9 5 0 7 0 ∙ WWW. SAR A TOG A .C A.U S Incorporated October 22, 1956 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Jill Hunter Kathleen King Howard Miller Susie Nagpal Chuck Page October 23, 2009 Re: City Council meeting about Herriman Avenue Dear Home Owner: This letter is to invite you to the City Council meeting where the Council will make a decision about the restricted parking options on Herriman. The parking restriction was originally approved by the City Council in 2007 on the northern side of the street between Saratoga Vista and Saratoga Avenue in order to improve pedestrian safety. In 2008 the Council directed the City to meet with residents to explore options regarding parking on Herriman Avenue. The City held meetings with residents during 2009 and will present four options to the City Council: 1. Leave Herriman Avenue as it currently is 2. Return to 2007 conditions – remove existing pedestrian pathway, add bicycle lanes which will restrict parking 7 am – 7 pm. 3. Create a shared parking/bicycle lane on north side from Lannoy Ct for 250 ft. (creates 7 parking spaces, no parking 7 am – 7 pm) 4. Shoulder stripe instead of full bicycle lane east of Jerries. Creates shared parking/bicycle lane with no parking 7 am – 7 pm. Parking between Lannoy and Saratoga Ave. City Council Meeting about Herriman Avenue: Wednesday, November 4, 2009 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga The Agenda for the Council meeting will be available on the City’s website on October 30 th at www.saratoga.ca.us. Sincerely, Kristin Borel Kristin Borel Public Works Analyst 408‐868‐1258 kborel@saratoga.ca.us 303 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: CityManager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: Status of January 6, 2010 Council Meeting RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider cancelling the meeting of January 6, 2010. REPORT SUMMARY Staff recommends that the City Council cancel its January 6, 2010 meeting because typically the first meeting in January has a light agenda following the holiday furlough. A special meeting can be called to address any items of importance that may arise prior to the normally scheduled second meeting in January, which is January 20, 2010. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The scheduled meeting of January 6, 2010 will remain on the calendar. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: The City Clerk will implement Council’s direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: N/A 304