Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-17-1998 city Council packet
1: 3Z 7.41 7:W Public hearings will start promptly at 8 :00, when the Council will m from whatever item it is considering at that time to public hearings. Note: Devices to assist the hearing impaired are now available in the lobby. 7:30 Pledge of Allegiance 7 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS AGENDA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting 1:31 1. ROLL CALL 16 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1) Update b• it ans Representative 2) Mayoras Remarks about Saratoga's Future Revenue Growth y /f( 74) B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS None. A. Resolution appointing andereappointing Youth Commissioners /r 1: 33 B. Administration 4f Oath of Office to Youth Commissioners Altafi, Ho, Ito Siadat, WeOner, Barnum and Jo 1 51 C. Proclamation on Saratoga HomeTown Celebration July 3 f fib- -D 3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 12. i. 1' se City Council Agenda: C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR These items will be acted upon in one motion for each section unless they are removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilmembers or any interested party. However, items in Section A have already been considered by the Council at a previous meeting where the public was invited to comment, after which the hearing was closed. Those items are not subject to public discussion at- this meeting because the vote taken at the previous meeting was final: Resolutions concerning decisions made at previous meetings are for the purpose of memorializing the decision to assure the accuracy of the findings, the prior vote, and any conditions imposed. A. Previously Discussed Items None. B. New Items 1) Planning Commission Actions, 6/10 Note and file. 2) City Financial Reports for April and May to be submitted next week a) Treasurer's Report Receive and file. b) Investment Report Receive and file. c) Financial Report Receive and file. June 17, 1998 3) Approval of Check Register 4) Ordinance making City Clerk position Separate from the City Manager (second reading and adoption) 5) Memo Authorising Publicity for Upcoming Hearings Valet Parking 6) Approvals of Permits and Pee Waivers in 'Connection with Saratoga HomeTown Celebration on Friday, July 3, at Villa Montalvo 7) Final Map Approval (2 lots at 15001 Bohlman Rd.) (Owner, Miller) 8) Request for Fee Waiver for Saratoga Community Band City Council Agenda 3 June 17, 1998 C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY None. f3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:00 pm. A. Appeal of denial of request for Design Review approval to construct a new two story, single family residence, 4,043 sq. ft. in size, 25 ft. in height, on a 29,020 sq. °ft. lot at 14265 Burns Way in the R- 1- 15,000 Zoning District (APN 503 -23 -006; DR98 -007) (Appellant /applicant, Jayakumar) 7 orv- e ^9- 7 1 r -1 p A r C/1 i C "7 B. Appeal of Use Permit approval to install 3 cellular panel antennas on an existing PG &E transmission tower with an associated radio equipment shelter (approximately 160 sq. ft.) to be located directly beneath the tower. The site is located east of Quito Rd. and adjacent to Hwy. 85 within an R -1- 10,000 residential zoning district. An initial study and negative declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (APN 403 -24 -001; UP98 -005) (Appellant, Jensen; Applicant, Cellular One) ,S IAA rfr C. Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1: Public Hearing on Proposed Assessments for FY 98 -99 r C� 4-0 Jfr 3,0 5° 8. 9. 953 q.s4 10 City Council Agenda 4 June 17, 1998 4. A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Pees for Temporary Use Permits for Non-P ofit Groups //I 4501) (continued from 6/3) NEW BUSINESS None. 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS ROUTINE MATTERS (Note: City mill be excused at this point if no longer needed.) 3 A. Approval of Minutes -5/3: A. Agenda items for next adjourned regular meeting No meeting June 23. B. Other E CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 4 4 14/ v 7/7 /6, p ,A 7 /e e e f irtukt_. /0:25 o 05 ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Peter Gonda at 408/868-1221. 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] Printed on recycled paper. June 4, 1998 Rabbi Daniel J. Pressman Congregation Beth David 19700 Prospect Road Saratoga CA 95070 Dear Rabbi Pressman: Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, c6, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk cc: City Manager 7A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. Wolfe This letter is addressed to you as Chair of the Ministers' Association of Saratoga. The Saratoga City Council has been discussing temporary use permit fees for non profit agencies for some time. We are interested in your opinion on this issue, and we would be pleased if you could attend the June 17 City Council meeting at which it will be discussed. The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. You will be mailed an agenda on Friday, June 12. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: JQ1 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 3,1998 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT. Community Development AGENDA ITEM: 7,4 RECOMMENDED MOTION: PREPARED BY: James Walgen,)Community Development Director REPORT SUMMARY: SUBJECT: Consideration of Temporary Use Permit fees, and their applicability to non- profit organizations hosting fundraising events. Direct staff to either maintain the current Temporary Use Permit fees of $500 and $1,500 or reduce the fees per City Council direction. The Saratoga Zoning Ordinance requires that a Temporary Use Permit be issued for special events held within residential zoning districts. These events are generally fundraising activities such as the St. Andrew's Celtic Faire, the Eastfield Ming Quong sponsored Strawberry Festival and the Rotary Club sponsored art show the latter two events both held at West Valley College. The objective of this discretionary permit is to ensure that the proposed activity is appropriate for the particular site and compatible with the neighborhood it is to be located in. The permit is also subject to the County Environmental Health, Sheriff and Fire Departments' review. If the event will be held less than 10 consecutive days, or less than 10 days within a 30 day period, it can be acted on by the Community Development Director subject to a $500 processing fee. If the activity exceeds this duration, it is acted on by the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing and subject to a $1,500 processing fee. Saratoga's development review fee schedule has been calculated to recover the staff time /costs expended reviewing and issuing Planning, Building and Engineering Division permits. The TUP fees of $500 and $1,500 reflect the respective costs of processing the permits administratively and through the Planning Commission. For example, the San Jose Symphony Auxiliary's Showcase Home permit request required a publicly noticed hearing before the Planning Commission and considerable Planning and Code Enforcement staff involvement throughout the duration of the event. In short, the $1,500 fee has certainly been justified for this event from a cost recovery standpoint. At the March and April City Council meetings, the Council heard requests to waive the TUP fees for three separate events; St. Andrew's Celtic Faire, the SJSA Showcase Home, and the Farmers' Market held on Saturdays at the Saratoga High School. The Council denied these requests, but did ask staff to consider whether a fee distinction should be made between non -profit organizations and commercial events. Of the approximately six events the City issues TUP's for annually, only the Farmers' Market would be considered a commercial activity. Rather then create a separate fee schedule for non -profit versus commercial events, staff would recommend simply considering a fee reduction for all TUP's. Last October, the City Council approved a resident's request to lower the appeal fees of staff and Planning Commission actions. This was a deliberate decision to waive the City's cost recovery policy in this particular situation and to essentially subsidize the appeal process. Staff would suggest that non -profit fundraising activities are as unique to the development review and permit entitlement processes as are neighborhood appeals of development applications. In other words, it would not be inconsistent to also subsidize the TUP fees. If the fees were lowered to, say, $250 for administrative permits and $500 for Planning Commission permits, staff could correspondingly alter how we process these permits to reduce the costs to the City. For example, rather than having the Planning staff be responsible for obtaining the various agency approvals that are required to issue the permit, the applicants could be requested to provide these approval letters before the permit application was accepted. For hearing requests before the Planning Commission, applicants could also be required to do their own public noticing. FISCAL IMPACTS: Either the City will recover its full costs by maintaining the current TUP fees, or the fees will be reduced in acknowledgment of the unique nature of the typical TUP activity and the City would not recover the full costs of processing these permits. If the fees were reduced, staff would correspondingly implement measures to reduce the amount of staff involvement in processing the permits. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Each organization that has submitted a TUP application over the last twelve months, the Chamber of Commerce and the Good Government Group have been notified of the meeting and the availability of this report. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The City Council's direction to staff will be reflected in the fee schedule adopted as part of the 1998/99 Budget and would become effective July 1, 1998. ONANICE \CERTIFY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECKS #'S A75112- A75221 VOID CK #75061 1 GENERAL 100 COPS -SLESF 110 Traffic Safety 150 Streets Roads 160 Transit Dev 170 Hillside Repair 180 LLA Districts 250 Dev Services 260 Environmental 270 Housing &Comm 290 Recreation 292 Facility Ops 293 Quarry Creek 300 State Park 310 Park Devlpmnt 400 Library Debt 410 Civic Cntr COP 420 Leonard Rd 700 Quarry Creek 710 Heritage Prsvn 720 Cable TV 730 PD #2 740 PD #3 800 Deposit Agency 810 Deferred Comp 830 Payroll Agency 990 SPFA 08- Jun -98 $62,735.61 3,123.84 37,851.90 2,764.00 5,512.26 43,514.93 49,246.00 14,363.90 650.00 10,000.00 725.00 739.00 (2370.73) $7,360.85 $67,725.73 $0.00 $0.00 $3,123.84 $0.00 $37,851.90 $2,764.00 $5,512.26 $43,514.93 $49,246.00 $14,363.90 300.00 $950.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $725.00 $0.00 $739.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Subtotal $231,226.44 ($2,370.73) $7,660.85 $236,516.56 PAYROLL CHECKS: B23493 B23522 TOTAL 75,982.93 Prepared by: Date: O 9 Approved by: Date: Fund Amount Amount Void Manual Fund Name 6/5/98 Checks Checks Total ONANICE \CERTIFY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECKS #'S A75112- A75221 VOID CK #75061 1 GENERAL 100 COPS -SLESF 110 Traffic Safety 150 Streets Roads 160 Transit Dev 170 Hillside Repair 180 LLA Districts 250 Dev Services 260 Environmental 270 Housing &Comm 290 Recreation 292 Facility Ops 293 Quarry Creek 300 State Park 310 Park Devlpmnt 400 Library Debt 410 Civic Cntr COP 420 Leonard Rd 700 Quarry Creek 710 Heritage Prsvn 720 Cable TV 730 PD #2 740 PD #3 800 Deposit Agency 810 Deferred Comp 830 Payroll Agency 990 SPFA 08- Jun -98 $62,735.61 3,123.84 37,851.90 2,764.00 5,512.26 43,514.93 49,246.00 14,363.90 650.00 10,000.00 725.00 739.00 (2370.73) $7,360.85 $67,725.73 $0.00 $0.00 $3,123.84 $0.00 $37,851.90 $2,764.00 $5,512.26 $43,514.93 $49,246.00 $14,363.90 300.00 $950.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $725.00 $0.00 $739.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Subtotal $231,226.44 ($2,370.73) $7,660.85 $236,516.56 PAYROLL CHECKS: B23493 B23522 TOTAL 75,982.93 Prepared by: Date: O 9 Approved by: Date: PREPARED 06/04/1998, 7:49:55 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 1 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 06/05/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000003 A M MOTOR SUPPLY 73889 004304 18155 05/26/1998 001 1035 512.30-01 VEHICLE PARTS 9.69 0000006 A TO 2 NURSERY R6AM000201 004436 18198 06/03/1998 439345 004437 18198 06/03/1998 0000019 ALLIED LOCK KEY 0000034 AUTOMATIC RAIN 7018131 -00 004432 18251 06/03/1998 7018323 -00 004433 18251 06/03/1998 7018865 -00 004434 18251 06/03/1998 001- 3030-532.30 -01 REPLACE. LDSCP MATERIALS 001- 3030 532.30 -01 REPLACE. LDSCP MATERIALS VENDOR TOTAL 0001431 ADVERSIGNS 3300 004369 18629 05/29/1998 290 6005 564.30 -01 ENAMEL COATED BANNER 260.06 56197 004358 05/28/1998 001- 1060 513.40 -14 REPAIR /REPLACE LOCKS /KEYS 227.81 0000005 AMAI /SUCCESS BUILDERS 004366 05/28/1998 001 1045 513.40 -01 SEMINAR 7/29/98 VENDOR TOTAL 001- 3030-532.30 -01 LDSCP /IRRIG. MATERIALS 001- 3030 532.30 -01 LDSCP /IRRIG. MATERIALS 001 3030 532.30 -01 LDSCP /IRRIG. MATERIALS VENDOR TOTAL 9.69 VENDOR TOTAL 279.69 77.85 357.54 VENDOR TOTAL 260.06 VENDOR TOTAL 227.81 84.00 84.00 494.27 360.70 633.24 1,488.21 0000052 BOGOSIAN, STAN 6/98 004338 05/28/1998 001 1005 511.20 -01 EXPENSE ALLOWANCE -JUN '98 250.00 VENDOR TOTAL 250.00 0000054 BOISE CASCADE 766170 004456 06/03/1998 001 1050 513.30 -01 RE- SUPPLY INVENTORY OF 1,556.64' VENDOR TOTAL 1,556.64 0000954 BOYAN, PATRICE 004354 05/28/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 500.00 VENDOR TOTAL 500.00 0001433 BURGONIO, MELANIE 004343 05/28/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 500.00 PREPARED 06/04/1998, 7:49:55 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 2 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 06/05/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0001433 BURGONIO, MELANIE VENDOR TOTAL 500.00 0000704 BURNS, LORI 004314 05/26/1998 001 1045 513.40 -01 TRAINING EXPENSES 100.78 VENDOR TOTAL 100.78 0000682 CITY OF SARATOGA -PETTY CASH 6/1/98 004391 06/01/1998 001 1005 511.40 -04 REPLENISH PETTY CASH 12.36 6/1/98 004388 06/01/1998 290 6005 564.40 -51 REPLENISH PETTY CASH 12.46 6/1/98 004390 06/01/1998 290 6005 564.30 -01 REPLENISH PETTY CASH 36.33 6/1/98 004392 06/01/1998 290 6005 564.30 -01 REPLENISH PETTY CASH 20.02 6/1/98 004389 06/01/1998 290- 6010 564.30 -01 REPLENISH PETTY CASH 36.19 VENDOR TOTAL 117.36 0000091 COMMONWEALTH CREDIT UNION 6/4/98 004457 06/03/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 FOR PAYROLL DATED 6/4/98 CHECK 0: 75115 VENDOR TOTAL .00 0000106 CURRAN THEATRE GROUP SALE 8506 004401 18625 06/02/1998 290 6005 564.40 -51 46 TICKETS TO PHANTOM 1,961.00 VENDOR TOTAL 1,961.00 0000005 CVIETKOVICH, NICK 5/28/98 004414 06/03/1998 001 1005 511.40 -10 COUNCIL PACKET DELIVERY 25.00 VENDOR TOTAL 25.00 0000121 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 145813 004427 17968 06/03/1998 150- 3015 532.40 -15 TRAFFIC CONTROL MTC 1,334.80 0000122 DIABLO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 30414 -L 004450 06/03/1998 30315 004302 05/26/1998 30315 004303 05/26/1998 30442 004410 18253 06/03/1998 30414 004438 200006 06/03/1998 30414 -A' 004439 200006 06/03/1998 30414 -5 004440 200006 06/03/1998 30414 -C 004441 200006 06/03/1998 30414 -D 004442 200006 06/03/1998 30414 -E 004443 200006 06/03/1998 30414 -F 004444 200006 06/03/1998 150- 3025 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 180 3040 532.40 -14 IRRIGATION REPAIRS 180- 3040 532.40 -14 IRRIGATION REPAIRS 180 3040 532.40 -15 MAINTENANCE KERWIN 5/98 180- 3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 180- 3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 180 3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 180 3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 180- 3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 180- 3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 180- 3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE VENDOR TOTAL 1,334.80 285.00 151.00 137.00 240.00 35.00 75.00 150.00 75.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 3,993.00 3,993.00 PREPARED 06/04/1998, 7:49:55 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 3 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 06/05/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000122 DIABLO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 30414 -0 004445 200006 06/03/1998 30414 -H 004446 200006 06/03/1998 30414 -I 004447 200006 06/03/1998 30414 -J 004448 200006 06/03/1998 30414 -K 004449 200006 06/03/1998 0000126 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY D00135500101 004396 06/02/1998 290 6005 564.30 -01 CAMP SUPPLIES 726.52 0000612 DMS INC 54656L 004451 200004 06/03/1998 54646L 004452 200004 06/03/1998 54645L 004453 200004 06/03/1998 0001434 DORIAN, ANNA MAY 004344 0000005 2352 0001002 FEDEX 4529 -94437 4- 476 -92616 0000005 2263 0000005 3112 DROZDIAK, JIM 004384 FISHER, STEVE 004385 FISHLER, LOUISE 004374 180- 3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 180- 3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 180- 3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 180-3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 180- 3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 150- 3025 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 180- 3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 180- 3040 532.40 -15 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 05/28/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES VENDOR TOTAL 06/01/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 004337 05/28/1998 001- 1040 513.40 -21 AIRBILL OVERNIGHT MAIL 004387 06/01/1998 001 1040 513.40 -21 AIRBILL OVERNIGHT 3/20/98 VENDOR TOTAL 06/01/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 06/01/1998 290 6005 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 0000155 FITZPATRICK BARRICADE 1381 004365 05/28/1998 150- 3015 532.30 -01 TRAFFIC SUPPLIES 75.00 75.00 150.00 295.00 850.00 VENDOR TOTAL 2,743.00 VENDOR TOTAL 726.52 858.00 204.00 102.00 VENDOR TOTAL 1,164.00 VENDOR TOTAL 500.00 500.00 39.00 39.00 6.60 6.60 13.20 10.00 10.00 89.00 89.00 165.02 165.02 PREPARED 06/04/1998, 7:49:55 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 4 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 06/05/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000155 FITZPATRICK BARRICADE 0000162 G. N. RENN, INC. 237915 004454 17974 06/03/1998 0000164 250129 251419 251420 251421 251422 GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT 004301 17941 05/26/1998 004428 17941 06/03/1998 004429 17941 06/03/1998 004430 17941 06/03/1998 004431 17941 06/03/1998 001-1035-512.30-20 GASOLINE DIESEL PRODUCT 0000005 GRAGNOLA, LOIS 3733-28 004310 05/26/1998 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 001-3030-532.30-01 GARDENING SUPPLIES 001-3030-532.30-01 GARDENING SUPPLIES 001-3030-532.30-01 GARDENING SUPPLIES 001-3030-532.30-01 GARDENING SUPPLIES 001-3030-532.30-01 GARDENING SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL 0000005 GIRAND, LAURIE 2736 004404 06/03/1998 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS CANCELLED VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 840.46 840.46 46.74 113.62 63.94 64.27 55.43 344.00 59.00 59.00 28.00 28.00 0000613 GREEN VALLEY RECYCLING CO INC 4/20/98 004359 200015 05/28/1998 260-5015-552.40-10 STREET SWEEPING 4/98 6,031.12 VENDOR TOTAL 6,031.12 0000179 GTE WIRELESS CUSTOMER CARE 482-8631 004360 17937 05/28/1998 260-5015-552.40-20 CELL PHONE 71.57 VENDOR TOTAL 71.57 0001437 HAINES COMPANY 37386 004371 05/29/1998 001-1050-513.30-01 12 MONTH LEASE SERVICE 299.69 VENDOR TOTAL 299.69 0000005 HAWKER, ATHENA 2751 004312 05/26/1998 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 44.00 VENDOR TOTAL 44.00 0000953 HEERWAGEN, BELINDA 004350 05/28/1998 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 400.00 VENDOR TOTAL 400.00 PREPARED 06/04/1998, 7:49:55 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 5 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 06/05/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000953 HEERWAGEN, BELINDA 0000192 HOFFMAN, ERIC 004346 05/28/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 696.00 VENDOR TOTAL 696.00 0000194 HUDTLOFF, DIANA L. 004347 05/28/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 2,312.05 VENDOR TOTAL 2,312.05 0000198 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SVCS 15340 004423 17971 06/03/1998 001 3030 532.40 -14 IRRIGATION REPAIRS 98.06 15341 004424 17971 06/03/1998 001 3030 532.40 -14 IRRIGATION REPAIRS 94.70 VENDOR TOTAL 192.76 0000201 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 6/4/98 004460 00 /00 /0000 001 0000 210.20 -01 DEFERRED COMP P/R 6/4/98 4,219.11 VENDOR TOTAL 4,219.11 0000208 JACOBS, PAUL 6/98 004339 05/28/1998 001 1005 511.20 -01 EXPENSE ALLOWANCE -JUN '98 250.00 VENDOR TOTAL 250.00 0001264 JEFFERS, JAMES A. 5/18 5/29/98 004458 00 /00 /0000 250- 4010 542.40 -10 TREE INSPECTIONS 100.00 VENDOR TOTAL 100.00 0000005 JOCHIMS, DWIGHT 40678 004309 05/26/1998 292 0000 260.00 -00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 300.00 VENDOR TOTAL 300.00 0000005 JOHNSON, BARBARA 2104 004375 06/01/1998 290- 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND 84.00, VENDOR TOTAL 84.00 0001391 KOVACH, SONIA M. 5/16 -5/29 004403 06/03/1998 001 1040 513.40 -10 PROFESSIONAL SVCS /FINANCE 2,280.00. VENDOR TOTAL 2,280.00 0000233 KRUMMEL, MARIAN 1906 -28 004399 06/02/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 BALANCE ON CLASS 33.00 PREPARED 06/04/1998, PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000233 KRUMMEL, MARIAN 1906 -28 004402 0000005 L'HEUREUX, WAYNE E. 5/28/98 004412 06/03/1998 001 1005-511.40 -10 DESIGN CITY COUNCIL DIAS 300.00 0000005 LARRABEE CONSTRUCTION 66163 004398 06/02/1998 001 1040 413.05 -00 LICENCE FEE REFUND 45.00 0000241 LCC PENINSULA DIVISION 3/20/98 004413 06/03/1998 001- 1005 511.30 -30 ANNUAL DUES 0000005 LEE, ALICE 2603 004313 05/26/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 0001412 LET'S GET GROWING 16793 004373 18424 06/01/1998 290 6005 564.30 -01 CAMP SUPPLIES 0000772 LIEBERT, CASSIDY FRIERSON 5/12/98 004364 05/28/1998 0000005 2168 LIN, DAVID 004455 0000250 LOFT, JENNIE 004397 0000005 LUX, LOUISA 2539 004465 06/03/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 0000005 MAASS, SUE 7:49:55 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 6 AS OF: 06/05/1998 06/03/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 BALANCE ON CLASS VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 300.00 VENDOR TOTAL 45.00 VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 001 1045 513.40 -10 NEGOTIATION CONSULT. SVC VENDOR TOTAL 06/03/1998 290- 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 06/02/1998 001 1045 513.40 -01 REIMBURSE LUNCH EXPENSE VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 16.50 49.50 24.00 24.00 168.00 168.00 302.40 /24a_ 302.40 1,003.75 1,003.75 168.00 168.00 10.00 10.00 84.00 84.00 1 PREPARED 06/04/1998, PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO INVOICE NO 0000005 2592 VENDOR NAME VOUCHER NO 0000005 MAASS, SUE 3004 004376 0000957 MAGUIRE, BARBARA 004352 MALIGE, USHA 004377 P.O. CHECK /DUE NO DATE 06/01/1998 05/28/1998 06/01/1998 0000287 MCDOWELL ASSOCIATES, INC. 4/30/98 004408 18078 06/03/1998 5/31/98 004409 18078 06/03/1998 0000273 MEYER, GREG 004348 05/28/1998 0000274 MEYERS, 5/98 199805 -00147 199805 -00148 199805 -00149 199805 -00150 199805 -00194 199805 -00195 0000280 7:49:55 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 7 AS OF: 06/05/1998 NAVE, RIBACK 004422 004416 004417 004418 004419 004420 004421 SILVER 06/03/1998 06/03/1998 06/03/1998 06/03/1998 06/03/1998 06/03/1998 06/03/1998 0001436 MID PENINSULA HOUSING COALITION 5/9/98 004356 05/28/1998 0000005 MIRZADEGAN, AZITA 2958 004386 06/01/1998 MOORE BUICK 21059 004305 18171 05/26/1998 ACCOUNT NO ITEM DESCRIPTION 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 001- 0000 210.20 -01 001 1025 511.40 -11 001 1025 511.40 -12 001 1025 511.40 -12 001 1025 511.40 -12 001 1025 511.40 -12 001 1025 511.40 -12 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 250- 4020 542.40 -10 CITY PURVEYOR SVCS 4/98 250 4020 542.40 -10 CITY PURVEYOR SVCS 5/98 VENDOR TOTAL 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES VENDOR TOTAL CREDIT FOR PERS MAY '98 LEGAL SERVICES MAY '98 LITIGATION SVCS MAY '98 LITIGATION SVCS MAY '98 LITIGATION SVCS MAY '98 LITIGATION SVCS MAY '98 LITIGATION SVCS MAY '98 VENDOR TOTAL 270- 7015 572.40 -70 CDBG GRANT SA97 -57 VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL EXPENDITURE AMOUNT 62.00 62.00 500.00 500.00 98.00 98.00 3,437.50 1,595.00 5,032.50 60.00 60.00 222.50- 4,354.47 456.42 1,194.80 775.00 625.00 37.50 7,220.69 49,246.00 49,246.00 108.00 108.00 001 1035 512.40 -15 VEHICLE REPAIRS /MTC 15.20 VENDOR TOTAL 15.20 HAND- ISSUED PREPARED 06/04/1998, 7:49:55 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 8 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 06/05/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND—ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000280 MOORE BUICK 0000282 MORAN, GILLIAN 6/98 004340 05/28/1998 001-1005-511.20-01 EXPENSE ALLOWANCE—JUN '98 250.00 VENDOR TOTAL 250.00 0000292 NATIONAL PLAN COORDINATOR 5/21/98 004381 05/27/1998 001-0000-210.20-01 DEFERRED COMP P/R 5/21/98 CHECK 75112 2,293.49 5/16-5/29/98 004462 00/00/0000 001-0000-210.20-01 DEFERRED COMP P/R 6/4/98 2,294.61 VENDOR TOTAL 0000293 NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPLY 017002514584 004330 05/28/1998 001-3030-532.30-01 SANITARY/PAPER PRODUCTS 701.26 VENDOR TOTAL 701.26 0000729 OAKLAND MUSEUM OF CALIFORNIA 6/18/98 004393 18429 06/01/1998 290-6005-564.40-51 TOUR MUSEUM 6/18/98 (45) 180.00 VENDOR TOTAL 180.00 0000956 ONODERA, MIA 004355 05/28/1998 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 500.00 VENDOR TOTAL 500.00 0000005 OYANG, YENING 1865 004400 06/02/1998 290-6005-445.02-00 CLASS REFUND 84.00 VENDOR TOTAL 84.00 0000700 POTOMAC ASSOCIATION 6/18/98 004394 18428 06/01/1998 290-6005-564.40-51 HISTORY CRUISE 6/18/98-46 552.00 VENDOR TOTAL 552.00 0000593 PUB EMP RETIREMENT SYSTEM 472836 004336 05/28/1998 001-0000-210.20-01 LONG TERM CARE—H BRADLEY 11.08 VENDOR TOTAL 11.08 0000329 PUB. EMP. RETIREMENT SYSTEM 5-21-98 004334 05/28/1998 001-0000-210.20-01 HEALTH INS. PREMIUM 6/98 12,334.58 VENDOR TOTAL 12,334.58 0000330 PUBLIC EMPL RETIRE FUND 5-15-98 004335 05/28/1998 001-0000-210.20-01 PERS P/R ENDING 5/15/98 8,323.71 2,294.61 2,293.49 PREPARED 06/04/1998, 7:49:55 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 9 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 06/05/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000330 PUBLIC EMPL RETIRE FUND 6/4/98 004464 00/00/0000 001-0000-210.20-01 PERS P/R ENDING 5/29/98 8,267.18 VENDOR TOTAL 16,590.89 0000333 R.V. CLOUD COMPANY 165978 004435 17940 06/03/1998 001-3030-532.30-01 LDSCP/IRRIG. MATERIALS 382.75 VENDOR TOTAL 382.75 0001438 RATCLIFFE, CHRISTINA 0138964000 004370 05/29/1998 001-1045-513.40-01 REIMBURSE FOR SEMINAR 139.00 VENDOR TOTAL 139.00 0000005 RAY, HEIDI 42765/42041 004383 05/29/1998 292-0000-260.00-00 REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT/RENTAL CHECK 75114 VENDOR TOTAL .00 0000334 REED GRAHAM, INC. 367137 004362 18196 05/28/1998 150-3005-532.30-01 STREET REPAIR PRODUCTS 97.70 367253 004363 18196 05/28/1998 150-3005-532.30-01 STREET REPAIR PRODUCTS 48.06 VENDOR TOTAL 145.76 0001364 RICKER MACHINERY COMPANY 0007232-IN 004331 18448 05/28/1998 001-1055-613.60-04 MAGNUM CONCRETE SAW 2,207.21 VENDOR TOTAL 2,207.21 0001308 RUSSELL, JEFF 004349 05/28/1998 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 500.00 VENDOR TOTAL 500.00 0001435 SAFINE, BRIAN 004345 05/28/1998 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 250.00 VENDOR TOTAL 250.00 0000005 SAN JOSE MONTESSORI SCHOOL 1016 004306 05/26/1998 292-0000-260.00-00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 50.00 VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 0000356 SARATOGA TREE SERVICE 1166 004361 17942 05/28/1998 150-3005-532.40-15 TREE REMOVAL 135.00 VENDOR TOTAL 135.00 300.00 300.00 •Z. PREPARED 06/04/1998, 7:4955 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 10 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 06/05/1998 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000356 SARATOGA TREE SERVICE 0000358 SASO, VIRGINIA 004351 05/28/1998 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 264.00 VENDOR TOTAL 264.00 0000360 SCHARPF, PATRICIA 7 004405 06/03/1998 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 87.50 VENDOR TOTAL 87.50 0000005 SHAH, JYOTI 43129 004307 05/26/1998 292-0000-260.00-00 RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 300.00 VENDOR TOTAL 300.00 0000364 SHAHRAM TARANI 71000160 004372 06/01/1998 001-2005-521.40-20 GTE RE-IMBURSEMENT 88.65 VENDOR TOTAL 88.65 0000365 SHAW, JAMES 6/98 004341 05/28/1998 001-1005-511.20-01 EXPENSE ALLOWANCE-JUN '98 250.00 VENDOR TOTAL 250.00 0000005 SLOAN, JOANNA 2597 004378 06/01/1998 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 24.00 0000378 STAPLES, INC. 0705450001 004315 18139 05/26/1998 C453258001 004316 05/26/1998 9324 004317 05/26/1998 9673 004318 05/26/1998 C907203001 004319 05/26/1998 C906522001 004320 05/26/1998 9324 004321 05/26/1998 3899 004322 05/26/1998 0000382 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 6/4/98 004463 0000384 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC. 001-1050-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-1050-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-1050-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-1050-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-3035-532.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 250-4010-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 250-4010-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 290-6005-564.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL 24.00 93.66 57.62 81.66 11.37 85.61 114.64 20.27 36.75 VENDOR TOTAL 501.58 00/00/0000 001-0000-210.20-01 TAX DEPOSIT P/R 6/4/98 2,661.81 VENDOR TOTAL 2,661.81 PREPARED 06/04/1998, PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER NO NO 0000384 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC. 73342 004411 C80033 06/03/1998 170- 9010 622.40 -10 VILLA OAKS SLIDE REPAIR 0000798 THE LIPMAN COMPANY (TLC) 5782 004461 00 /00 /0000 001- 0000 210.20 -01 SECTION 125 ADMIN. FEES 0000398 TLC 5/28/98 004357 05/28/1998 001- 0000 210.20 -01 SEC 125 REIMBURSEMENT 0001432 202711 202712 202714 202710 202713 TRUEGREEN CHEMLAWN 004325 004326 004327 004328 004329 0000411 U SAVE ROCKERY 56912 004425 17938 06/03/1998 150- 3005 532.30 -01 STREET REPAIR PRODUCTS 143.97 56916 004426 17938 06/03/1998 150 3005 532.30 -01 STREET REPAIR PRODUCTS 56.29 0001415 U.S. BANK 7/2/98 004367 SA9481810001 004368 0000591 US GAMES U822840 004332 U822840 004333 7:49:55 0001393 VENNEMEYER, LISA 004353 P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT NO DATE NO 7 46 05/28/1998 05/28/1998 05/28/1998 05/28/1998 05/28/1998 05/28/1998 05/28/1998 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF: 06/05/1998 VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 001 3030 532.40 -15 FERTILIZE WEED CONTROL 001 3030 532.40 -15 FERTILIZE WEED CONTROL 001 3030 532.40 -15 FERTILIZE WEED CONTROL 001 3030 532.40 -15 FERTILIZE WEED CONTROL 001 3030 532.40 -15 FERTILIZE WEED CONTROL 400 8015-723.70 -02 DEPT SERVICE PAYMENT 730- 8005- 723.70 -02 INTEREST 0000414 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA 5/16/98 004382 05/27/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 LONG TERM DIS INS 5/98 VENDOR TOTAL 37,851.90 37,851.90 175.00 175.00 187.99 187.99 712.00 541.00 90.00 614.00 161.00 VENDOR TOTAL 2,118.00 VENDOR TOTAL 200.26 10,000.00 725.00 VENDOR TOTAL 10,725.00 05/28/1998 290 6005 564.30 -01 GAME EQUIPMENT 297.63 05/28/1998 290- 6010 564.30 -01 GAME EQUIPMENT 110.49 VENDOR TOTAL 408.12 05/28/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEES 375.00 VENDOR TOTAL 375.00 EXPENDITURE v 1/ HAND- ISSUED AMOUNT CHECK 75113 1,074.36 .00' 1,074.36 PREPARED 06/04/1998, PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA 7:49:55 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 12 AS OF: 06/05/1998 VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0001393 VENNEMEYER, LISA 0000002 VINI JOY, UNI- STRUCT ENGINEERING 42407 004323 05/26/1998 800 0000 260.10 -00 TREE BOND REFUND 739.00 VENDOR TOTAL 739.00 0000002 VINI JOY, UNI- STRUCT ENGINEERING 42407 004324 05/26/1998 250- 4010 444.02 -00 ARBORIST DEPOSIT REFUND 244.85 VENDOR TOTAL 244.85 0000005 VISWANATHAN, INDIRA 3294 004459 00 /00 /0000 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS CANCELLED 39.00 VENDOR TOTAL 39.00 0000005 WALKER, CYNTHIA 1139 004379 06/01/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 24.00 VENDOR TOTAL 24.00 0000712 WE CONCEIVE TOURS 6/3/98 004466 18553 06/03/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -51 LUNCH /GUIDE POTOMAC 6/18 1,080.00 VENDOR TOTAL 1,080.00 0000426 WEST COAST BLDG, SERVICE 21703 004395 17991 06/02/1998 001 1060 513.40 -15 JANITORIAL SERVICE 495.00 VENDOR TOTAL 495.00 0000428 WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY 21209298 004406 06/03/1998 001 1030 511.30 -31 STATE CODES 97.97 VENDOR TOTAL 97.97 0000429 WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRCIT MS0636 004407 06/03/1998 260 5015 552.40 -70 NON -POINT SOURCE PROGRAM 37,412.24 VENDOR TOTAL 37,412.24 0000005 WILLINGHAM, SARA 3143 004380 06/01/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 31.00 VENDOR TOTAL 31.00 0000438 WOLFE, DONALD 6/98 004342 05/28/1998 001 1005 511.20 -01 EXPENSE ALLOWANCE -JUN '98 250.00 VENDOR TOTAL 250.00 �ci PREPARED 06/04/1998, PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000438 WOLFE, DONALD 0000005 WU, DACHYWAN 7:49:55 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 13 AS OF: 06/05/1998 2653 004311 05/26/1998 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL TOTAL EXPENDITURES GRAND TOTAL 15.00 15.00 231,226.44 7,660.85 238,887.29 PREPARED 6/01/98, 134501 VOID CHECKS PROGRAM GMVOIDB REGISTER ONLY Y REVERSE CHECK: Y REINSTATE GROUP: N ORIG ORIG ORIG ORIG ORIG ORIG VOID VOID VOID VOID REISS GROUP AP YEAR AP MONTH TRANS AMOUNT CHECK GROUP AP YEAR AP MONTH TRANS 8 GROUP 1341 1998 11 12500 2,370.73 75061 100 PAGE 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOINTING AND REAPPOINTING MEMBERS OF THE YOUTH COMMISSION WHEREAS, the terms of the Youth Commissioners for 1997 -98 have now expired, and, the City Council having conducted interviews, it is now appropriate to appoint Commissioners to serve for 1998 -99. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE following appointments are made for 1998 -99. Tannaz Altafi Fontaine Ho David Mount Kayvon Siadat Mark Weiner Valerie Farnum Laura Johnson 2 The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 17th day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Mayor CONCERNING SARATOGA HOMETOWN CELEBRATION JULY 3RD WHEREAS, the Saratoga HomeTown Celebration was first inspired by Mayor Paul Jacobs at a Saratoga Business Development Council meeting in 1996, shortly after which a committee was formed, and WHEREAS, three very successful Saratoga HomeTown Celebrations in July have been organized by many volunteers from local clubs, organizations, schools, and churches, who worked to make this a very special event, and WHEREAS, Villa Montalvo has again graciously donated their beautiful facilities for our community's use to celebrate in our own way the Declaration of Independence, and WHEREAS, this event would not be possible without the generous donations of our sponsors: Century 21 Contempo Realty, Comerica Bank, Green Valley Disposal, Bank of America, Hammer and Jacobs, Pacific Gas and Electric, Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, Saratoga National Bank, Saratoga News, and The Village Square. NOW, THEREFORE, I, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, hereby give the City's grateful thanks to all of our sponsors and the many volunteers for Saratoga HomeTown Celebration, with special appreciation to the Lions Club, which is chairing this celebration. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 1st day of July, 1998. Mayor CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Chair Pierce, Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Martlage Patrick present. Commissioner Murakami absent. Director Walgren staff planner Ratcliffe present. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes May 13 and May 27, 1998 Oral Communications (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes.) Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 5, 1998. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -97 -002 (APN 397 -28 -047, 048 397 -29 -004) BLACKWELL/HASSLER, 14000 Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide a 2.6 -acre parcel into five individual lots ranging in size from 13,500 to 34,000 sq. ft. each. The project site abuts the Saratoga Creek to the south and is heavily wooded. There is an existing home, a cottage and several accessory structures on the site. The property is located within an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. An environmental Initial Study has been prepared for this project and is available for review at the City of Saratoga in the Planning Division offices at the above address. (CONTINUED TO 6/24/98 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT IN RESPONSE TO NEIGHBORS' REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO REVIEW PROPOSAL). CONTINUANCE APPROVED 5 -0. 2. DR -98 -001 (APN 386 -06 -040) CHEN, 12491 Woodside Drive; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,098 sq. ft. single story addition to an existing 2,397 sq. ft. house on an 11,900 sq. ft. lot in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. Proposal will change building height from 14 feet, 6 inches to 15 feet. (CONTINUED FROM 5/27/98). APPROVED 5 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DR -98 -008 (APN 389 -16 -003) SALAH, 13033 Montrose Street; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,985 sq. ft. two -story single family residence, 24 feet, 8 inches in height, on a vacant Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 June 10, 1998 14,330 sq. ft. parcel in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. A foundation from a destroyed home currently exists on the site. APPROVED 5 -0 WITH CHANGES. 4. DR -98 -013 (APN 517 -20 -033) LUNDSTROM, 14780 Montalvo Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,871 sq. ft., single story residence, 22 feet in height, on a 20,299 sq. ft. parcel in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. APPROVED 4 -1 WITH CHANGES (PIERCE OPPOSED TO CHANGES). 5. DR -98 -012 (APN 510 -05 -030) JUNGE and NIX, 19600 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a two story addition totaling 1,994 sq. ft. to an existing single story residence of 3,253 sq. ft. on a 1.1 acre lot in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. APPROVED 5 -0. 6. DR -98 -006 (397 -08 -070) DOLES, 15280 El Camino Grande; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing single story residence, guest house and detached garage totaling 6,736 sq. ft. and construct a new single story residence and guest house totaling 6,381 sq. ft. on an existing 3.5 acre parcel located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. APPROVED 5 -0. 7. DR -98 -011 (386 -52 -018) HO, 20283 Seagull Way; Request for Design Review approval to add 409 sq. ft. to the first story of an existing 1,596 sq. ft. single story residence and add a new 1,050 sq. ft. second story for a total square footage of 3,055 sq. ft. The site is approximately 9,375 sq. ft. located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. APPROVED 5 -0. 8. DR -98 -015 (APN 503 -27 -066) CLARK, 14241 Springer Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing single story residence and accessory structures totaling 1,633 sq. ft., and construct a new two -story, single family residence totaling 2,707 sq. ft., 22 ft. in height, on a 7,467 sq. ft. lot in the R- 1- 10,000 Zoning District. APPROVED 5 -0. DIRECTOR ITEMS 1. DR -97 -065 KRIENS, 18974 Monte Vista Drive; Notice of administrative approval of plan revisions. 2. DR -95 -011 CORNELL, 13626 Deer Trail Court; Request to modify approved plans Commission directed staff to require formal Site Modification application for proposed changes. 3. Presentation of ceremonial gavel to Patrick in recognition of her past service as Planning Commission Chair. 4. Update on various code enforcement matters. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated May 20 and May 26, 1998 2. Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of June 24, 1998 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, June 24,.1998, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA DEC -12 -97 FRl 15 :59 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK &SILV. FAX NO. 51u r.uo /u.) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY CLERK POSITION, SEPARATE FROM THAT OF CITY MANAGER The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: Section d: Section 2.20 -030 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2- 20.030 Manager to appoint City Clerk. The City Manager shall appoint the City Clerk, whose duty it shall be to perform the statutory functions of the office of City Clerk The City Clerk may, with the consent of the City Manager, designate deputies to perform the statutory functions of the City Clerk in the absence of the City Clerk Section 2: Section 2- 20.050(b) of the Saratoga City Code is hereby repealed. Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adoptcd at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1997, by the following vote. City Clerk December 12. 1997 ORDINANCE NO. 71- Mayor se) (i) Printed on recycled paper. June 11, 1998 ©2 0 S g(sp 1' o� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. Wolfe To: City Council From: Deputy City Clerk Subject: Publicity for Upcoming Hearings Valet Parking A hearing has been scheduled on the above item for Wednesday, July 1. Staff requests direction as to any publicity in addition to that legally required which the Council wishes to have prepared. In accordance with Council policy, most ordinances will be introduced at noticed public hearings, including ordinances for which State law does not require a public hearing. Notices of appeals are published in the Saratoga News and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. A. Valet Parking As directed by Council, notice has been sent to individuals living on Oak Street from Highway 9 to Sixth Street, including Oak Street School, and residents of nearby streets, for a total of 60 notices. Grace E. Cory SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM `S73 MEETING DATE: June 17, 1998 ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: Review of Permits to Saratoga Home Town Celebration RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): 1. Approve a Permit in conjunction with a Noise Exception Permit to allow Saratoga Home Town Celebration to be held at Villa Montalvo on July 3, 1998. 2. Approve fee waivers associated with City co- sponsorship of the event. REPORT SUMMARY: According to City Code Section 4.10.010 (Circuses and carnivals), a Permit is required for, "...any fair, amusement park, circus, carnival or other similar recreational enterprise or establishment at any place in the City without first securing a permit from the Community Services Director." Since the City does not have a Community Services Director, the City Manager deferred to the City Council for approval of permit issuance for the Saratoga Home Town Celebration scheduled for July 3, 1998 from Noon to 5 p.m. at Villa Montalvo. Since the City is co- sponsoring this event, staff recommends that Council also approve fee waivers for processing the permit ($100) and for the Blaney Plaza Banner display ($150). In addition, the City will provide insurance for the event through the City's carrier, ABAG Plan Corp. Further, City Maintenance Staff will place directional signs for the event as in prior years. The City Attorney has reviewed the Permit, in particular the Noise Exception Permit portion, and is satisfied with its contents. A copy of the Permit has been sent to the Saratoga Lions Club, the primary sponsor of the Home Town Celebration. As stated in the Permit, the Permit shall only be valid upon approval by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACTS: $250 in fees will not be collected. CITY MANAGER: ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The required permits for the Saratoga Home Town Celebration would not be issued. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The Permit will be issued by the City Manager's Office and Public Safety agencies will be notified of the event. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Copy of Permit for Home Town Celebration. 2. Letters from Saratoga Lions Club. 3. Copy of City Code Section 4- 10.010. 4. Copies of Insurance Certificates. on recvcleo eaoer June 10, 1998 Bob Holmes Saratoga Lions Club 18975 Monte Vista Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Holmes: At tachment 1- oaucf 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070_1-(40S) S6S -1200 Thank you for your letter to James Walgren, Community Development Director, dated May 17 regarding the Saratoga Lions Club's primary sponsorship of the Saratoga Home Town Celebration on July 3 from Noon to 5 p.m. at Villa Montalvo and requesting a Noise Exception Permit from the City. Per our conversation on June 4, you also mentioned that the Lion's Club has secured two reserve officers for this event, over 2,000 anticipated participants will be in attendance, no road closures will be necessary. and no fireworks will be displayed. There will be food, beverages, entertainment, and theater at this event. Upon authorization from the City Council on June 17, 1998, pursuant to City Code Section 4.10.010 this letter shall serve as a Permit to allow the Saratoga Home Town Celebration event at Villa Montalvo and also serve as the Noise Exception Permit for the event. Since the City is a co- sponsor of this event, the $100 fee for permit processing is hereby waived. In addition, the City currently has the Home Town Celebration Banner scheduled for display in Blaney Plaza from June 22 through July 6. Since the City is a co- sponsor of this event, the $150 fee for banner space is also waived. Also, insurance for the event will be provided through the City's carrier, ABAG Plan Corp. Mr. Walgren has granted the Saratoga Home Town Celebration a Noise Exception Permit in conjunction with this Permit with provisions (similar to the 1996 Noise Exception Permit issued to Home Town Celebration) that the amplified sound shall not exceed 85 dBa, the event shall take place between Noon and 5 p.m. on July 3, 1998, and the noise generated from the event shall be controlled so sound will not be unreasonably loud or disturbing to the surrounding residential neighborhood. If necessary, the volume of sound shall be adjusted to comply with this condition. Further, this Permit is granted with the provision that signage for this event is in compliance with City Codes. Please submit any signage design and location to me for consideration prioi to the event. In addition, directional signs shall be placed by the City as in prior years. This Permit shall be valid only upon approval by the City Council at the June 17, 1998 Council meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (408) 868 -1218. Good luck with this year's event! cc: Larry I. Perlin City Manager, James Walgren Community Development Director, Mike Riback City Attorney, Director of Public Works COI'NCIL MEMBERS: Stagy B. Qos!a•- °aL; Jacoo.s 3 A4ora Jc^ Snag Donal, Wolfe May 17, 1998 James Walgren Community Development City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear James, The Saratoga Lions Club will again cosponsor the Saratoga Home Town Celebration on July 3, 1998, at Villa Montalvo. The scheduled public hours are from 12:00 Noon to 5:00 PM. As with last year's event, 1 am writing to request a Noise Exception Permit for the Montalvo event. Please send a copy to me at 18975 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga, 95070. I can be reached at 354 -5574, or you can reach Marlene Duffin at 867 -1410. Regards, Bob Holmes Saratoga Lions Club CC: Marlene Duffin, Chair Attachment 2- May 17, 1998 Gary Enriquez Dir, Saratoga Corporation Yard City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Gary, The Saratoga Lions Club will again cosponsor the Saratoga Home Town Celebration, to be held on July 3' at Villa Montalvo. The scheduled public hours are from 12:00 Noon to 5:00 PM. I am writing to request sign posting permission for the Montalvo event. Please call Marlene Duffin at 861410 if you have questions. Regards, Bob Holmes Saratoga Lions Club CC: Marlene Duffin, Chair accordance with the provisions of Chapter 15 of this Code the annual license fee shall be one hundred dollars. (Ord. 71 -132 2 (part), 1994) 4- 06.080 Motion pictures; photography. (a) For every person, company or business engaged in the making of motion pictures on location within the City the license fee shall be as follows: in commercial areas or on public property, five hundred dollars per day, nonproratable; in all other areas of the City, two hundred fifty dollars per day, nonproratable. (b) For every person or business engaged in taking still photographs for advertisements the license fee shall be twenty-five dollars per day, nonproratable; where the location is on City property, the fee shall be fifty dollars per day, nonproratable. (c) Fees paid shall be exclusive of payment to City for special public services required to protect the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 71 -132 2 (part), 1994) 4- 06.090 Property leasing. For every person engaged in the business of leasing property located in the various commercial and industrial zoned districts in the City the annual license fee shall be one hundred dollars, plus three dollars per one thousand square feet, or fraction thereof, of gross leasable floor space either leased or available for lease in excess of five thousand square feet to a maximum of seventy-two thou- sand square feet. (Ord. 71 -132 2 (part), 1994) 4- 06.100 Seasonal businesses. For every person engaged in a business which is seasonal in nature, such as Christmas tree sales, Christmas or Easter photography or other such goods, services or wares offered seasonally, the annual license fee shall be one hundred dollars. (Ord. 71 -132 2 (part), 1994) 4- 06.110 Security alarms. For every person engaged in the business of installing, selling, leasing, renting, maintaining, servicing or respond- ing to a burglary, robbery or fire alarm system, the annual license fee shall be one hundred dollars plus five dollars for each address serviced in the City to a maximum of forty addresses. (Ord. 71 -132 2 (part), 1994) 4- 06.120 Vending machines. For every person engaged in the business of conducting, managing or operating any machine or device for the vending of merchandise or services, the annual license fee shall be twenty-five dollars if the cost of the vended item(s) is twenty-five cents or less; forty -five dollars if the cost of the vended item(s) ranges between twenty-five 44-3 At tachment 3— 4- 10.010 cents and one dollar, fifty-five dollars if the cost of the vended item(s) ranges between twenty-five cents and two dollars, sixty -five dollars if the cost of the vended item(s) ranges between twenty-five cents and three dollars, and seventy-five dollars if the cost of the vended item(s) ranges between twenty -five cents and more than three dollars. (Ord. 71 -132 2 (part), 1994) 4- 06.130 Residential rental units. Every person engaged in the business of leasing residen- tial property located in the City shall pay an annual license fee of one hundred dollars, plus five dollars per unit for each unit over four in number to a maximum of forty units. (Ord. 71 -132 2 (part), 1994) 4- 06.140 General businesses. For every person conducting any business not otherwise classified or taxed under the provisions of this Article, the annual license fee shall be one hundred dollars plus ten dollars per employee to a maximum of twenty employ- ees. For the purposes of this Section, contract employees and agents of the business shall be deemed to be employ- ees, not separate businesses. (Ord. 71 -132 2 (part), 1994) Sections: 4- 10.010 4- 10.020 4- 10.030 Article 4 -10 AMUSEMENTS Circuses and carnivals. Card games. Pinball machines and electronic games. 4- 10.010 Circuses and carnivals. (a) Permit required. No person shall locate, construct or operate any fair, amusement park, circus, carnival or other similar recreational enterprise or establishment at any place in the City without first securing a permit from the Community Services Director. If the event or activity to be conducted is temporary in nature and involves the complete or partial closure of any public road, a special event permit shall also be obtained pursuant to Article 10-10 in Chapter 10 of this Code. (b) Application for permit. Written application for permits under this Section shall be filed with the Com- munity Services Director and signed by the applicant. If the applicant is a corporation or association, such application shall be signed by the officer or manager who is to be in actual charge of the establishment. The applica- tion shall contain the following information: (Saratoga 5-95) f 4- 10.010 (1) The name and permanent address of the applicant. (2) The location or proposed location of the enterprise or establishment. (3) Whether the establishment will be of a permanent or temporary nature; if temporary, the estimated length of time the establishment will be in continuous operation. (4) The character and plan of operation of such estab- lishment or enterprise, including full information with respect to the proposed method of handling all traffic, including automobile traffic, which may seek ingress to or egress from the premises. (5) The proposed sanitary facilities to be used, in- cluding toilet facilities, and the proposed method of sewage and refuse disposal. (6) The proposed system to be used for the supply and consumption of water at such establishment or enter- prise. (7) The procedure to be followed in the handling and preparation of all food at such establishment. (8) Such other information as the Community Services Director may request. (c) Application fee. A fee in such amount as estab- lished from time to time by resolution of the City Council shall be charged to the applicant at the time of filing the application for a permit under this Section. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COVERAGE AGREEMENTS LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE PROVIDEE NAMED ABOVE FOR THE PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDIN G ANY REQU7 TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POI DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH AGREEMENTS. CO LTR TYPE OF COVERAGE POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE POLICY EXPIRATION DATE LIABILITY LIMIT IN THOUSA EACH OCCURRENCE AGGRE GENERAL LIABILITY ABAG PLAN 98/99 07/01/98 06/30/99 BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE X COMPREHENSIVE FORM PRODUCT/ COMPLETED OPERATIONS X PREMISES OPERATIONS V X UND EXPLOSION COLLAPSE HAZ X CONTRACTUAL BI PD $5,000 COMBINED PERSONAL INJURY $5,000 X INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE PERSONAL INJURY X PUBLIC OFFICIALS ERRORS OMISSIONS I 1 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INCLUDED IN ABOVE BODILY INJURY PER PERSON ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTO (PRIVATE PASSENGER) DODD%INIDRY PER ACCIDENT RENTAL LEASE AUTO PROPERTY DAMAGE NON- OWNED AUTOS ALL OWNED AUTO (OTHER THAN PRIV PASS.) BI PD COMBINED $5,000 GARAGE LIABILITY EXCESS LIABILITY BI PD COMBINED UMBRELLA FORM OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM DESCRIPTION: County of Santa Clara is hereby named as additional insured under this policy with respect to all operations of the insured pursuant to the attached endorsement. .cTIFICATE OF CO" :RAGE AOVIDER: COVERAGE ABAG PLAN Corporation P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604 -2050 (510) 464 -7969 Attachment 4- THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NI RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND. EXTI ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. PROVIDEE: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ISSUE DATE (MM/DD/Y May 27, 1998 CERTIFICATE HOLDER County of Santa Clara c/o County Parks Department 298 Garden Hills Los Gatos, CA 95030 CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED AGREEMENTS BE CANCELED BEFORE THI EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF THE PROVIDE WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS W Rr NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAI SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON TE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. aila,,+ -r. awbsion ALBERT T. FIERRO, VICE PRESIDENT, ABAG PLAN CORPORATI( Administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COVERAGE AGREEMENTS LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE PROVIDEE NAMED ABOVE FOR THE PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH AGREEMENTS CO LTR TYPE OF COVERAGE POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE POLICY EXPIRATION DATE LIABILITY LIMIT IN THOUSANDS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE GENERAL LIABILITY ABAG PLAN 98/99 07/01/98 06/30/99 BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE X COMPREHENSIVE FORM X PRODUCT/ COMPLETED OPERATIONS X PREMISES OPERATIONS X UNDERGROUND EXPLOSION 8 COLLAPSE HAZARD X CONTRACTUAL BI PD $5,000 COMBINED PERSONAL INJURY $5,000 X INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS X BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE X PERSONAL INJURY X PUBLIC OFFICIALS ERRORS OMISSIONS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO INCLUDED IN ABOVE BODILY INJURY PER PERSON X X ALL OWNED AUTO (PRIVATE PASSENGER) BODILY INJURY PER ACCIDENT X RENTAL LEASE AUTO PROPERTY DAMAGE X NON- OWNED AUTOS X ALL OWNED AUTO (OTHER THAN PRIV PASS.) BI PD COMBINED $5,000 GARAGE LIABILITY EXCESS LIABILITY BI PD COMBINED UMBRELLA FORM OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM DESCRIPTION: West Valley Community College District is hereby named as additional insured under this policy with respect to all the insured pursuant to the attached endorsement. operations of ti r p;ERTIFICATE OF COI ',RAGE /PROVIDER: COVERAGE CERTIFICATE HOLDER ABAG PLAN Corporation P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604 -2050 (510) 464 -7969 PROVIDEE: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 CANCELLATION Administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments ISSUE DATE (MM/DD/YY) May 27, 1998 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND. EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW West Valley Community College District 14000 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED AGREEMENTS BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF THE PROVIDE WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. ALBERT T. FIERRO, VICE PRESIDENT, ABAG PLAN CORPORATION SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM S J MEETING DATE: JUNE 17,1998 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: Final Map Approval (2 lots at 15001 Bohlman Road), Owner: Miller. Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to adopt Resolution No. SD 95 -006 granting final map approval of Tentative Map Application No. SD 95 -006 for two lots at 15001 Bohlman Road. Report Summary: Attached is Resolution No. SD 95 -006 which, if adopted, will grant final map approval for two lots located at 15001 Bohlman Road. I have examined the final map and related documents submitted to me in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.40.020 of the Municipal Code and have determined that: 1. The final map substantially complies with the approved tentative map. 2. All conditions of the approved tentative map, as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 95- 006, have been completed or will be completed concurrent with development of the two lots. 3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all other applicable provisions of law have been complied with. 4. The final map is technically correct. Consequently, I have executed the City Engineer's certificate on the final map and have filed the final map with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 14.40.040 of the Municipal Code for action by the City Council. Fiscal Impacts: The subdivider has paid $3487.50 in Engineering Fees required for this subdivision. Follow Up Actions: The signed map will be released to the subdivider's Title Company for recordation along with recording instructions. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The final map must either be approved or rejected by the City Council. If the map is rejected, it would be returned to the subdivider with findings as to why the map was rejected. Attachments: 1. Site Map. 2. Parcel Map. 3. Resolution No. SD 95 -006 granting final map approval. 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 95 -006 approving the tentative map with conditions. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 SD -95 -006 •Application No. /Location: 15001 Bohlman Road Applicant /Owner: MILLER Staff Planner: James Walgren Date: 10/25/95 APN: 517 -13 -012 517 -36 -008 15001 Bohlman Rd. Director Approval: LOT 5 N20SS23111A45 1003 13.031 C /TY OF SARATOGA _�I "HAKONE GARDENS'gx1 1 111 I I 11 1 LANDS OF SAMPLE 13/62708 tl ,r..rw 47s N{47NA 4 731 P. M 508 M 24 BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BEARING 1 N89 5852" 8I OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 2 AND A PORTION OF L.01 3 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP OF TRACT N0. 7888, RECORDED IN BOOK 568 OF MAPS AT PAGES 33, 34 8 35. SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON. S 1 708754 3 011 1/ I {K 1344 OIL. 147 PD. 3/4• P. LA 2734 N37•03:•E 4.73. 1570115E 42.73 E 12' INGRESS B EGRESS EASEMENT PER: 5 353 0R 287 K 524 0.R. 1100 K 699 0A. 673 R.O.S. 625 M 50 mar sr 313.• 1 114343 0 MAD( YOU) I 4413 PARCEL 1 1.000± acs. 30 1 N113K 44, 0 1 /2 E L *.---------5---------.°5 wt..--- 3 '7 .0-'1-4> �l NT1, A WIU m7 A h 54.31370 32.4 PD: 7 MD L.3 257' M 6 25 LOT /2 TRACT l f ]FIAT 1 33102 1 R 0S. LANDS OF MCMA /NS /0836/04 14� L.S. 17, f j E/ PARCEL MAP CONSISTING OF TWO 2 1 SHEETS BEING A PORTION OF THE WESTERLY ONE HALF OF SECTION 12 AND A PORTION OF THE EASTERLY ONE MALT OF SECTION II, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST. MOUNT DIABLO MERDIAN AND LYING ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CITY OF SARATOGA CALIFORNIA SCALE: r 40' MARCH 1997 KIRKEBY ENGINEERING 2397 FOREST AVENUE, SAN JOSE, CA 95128 NO. 147.44 SCALE r 20' PA 3 /4 LAM* Q047I 34.02134311 PARCEL 2 2.5114! acs. O 0. o,D AND 44 y 0 K 3 F� .0.99 7888 w scat, r .z°' LANDS OF FOX 9039557 SEIL123 Sul ---,611.•---,i----,..,1316___-- .4•E11- 3/4 Rot 7)47 o`",„' P M P f c f� 61 X A 2 LEGEND AND NOTES DISTINCTIVE BORDER AND BOUNDARY FOUND IRON PIPE AS NOTED FOUND" T BAR AS NOTED SET 3/4' NON PIPE. TAGGED R.C.E. 14001 I RECORD DATA PER TRACT N0. 7888 I RECORD DATA PER PARCEL MAP 567 M 31 B 32 RECORD DATA PER RECORD OF SURVEY 625 M 50 RECORD DATA PER DEED BK. K524 0.R. PG. 1100 ALL DISTANCES AND DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMAL' THEREOF. THE AREA WRNIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER 15 3.5114 1 ACS. folf 7D. 3/4 V. Act 7147 LANDS OF FOX .6/265 ANT. 1NF y A EA 3CKj 63•2204•14 N. 3 /4 V. PAL 047 ODG U4' 1 3♦34.03 1 3 7 1 1413 33.4{1 __tt 6. FD. 3/4 V. IE� TNT'__, E MI 4. N SHEET TWO OF TWO SHEET i The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: Two parcels as shown on that certain Parcel Map prepared by Kirkeby Engineering dated March, 1997, and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga on June 17, 1998, are approved as TWO (2) individual parcels. SECTION 2: All streets and easements shown on said map and offered for dedication to public use are hereby rejected on behalf of the public, save and except for public service easements; and to the limited extent that any offers for public street purposes either expressly or implicitly include offers for easements for utility purposes along or beneath said street rights of way, then as to such express or implied offers of easements for public utility purposes, the same are hereby accepted on behalf of the public. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. SD 95 -006 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF SD 95 -006 15001 BOHLMAN ROAD (MILLER) Mayor RESOLUTION NO. SD -95 -006 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION BUILDING SITE APPROVAL RESOLUTION MILLER; 15001 BOHLMAN RD. WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Building Site approval for two separate parcels, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -95 -006 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed Building Sites, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, are consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed Building Sites and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated October 25, 1995 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency has heretofore received and considered the Categorical Exemption for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Government Code Sections 66474 (a) (g) and 66474.6 exist with respect to said Building Site map, and approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; WHEREAS, this Tentative Building Site approval is contingent on the approval of the Lot Line Adjustment and associated General Plan and Zoning District boundary amendments. The applicant shall obtain City Council approval of the General Plan and Zoning District boundary amendments and record the Lot Line Adjustment prior to Final Site approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the map for the hereinaf- ter described Building Sites, which map is dated May 1995 and marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: 1. Unless the requirements of Sections 14-45.040(a) (1) (2) are satisfied, the owner (applicant) shall prepare and file a Parcel Map of the site for recordation. Prior to submittal of the Parcel Map to the City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 SD -95 -006 external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. 2. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Parcel Map, if necessary, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Building Site map, along with the addition- al documents required by Section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document /deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, if required, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Parcel Map for examination. 4. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or some later date to be specified on the Parcel Map, if necessary. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Parcel Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. 5. If required, the owner (applicant) shall file with the Santa Clara County Recorder the requisite statement indicating that there are no liens against the property or any part thereof for any unpaid taxes or special assessments. A copy of the statement(s) shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to Parcel Map approval. 6. Prior to Final Site approval: a. The existing fire damaged house shall be demolished. File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 SD -95 -006 b. A water supply capacity /demand study shall be performed by a qualified professional, acceptable to the Water Association, to determine if there is an adequate water supply to serve an additional single family residence. If adequate water is not available, Final Building Site approval will not be granted until it is provided. c. Verification shall be submitted to the City Engineer that the applicant has the consent of the Bohlman Water Association (or if not the consent, the legal right) to add an additional residential connection to the water system. d. All applicable tree protection measures outlined in the Arborist Report dated 6/20/95 shall be performed as determined by the City Arborist. e. Outstanding City Arborist or City Geotechnical Consultant fees shall be paid. 7. The approved Building Site site development plan shall establish the future required building setbacks and maximum building envelopes for each parcel. No trees are approved to be removed. At the time specific house plans are prepared for either lot, an effort shall be made to retain trees #36 and #38, Coast Live Oaks, and tree #39, a Magnolia. 8. Prior to Geotechnical Clearance for development' on parcels 1 and 2, site specific geologic and geotechnical investigation shall be performed. As part of these investigations, the applicants' geologic and geotechnical consultants shall: (1) identify and evaluate areas on Parcels 1 and 2 underlain by surficial materials (fill, colluvium, landslide and fan deposits), (2) evaluate the long -term stability of slopes on the Parcels (including artificial and natural slopes), and (3) provide supplemental geotechnical design recommendations, as needed, for the proposed construction. The investigations should include, but not necessarily be limited to the follow- ing: a. An original, engineering geologic map and cross sections should be prepared at an appropriate scale (i.e., 1:480 or larger for each parcel). Engineering geologic maps and cross sections should provide the following information: (1) extent and probably thickness of surficial earth materials (including existing fill, colluvium, land- slides, and alluvium or fan deposits), (2) natural and artificial slopes and slope profiles, (3) type and structural orientation of underlying bedrock, (4) Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 SD -95 -006 locations of existing and proposed structures and improvements. b. The site specific geotechnical conditions on Parcels 1 and 2 should be explored, and representative earth materials (i.e., bedrock, colluvium, artificial fill, etc.) should be sampled and tested to provide engineering parameters for foundation and retaining wall design. The geotechnical consultants should specifically: (1) determine the thickness of surficial materials (artifi- cial fill, colluvium and fan deposits) on the property. Recommendations for drainage improvements should be provided, as well as specific recommendations for structural foundations, as needed. The results of the site specific geologic and geotechnical investigations shall be summarized in written reports with appropriate illustrations, and submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechni- cal Consultant prior to the granting of a Geotechnical Clearance for each Parcel. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any construction activity on Parcel 1 and 2, final plans for site specific developments shall be prepared. The project geotechnical consultants shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plan (i.e., building setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized in letters by the geotechnical consultants and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 10. The geotechnical consultants shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundation and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described in letters and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to finalization of the grading permit. 11. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction Best Management Practic- File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 SD -95 -006 es as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 12. Developer shall install a fire hydrant that meets the Fire District's specifications. The hydrant shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building shall be located within five hundred feet from the residence and shall deliver no less than 1,000 gallons per minute of water for a sustained period of two hours. Fire flow requirements can also be satisfied pursuant to the 1991 Uniform Fire Code Division III, Appendix IIIA, Table AIII -A -1. 13. The westerly approximately 620 ft. of driveway approach to the site shall be improved to a minimum width of 14 ft. plus one ft. shoulders. 14. The following fire protection requirements shall apply to future residential construction: a. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. Reroofi- ng, less than 10 shall be exempt. b. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. c. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. d. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garage. e. All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one ft. shoulders. f. Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 32 ft. g. A passing turnout 10 ft. wide and 40 ft. long as required by the Fire District. Details shall be shown on building plans. h. Construct a turn around at the proposed dwelling site having a 32 ft. inside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the Fire District. Details shall be shown on the building plans. 7 Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. File No. LL -95 -005, GPA -95 -001, AZO -95 -002 SD -95 -006 i. Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the Fire Dis- trict. Details shall be shown on the building plans. 15. All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs dynamic loading. 16. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 17. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 1. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 25th day of October, 1995 by the following vote: AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami Patrick NOES: None ABSENT: Caldwell Siegfried I/ 4.-1.•••-i p (t. Ch ir 7lanning Commission ATTEST: i Secr ary, Planni g Commission SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 17, 1998 CITY MANA R: ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER Prepared By: 41,'/A/ RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Approve the request to waive the Park Use Permit fee normally required for the rental of Wildwood Park ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: No public notice or hearing is required for this request. SUBJECT: Request for Waiver of Park Use Permit Fee of Wildwood Park for the Saratoga Community Band Concert in the Park. REPORT SUMMARY: The Saratoga Community Band has requested that the City waive the $60 Park Use Permit fee($45 for stage rental and $15 processing fee) in addition to the $50 deposit necessary for the use of Wildwood Park. A Wildwood Park Use Permit has been filed by the applicant and payment is pending the outcome of Council's decision. The Saratoga Community Band plans to hold their Old Fashioned Sunday Afternoon Band Concert in the Park on May 23, 1999 from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. The event will be free to the community. Recently, Council has discussed waiving fees for non profit fundraising events requiring permits. The main factors surrounding this discussion have revolved around the need for the City to ensure full cost recovery for its services. Staff is recommending to Council to approve the applicant's request because, unlike the scenarios discussed in the recent past, this event is a free concert where profits will not be made by the use permit applicant and staff costs associated with the processing of this Park Use Permit are nominal. In recent years, the City Council has approved the request to waive fees for this Concert in the Park event that is very well attended by the Community. FISCAL IMPACTS: The City would not collect the $60 Park Use Permit fee ($45 for stage rental and $15 processing fee) for the use of Wildwood Park. Staff costs associated with the processing of this permit are nominal. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The request to waive the Park Use Permit fee for the use of Wildwood Park will be denied and the applicant will be required to pay the fee and place a deposit. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Correspondence from Saratoga Community Band 2. Copy of the Wildwood Park Use Permit filed by the Community Band SARATOGA COMIVIUNITY BAND WEST VALLEY COI i.RGE SYMPHONIC BAND May 29, 1998 TO: Saratoga City Council RE: Saratoga Community Band Concert at Wildwood Park on May 23, 1999 The Saratoga Community Band has been performing a free annual OLD FASHIONED SUNDAY AFTERNOON BAND CONCERT IN THE PARK since 1991. In past years, the City Council has voted to waive the use fee and deposit normally required for use of the park since this is a free concert bringing music to the residents of Saratoga. This letter is to request that the fee and deposit be waived again for the 1999 Concert in the Park. The Saratoga Community Band is sponsored by West Valley College through the Music Department and Office of Community Education. The band was established in 1990 and currently has over 90 members. The band has played for many civic and community events over the past years. Craig D. Northrup Conductor Music Director Craig D. Northrup, Conductor 19160 Portos Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 -5147 Home Phone Fax: (408) 867 -2720 E -mail: CDNorthrup @AOL.COM WILDWOOD PARK USE PERMIT City of Saratoga Recreation Department 19655 Allendale Ave. Saratoga, CA 9 Please fill out and return with Deposit Processing Fee. Make check payable to The City of Sarat" a. i r v DATE HOURS: Sl r l /i a 410- -;23 /99 -3 (Day of Wee l Qj (Hours) NAME: al i s r t r K r Ct �t Sci. r a i o 'li i NI (Ple a print) L c ADDRESS: f O Pd r 6)s .1/r� J4 c/ (Street address) (Cii) (Zip) HOME PHONE: 0 t, 7 720 WORK PHONE: /6 7-27 ,2G (Fax pic-v10 PURPOSE OF ACTIVITY: a etio t ATTENDANCE: 500 e vrte e ALCOHOL SERVED: YES El NO Vg EQUIPMENT BROUGHT INTO PARK J j 1 iitcz S e il f s"i v e_ c RECORDED SOUND OR MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS: YES DKI NO USE OF: PICNIC AREA A D PICNIC AREA B 0 STAGE JE USE OF: HORSESHOES VOLLEYBALL/NET ri GATE KEY El Pick up key at Community Center W -F before event date. Please return ey to Community Center the Monday following the event. CITY OF SARATOGA LIABILITY RELEASE RISK ASSUMPTION All applications for use of Wildwood Park must be approved by the Parks Department. Submission of application does not guarantee use. Applicant hereby agrees to hold the City of Saratoga, the City Council, the individual members thereof, and all the officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any loss, damage, liability, cost or expense that may arise during or be caused in any way by such use or occupancy of recreation facilities. I, the undersigned hereby certify that I will be personally responsible, on behalf of the applicant, for any damages sustained by the buildings, grounds or equipment, accruing through occupancy or use of said facility by the applicant. Any lost equipment or damages sustained to the above shall be compensated. I hereby certify that I have read and understand the Saratoga Park Use Policy and will abide by any special conditions set forth. I certify that the intended use is in compliance with said rules and regulations, application instructions and any specific use regulation subject to advance payment of all fees. I have reead th 1L1TY LEASE and ASSUMPTION OF RI K AGREEMENT voluntarily sign it. 2 5/ 7 '14 1 Signature Applicant Date City Representative Date k************************************************************ Security Deposit:$ Date Receipt# I�Nciuh> -1 t cL hvYt i C Processing Fee Date Receipt# C; C,�,.i Ac l v L.0c1., ✓z c;// eN Picnic Area(s) Stage Game Area(s) Sub Total Resident Discount Balance Due Date Receipt# Amount Paid EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: June 17,1998 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development PREPARED BY: John Cook, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -98 -007; Jayakumar, 14265 Burns Way Appeal of Planning Commission denial of a Design Review application to construct a new 4,043 square foot, two -story house, 25 feet in height, on a 29,020 square foot lot in the R -1- 15,000 Zoning District. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Deny the appeal and reaffirm the Planning Commission's decision. REPORT SUMMARY: Background: During its May 13 regular public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the application of Jay and Indu Jayakumar for Design Review approval to build a new 4,043 square foot, two -story residence at 25 feet in height. Applicants did not request any Design Review exceptions, as the total floor area was below the allowable limit after application of the floor area reduction formula for structures exceeding 18 feet in height. Prior to the meeting, the Planning Commission visited the property and reviewed the planning staff's analysis and recommendation. Staff had recommended approval of the application in that it found the proposed design to be compatible with the neighborhood and that the proposed structure's impacts on views and privacy had been mitigated to reasonable. levels through the reduction or relocation of windows, greater than required setbacks for the proposed second story, and the incorporation of strong horizontal elements into the design. At its hearing, the Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicants, their architect, and neighbors present at the public hearing. As the attached minutes from the hearing indicate, there was a discussion of whether the applicants considered creating a basement. Commissioners Martlage, Murakami, and Chair Pierce made positive statements about the house's design but voiced concerns about its appropriateness for this neighborhood. Commissioners Patrick and Murakami stated that they might have approved a smaller two -story home. The applicants turned down the Commissioners' offer for a continuance and/or a study session and requested a vote. The motion to deny the application on the grounds of the project's height, size, and massiveness being incompatible with its surroundings was approved 4 -0 with Commissioners Kaplan and Bernald absent. The Jayakumars appealed the denial on May 22. The applicants- appellants request that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the Design Review request. In their appeal application and attached letters to Mayor Wolfe and Councilor Moran, the applicants appellants request an appeal of the decision in that the design is compatible with its surroundings and that many of the neighbors who spoke in opposition to the proposal misunderstood details of the proposal and were speaking against larger homes in general.' In addition to reiterating many of the points raised at the hearing by their architect, Mrs. Jayakumar's letter to the Mayor of May 19 also states that they were unclear on the meaning of the Commissioners' offer to continue the matter when the Commissioners stated that they did not have enough votes to approve the project. Further, in the letter the applicants appellants submitted to Community Development Director Walgren on June 11, they state they are willing to make alterations to the proposed design. They state a willingness to remove second story windows, to move the house back on the site, to lower the maximum height of the structure, and to reduce the house's overall square footage. Issues: An aspect worth noting is that the lot has an unusual shape and is traversed by a creek. Long and relatively narrow, the half of the lot on the Burns Way side of the creek is about 12,700 square feet. However, the applicants'- appellants' property extends across the creek, for a total of 29,020 square feet. The perceived size (and therefore also the height and massiveness) of the house is therefore increased by dint of all of the developed space being on the Burns Way half of the property. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for a fuller discussion of this issue. The letters to Mayor Wolfe and Councilor Moran look similar, but the latter has additional information worth noting. Although the applicants' two -story proposal would have reduced the overall impervious coverage, would have left untouched the existing bridge across the creek as well as the portion of the lot across the creek, it led to a height found objectionable by the neighbors and the Planning Commission. These objections can be found in the numerous letters sent to the Planning Commission contained within the staff report. One such example is that of Kurt and Barbara Voester, 14251 Burns Way, neighbors adjacent to the north of the Jayakumars' property. In their letter, the Voesters state that their views and privacy would be unduly compromised by a two -story house at this site. As the staff report indicates, the required second story setback for this project would be 19 feet; the proposed setback on the side adjacent to the Voesters is 26 feet, 6 inches. FISCAL IMPACTS: None foreseeable. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and same notice was published in the Saratoga News on June 3, 1998. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's decision and approves the appeal, the Council will need to prepare a Resolution granting Design Review approval. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The City Attorney shall prepare Resolutions for the next available meeting memorializing the decisions of the City Council on this matter. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated May 13, 1998 2. Staff Report dated May 13, 1998 (includes Resolution DR -98 -009 and correspondence submitted prior to the public hearing) 3. Appeal Correspondence 4. Exhibit "A Plans (at 24" x 36 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 13, 1998 The architect said that the applicant would agree to increase the height of the retaining wall, but that moving the house 5 feet to the south would be problematic. Murakami liked the design and the step -down, and was glad to see the neighbors in agreement. He appreciated the view from Tollgate Road and noted that this house appeared to be lower than existing structures. The lot is constrained and he felt it would be difficult to move the house. Patrick was concerned about impervious coverage but was willing to approve the project, based on resolution of the height of the retaining wall. She felt that neighbors should not demand an odd placement of the new house, and she did not sense there was a privacy issue. She said she was able to support the project. Martlage appreciated the work the architect had put in for the Study Session and will support the project. Pierce suggested that the neighbors work together to resolve the issue of the retaining wall and was able to support the project. PATRICK/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE DR -97 -062 WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT STAFF WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALL; MOTION PASSED 4/0. 4. DR 98 007 (APN 503 23 006) JAYAKUMAR, 14265 Burns Way; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two -story, single family residence, 4,043 sq. ft. in size, 25 ft. in height, on a 29,020 sq. ft. lot in the R -1- 15,000 Zoning District. A single story residence currently exists on the property. Walgren presented the staff report. The applicant's architect presented color copies of renderings of the second story. He stated that an effort had been made to respect neighbors' privacy by placing the second story away from the nearest neighbor and using low pitched roof lines. Patrick asked the architect if they had considered putting in a basement, and the applicant responded that a basement had not been considered. Murakami wondered why such a large balcony had been placed in the rear of the house, feeling there might be privacy issues. The applicant stated this would be an eating area and a place for outdoor enjoyment. Neighbors appreciated efforts to reduce the bulk of the house and to create a sensitive design, but expressed concern about the precedent such a large house would set and submitted a letter with 11 signatures in agreement. They felt the house should be built on a smaller scale, more in line with existing homes, and raised questions about the compatibility and bulk of such a large 2 story house, including loss of sunshine and views. The applicant maintained that the design is a good and sensitive one. Martlage asked if neighbors had seen the colored renderings, and the architect responded that they had. Martlage liked the design but not the deck, and wondered why no consideration had been given to a basement. She felt the design was sensitive, but she was not sure that a 2 story home is appropriate in this neighborhood. Patrick liked the neighborhood and felt she might agree to a smaller 2 story house. She felt that the design gave the Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1998 Page 4 applicant a great view at the expense of the neighbors. She was unwilling to impinge on the neighbors and wondered why there had been no consideration of a basement. Murakami noted that most of the opponents to the project live on Marion, not Burns Way. He felt that anything would be an improvement from what is existing, especially since the applicant has worked with staff and neighbors to mitigate privacy concerns. He felt the size could be reduced, or that a basement might be utilized. Pierce liked the design of the house and felt it was considerate of the neighbors, but questioned whether the design is appropriate to the lot. He did not want to take away from the uniqueness of the neighborhood, and felt that a 1 story house with a basement might be more appropriate. The Commissioners advised the applicant that there were not enough votes to approve the project, and they offered the applicant the opportunity to re- design for presentation at a future public hearing. In lieu of a continuance, the applicant asked for a vote. PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO DENY DR -98 -007; MOTION PASSED 4/0. 5. UP -98 -005 (403 -24 -001) CELLULAR ONE, East of Quito Road and Adjacent to Hwy 85; Request for Use Permit approval to install 3 cellular panel antennas on an existing PG &E transmission tower with an associated radio equipment shelter (approximately 160 sq. ft.) to be located directly beneath the tower. The site is located within an R- 1- 10,000 residential zoning district. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environment Quality Act. Walgren presented the staff report. Jennifer McCook of Cellular One, applicant's representative, said this project would provide service to Saratoga residents and that the aesthetic impact would be minimal. Martlage questioned the paint colors on the antenna and the structure. Murakami raised questions and received confirmation that there would be no interference with radio transmission, that additional cell sites were needed largely because of an increase in the use of phones in cars, and that application for a site at West Valley College was a few months away. Pierce said there was a similar configuration on Pollard Road, and the applicant confirmed that it belongs to Sprint. He asked if co- location on this site might be a possibility, to which the applicant said that the landlord has requested there be only one carrier. The applicant requested that the Commission make an exception in the process for submitting building plans, as they wished to submit before the end of the appeal period. Walgren said this might be a possibility and that a form is available covering assumption of risk. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, spoke in opposition to the project, raising issues that the Initial Study was inaccurate and violated the City's and County's General Plan, also challenging the aesthetic and health impacts. The applicant's representative responded that the area will be kept clean, that Cellular One is regulated by the PUC, and that the Engineer's report is within the FCC Standards for cellular antennas. Martlage felt the location for this utility is a logical one but that the area needs landscaping. She suggested ITEM 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way JAYAKUMAR John Cook, Assistant Planner May 13, 1998 503 -23 -006 Division Head: File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way CASE HISTORY Application filed: 02/20/98 Application complete: 04/21/98 Notice published: 04/29/98 Mailing completed: 04/30/98 Posting completed: 04/23/98 PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,043 square foot residence, 25 feet in height, on a 29,020 square foot parcel in the R -1- 15,000 Zoning District currently occupied by a single story structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application by adopting Resolution DR 98 007. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -98 -007 3. Correspondence 4. Aborist's Report, dated March 17, 1998 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" Page 1 File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way STAFF ANALYSIS Zoning: R -1- 15,000 General Plan Designation: Residential: Medium Density Measure G: Not applicable Parcel Size: 29,020 square feet Average Site Slope: 18 nearly level at building site Grading Required: Cut: 110 cubic yards Fill: 110 cubic yards Materials and Colors Proposed: Roofing: Brick -red asphalt shingles; wooden lap siding in tan (DE 3178); trim in off -white (SP 114), with pale tan stucco accent band and brick veneer entryway. Height /Coverage /Setback Requirements: Lot Coverage: 21.8% (6,346 sq. ft) 50% Height: 25 ft. 26 ft. Size of Structure: 1st floor: 2,551 sq. ft. 4,518 sq. ft. after slope 2nd floor: 1,492 sq. ft. reduction; 4,044 sq. ft. after Total: 4,043 sq. ft. height reduction. Setbacks: Page 2 Proposal Code Requirement/ Allowance First floor Front: 27 ft., 8 in. Sides: 12 ft. Rear: >190 ft. Second floor Front: 47 ft. North Side: 26 ft, 6 in. South Side:19 ft. 1 in. 25 ft. 12 ft. 30 ft. 32 ft., 8 in. 19 ft. 19 ft. File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicants request Design Review approval to construct a new 4,043 square foot two -story residence on a 29,020 square foot lot in the R -1- 15,000 zoning district currently occupied by a single story structure. SITE CHARACTERISTICS The subject lot is located at the end of Burns Way, a private, unpaved road. The applicants now reside in the existing one -story structure. The property is split by a tributary of Saratoga Creek. but the tributary is not under Santa Clara Valley Water District jurisdiction. The tributary has very deep, steep banks, which give the site a very high average slope, although the building site is practically level. Some of the attached correspondence from neighbors raises the tributary bisection as an issue. In particular, there is concern that only the street side of the lot should be taken into consideration in calculating floor area given the relative small size of other homes and lots in the neighborhood. Staff has worked out a couple of scenarios. If one were to exclude from the site the tributary and the land west of it, one would have a net site area of about 12,700 square feet (81 ft. by 157 ft.). This site area would lead to an allowable floor area of about 3,710 square feet at a single story; 3,320 square feet if the project were 25 feet in height (contrast with the full site yielding 4,518 square feet after the slope reduction; 4,044 square feet after the reduction for height. The applicants are not requesting an exception to the floor area reduction for structures over 18 feet in height). Although the proposed house would sit about 20 feet closer to the road than the existing house, the proposed second story would begin approximately where the existing house now sits. Further, the proposed structure will sit about 15 feet further away from the creek bank than the existing structure (the rear deck will be 50 feet from the top of the creek bank). If the applicants were restricted to a single story structure, either one based on the full lot size (4,518 square feet) or only the portion of the lot east of the tributary (3,710 square feet), the resultant design would almost certainly fill up the building envelope on the east side of the property, almost certainly coming closer to the watercourse. If, as planning staff has recently proposed, City Code were to be changed such that there is a minimum distance between a main structure and the top of a creek bank, it could become very difficult to fit a house built to the site's maximum allowable floor area. Page 3 File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way The applicants wish to retain an approximately 550 square foot deck connected to a 175 square foot bridge spanning the watercourse, but plan to remove all other structures on the site, including the main residence and two accessory structures. Most of the residences in the vicinity are older and single -story. DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS This residence is proposed to have a Craftsman architectural style. The design includes low pitched rooflines, a bracketed, gabled dormer, a wide, column- supported porch, and natural materials and colors. Because of the age and size of other homes in the vicinity, practically any structure built to today's standards and expectations would stand out. However, staff finds that the design elements incorporated in this proposal help the structure blend in with the older, more rustic homes in the neighborhood by minimizing the perception of the structure's newness. Prior to submittal, the applicants and their architects consulted with planning staff on numerous occasions; planning staff made numerous recommendations regarding building setbacks, floor area, and height, almost all of which have been incorporated in some fashion in the final proposal. One recommendation that was not incorporated was that the floor area of the house be further reduced based on anticipated neighborhood concern, even though the applicants are not requesting a floor area exception. Despite this, the applicants responded to numerous other areas of staff concern, further discussed below. One area of particular concern was the north facing side, given its proximity to a neighboring residence. Applicants responded to staff and neighbor concerns by revising plans to shift the second story building line on this side. The first story will sit 12 feet from the property line (the required setback) and will be 11 feet in height at the northern most edge. It gradually rises (along a 4:12 pitch roof), to the second story building line, which begins 26 feet, 6 inches from the side property line (a 19 foot setback is required). The top of the wall on this side will be 20 feet; the top of the roof 22 feet. Maximum building height is 25 feet, but the tallest portion of the house is further still from the northern side of the property. Code would allow applicants to build up to 18 feet in height 12 feet from the property line. Staff finds that the proposed arrangement, although two -story, is reasonably sensitive to the adjacent property and reduces the impact the new structure will have on the views and solar access of its northern neighbor. Further, applicants also significantly reduced second story fenestration from earlier proposals. With the exceptions of two small windows near the rear of the house and two in the front staircase (in other words, not an inhabited room), all windows on this side of the house are clerestories, mitigating privacy impacts on the neighboring property to the north. Page 4 File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way Staff also acknowledges as significant the applicants' reduction of the second story such that it is set back approximately 20 feet from the front first story building line, yielding about 47 feet between the second story building line and the street. Staff finds that this increased setback softens the impact of the second story on the Bums Way streetscape; this impact is further mitigated by the site's location at the end of a little -used private street. Staff finds that this proposal reasonably meets all of the Design Review findings of Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code as well as conforms to the design policies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook. GRADING The grading proposed for the site will involve 110 cubic yards of cut and 110 cubic yards of fill. The applicants propose to cut into the site to lay the building pad and driveway; they propose to place the fill around the rest of the eastern portion of the property. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Not required. TREES The city arborist has identified 3 trees on site that will be impacted by the proposed project. He suggests removal of a diseased Coast Redwood and the relocation of a proposed spa to better protect an English Walnut. The applicants have stated their concurrence with the arborist's report. The arborist suggests a 25% bond for the two preserved trees, a total of $1,999. All other tree protective measures have been included as conditions of approval in the attached Design Review resolution. OTHER AGENCY REVIEW The proposal was reviewed by the Saratoga Fire District, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the West Valley Sanitation District. All agencies have given their approval to the proposal, but some had comments worth noting. The Fire District found that Burns Way (a dirt road) was rutted with potholes, potentially impeding emergency access. The applicants are therefore required to fill in the potholes all along the street to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. Page 5 File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way The Water District required that the structure be raised 2 feet from existing grade so as to reduce the potential for damage from flooding. The plans reflect this requirement. All other comments of interested agencies have been incorporated into the attached Resolution as conditions of approval. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicants submitted a conceptual landscaping plan included with the site plan on page 2 of the plan set. They propose to place a small fountain in front of the residence and patios around it. Included as a condition of approval is the requirement for a more detailed landscaping plan. including irrigation plans. CORRESPONDENCE The property owners to the north, the Voesters (14251 Burns Way), have submitted a letter requesting that the application be denied on grounds of architectural incompatibility, excessive bulk, and loss of solar capacity, privacy, and views. Phillip and Ilene Doppelt, residents of 20659 Marion Road, have also submitted a letter stating their concerns over the proposed structure's size and bulk. Anne Bachtold, 20640 Marion Road, is concerned with the size and height of the proposed structure. Farshid Zarbakhsh, owner of property at 14231 Burns Way, supports the plan, but states concerns about its connection to the Burns Way sewer line. All correspondence is attached. CONCLUSION The proposed residence is designed to reasonably conform to each of the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to reasonably satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The project further satisfies all other zoning requirements in terms of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. RECOMMENDATION Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR -98 -007. Page 6 RESOLUTION NO DR -98 -007 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Jayakumar, 14265 Burns Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,043 square foot two -story residence with a maximum height of 25 feet on a 29,020 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: -The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy in that the proposal meets or exceeds minimum required setbacks for the first story; the second story of the structure has been set back additionally from its north and east elevations (26 feet, 6 inches on the northern side) the top of the wall of the second story on the north side has been kept to 20 feet from grade; the proposal calls for primarily clerestory fenestration on the structure's north elevation, particularly on the second story; -The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing the structure to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The house will be built up two feet from existing grade per requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. -The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that proposed colors and materials will soften the structure's overall visual impact; facade and roof articulation will reduce the perception of the structure's bulk and mass; the increased second story setbacks will minimize the perception of the structure's height from adjacent properties and from the street. File No. DR -98 -007, 14265 Burns Way -The proposed residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that: the structure's design (including setbacks, placement, and elevation articulation) minimizes the perception of its bulk and height both from the street and from neighboring properties; the increased second story setback minimizes the impact of this structure on the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. -The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. -The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055 especially in that: the proposed Craftsman styled residence will be compatible with other designs in the immediate neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Jayakumar for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to the arrival of any demolition or construction equipment, the applicant shall install tree protective fencing as required by the city arborist, meaning five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing (mounted on two -inch galvanized pipe, driven two feet into the ground) shown at the dripline of each tree as recommended by the Arborist for trees 2 and 3 The fences are to remain in place for the duration of the project. 3. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. These shall include a landscaping and irrigation plan separate from the site plan that emphasizes drought tolerant species. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to final inspection approval. File No. DR -9 8-007, 14265 Burns Way b. Four (4) separate sets of engineered grading and drainage plans, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. c. The applicants shall revise plans to show any existing well or wells on the site. Should any well exist, applicants shall contact the Santa Clara Valley Water District at 265 -2607, ext. 2650, to register or abandon any wells on the property. d. The applicants shall obtain two permits from the West Valley Sanitation District. These permits must be presented to planning staff prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance. 1. A new sewer connection permit. 2. A demolition permit. 4. No ordinance protected tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit, with the exception of tree 1, for .which the city arborist has determined a replacement value of $105; replacement trees equalling this value must be planted on site prior to Final Occupancy approval. 5. All requirements of the city arborist's report dated March, 17 1998, shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and grading plans shall be revised to indicate the following: The arborist report shall be attached, as a separate plan page, to the plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plan. No trenching for landscape irrigation shall be permitted in the root zones of retained trees (number 2 and 3). The minimum undisturbed area from tree 2 is 25 feet from the trunk; for tree 3; 15 feet from the trunk. The plans shall be revised such that the proposed spa is a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of tree 3. No excavation, trenching, or any other cutting into the soil may occur within 15 feet of this tree. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $1,999 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits: File No. DR -98 -007, 14265 Burns Way Tree protective fencing shall be reinspected by planning staff. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: Assuming the removal of tree 1, native replacement trees equal to $161 (equivalent to one 15 gallon and one 5 gallon trees) shall be planted on site. Planning staff shall inspect these trees prior to approval. All approved landscaping and irrigation shall be installed. This work shall be inspected and approved by planning staff. The city arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection, and approval by the Community Development Director the bond shall be released. 6. Fences and walls shall comply with the R -1 district fencing requirements contained in Article 15- 29.010 of the City Code, 7. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built -up roofing. 8. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. 9. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 10. Automatic sprinlders shall be installed in the proposed attached garage (3 heads per stall). The applicant is to contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. 11. Automatic sprinlders are required for the new residential dwelling. A 4 -head calculated sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. 12. All driveways shall have a minimum 14 foot width plus 1 foot shoulders. Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 13. Prior to Final Occupancy Approval, applicant shall fill the potholes on Bums Way. Applicant shall contact Saratoga Fire District at 876 -9001 for review and approval of road resurfacing. 14. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. File No. DR-98-007, 14265 Burns Way 15. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 16. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. expire. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of May 1998 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission r -rtirv 14,-0 434 p 7 o -a wn ro aa 7-0,t a Oa Z 0 -b -tia 7' 11.,19 rr� U 47 0 11 -r11."'/19 (117 131 14 1 OZ I X 18) V'z r `MTYr, 90 0 I 4 i) 'ti L n ro b'1 1 -t -3.??-91 Try La aJ nr 73 -a�.a i rrro w•! (t'n i Q 17 t o 1 cro (01 47179 'mil tc 1 p--A-C4 mil 1/P- r -nth Trig g t crw}, w, (0101-rtit. 4-p41, -rro� r 12 a1.4- o -n 14 (1, 1 'f'?I' 2 vy, a -may u. C u- --a- x n-o7 rr a 0 o eau fi 11- -r,,,.41 7S-1417 m u t rt a X17 1 t41 -7 rn�ro 1 T ^It 2-lo roil, 4t I Q b! bc! W ci? i b r11.a 1 a w -4 l re. vna -tom -1V1y w 1 (c;127/K.,-)7 1 ���,}3- frem''7'�ni 144 a c/ 0-MT I, '>1 17 trn1' '2? wr)M2 ,24.17 r3U.ro 12 1101rt a, T 'J w "N-1- 07 nonl l 'c 00 A vc1l ro 'icA/.7 (11-01 -P- .1- i A-, 11-9 (00 C- �0S Aid ti) L B�, 0LOS if "q vir ,,y1712 LLL. 8 bbl 'ti fry 0149 b ^Z _;n (cw -rn 1 Sz 71 5, SOLAR CA PA elk- pE-4- nrioN*11 tr?, afiy,i4e,acyvt's tip .v( A /J% qt-ct.,-vyK4. Vh Lt) 4.44ct, ,k4.1)-rA'a.ta t .i, Eq-Lkt: hzditrA)--11-7n a4.. ba)110,6 1 ..047)-7 -kewa.e, -h) te-nact efrn7n,“41-141, ',Ler o axid. tct-a-tJcL 222''47yt, to'-iaL et 1_0 55 0 p I EW Fre-rvi. Pun. 1114,..oiti ttAve-rni wt /1/ trA '1 *3■30/ ei/vIet 7A/L,L1 0 wv 14fift 11t. pAi-epe-azel, h /fn-P-. ei2o.c:. 10.L, 42tAii. to, tortad-- ‘11,-)4 arnd- tt,k2f-elLet 9 ap-aiL.,L.,"__ L055 OF PR WA LY i &tu irivatut. k2t41/1,c-r-yyt kAttincl Ftx-F.vvh. ikrt kfivtA C.;eir el/1,rykkeL WIAL ti p 1-1/\6_14- LC:LW I -i 541 Lt-tAreAr p Li& 4-utv 1 &WC: lae M 11: ty_ cv-uai frha Lc kat-, twat; Ain 'Ht &tote._ -Fc udit '1,0-e Lot cult, iflk cr-r?.e_ci- -to YLEA-0 ets4ri,i.cip t "&te bekce‘ou tufo theyz (fa/ )tet Q. cvP*1 b Ltititk, &la aivnu,n ctu 4Ltcto. '114 berl JthL± i Ptar■vn hltyvyn.A.-4 e-r, cis ditelAA;c1;iie 4141 (11., rd'ji VatA, il,tereAJ City of Saratoga Community development department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 20659 Marion Road Saratoga, CA 95070 May 2, 1998 RE: A.P. N.:503 -22 -084 DR -98 -007 (APN 503 -23 -006) Jayakumar, 14265 Burns Way Dear Planning Commissioners: We have some concerns about the proposed residence at 14265 Burns Way: 1. It appears to us to be incompatible with the other homes on Burns Way. The largest home presently on that street is about 1800 square feet. There are currently no two story homes on the street. A home in excess of 4000 square feet will certainly dwarf all the other homes. Because of the particular lot, less than half of the lot is buildable. This portion is in the front part of the lot and is the only portion visible from the street. There are no other homes in the neighborhood that appear to use their entire lots. This mans the home will have very little setback and will look like it uses the entire lot. This will make the home appear to be even larger than it is. We appreciate your considering these issues and look forward to a new home on Burns Way that will be more compatible with the neighborhood. Sincerely yours, Ilene Doppelt Phillip Doppelt f 110 "'e MAY -07 -1998 09:51 James Walgren Community Development Mgr City of Saratoga Saratoga, CA Dear Mr Walgren, Anne Bachtold 20640 Marion Rd Saratoga, CA 95070 May 6, 1998 I am writing to provide feedback on the application for approval to build a 4043 square foot home on Burns Way. For reference, I reside at 20640 Marion Rd. I am around the corner from the property in question. My backyard has a distant view (2 small backyards away) from the new construction. I have two concerns regarding the application: 1) 1 am concerned that the home is too large for the surrounding neighborhood. Most of the homes on Bums way are 1200 to 2000 square feet in size, one story cottage style homes. Properties like my own on Marion Road there are 3) that are adjacent to the construction site are one story ranch style homes approximately 2000 to 2600 square feet in size. I believe that a 4000 square foot two story home is incompatible with these existing properties in the neighborhood 2) I am concerned that if a permit is granted to build such a large two story home then it will set a precedent that will allow other large two story homes to be built In our neighborhood. Our neighborhood is a very special place. The last thing we want is to alter the character of our streets and housing to the the point where it no longer resembles the place we know and love. While I respect the rights of property owners to improve their buildings and homes, it is important that it be done in such a way as to preserve the environment that drew us all to this neighborhood in the first place. There are.other homes on Burns Way that will no doubt be remodeled by current or future property owners. This is a reality in our much sought after city. I am dismayed to think that there could be large imposing two story homes that will block views, intrude on neighbors, reduce yard size and impact the rural nature of our MHY- 07 -19b neighborhood. For these reasons I cannot support the application for this construction. In closing, I would like to say I support the Jayakumar family in their effort to build a new home. I know how important it is to have a safe and workable home in which to raise one's family. I wish them luck in designing a home that fits their needs and the needs of the community in which they reside. Anne Bechtold Submitted May 7, 1998 Planning Commission City of Saratoga Regarding: DR -98 -007 In response to the notice of hearing on May 13, 1998, regarding the proposed development at 14265 Burns Way (DR -98 -007), I, Farshid Zarbakhsh, the owner of the property at 14231 Burns Way, would like to bring to the attention of the commission, and to put in records, the following recommendations and concerns. RECOMMENDATION: I have seen copies of the drawings of the proposed plan, and I support Mr. Jayakumar's proposals to build the house subject to my concerns listed separately below. I believe the proposed plan will be an improvement to our neighborhood and I encourage the commission to pass the proposal. CONCERNS: I have the following concerns regarding the impact of the project on Burns Way's line, and its surface condition. Sewer line: The sewer line on Burns'Way ends in front of my house (14231 Burns Way). It has been build by the original and previous owner of my house at her cost. The line had not been extended to the other three houses on Burns way at the time, apparently due to disagreements on how to share the costs. Since I have paid for the cost of the line from Marion to my house, if this line is going to become a shared line, its cost should be shared equitably by the new users. My easement allowing tapping to this line will be contingent upon reaching such an equitable cost sharing agreement. I should also be made exempt from all future repair costs to this portion of the line due to problems caused by increased volume of usage, or problems related to this expansion. Road Condition: RECEIVED MAY 0 7 1998 PLANNING DEPARTMENT r Digging a major stretch of Burns Way to connect to the sewer line in front of my house will be a major deterioration of Burns way and my drive way. My consent allowing this work to proceed in front of my house will be contingent upon mutually agreed written guarantees that the road will be fully restored, and that the construction will be performed in a minimum and agreed »o,1 time frame. Dr. Fars id Zarba )(h'sh 18938 Sara Park Circle Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 944 -7795 r BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -1052 Fax 408 -354 -3767 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 TREE SURVEY AND PROTECTION RECOMMEENDATIONS AT THE HOME OF MR. AND MRS. JAYAKUMAR 14265 BURNS WAY SARATOGA Requested by: John Cook, Assistant Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Saratoga Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench March 17, 1998 Job 03 -98 -048 s Jayalaimar 14265 Burns Way Saratoga Assignment At request of John Cook, Assistant Planner, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing residence and to build a new residence in the context of potential damage to adjacent trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure, of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them could be minimized. Each tree is assigned a number, which is referenced throughout this report. The plan reviewed for this report is the site plan prepared by Archevson, Architect, sheet 3 dated, December 2, 1997. Summary Three trees are within the construction area that meets city ordinance requirements for protection. The three trees are classified as: 2 Coast Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) 1- English Walnut (Juglans regia) The overall condition of these trees is described as follows for each tree by its number: Exceptional Fine Marginal Poor Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens 2,3 1 Removal of Tree #1 is suggested due to its hazardous condition. Replacement trees are suggested. Mitigation is suggested for retained trees #2 and #3 and a protection bond of 25% ($1,999) of their assessed value ($7,994) is recommended. Observations There are approximately 18 trees on this site, but only three trees are large enough to meet the city ordinance standard and are within the construction envelope. The front of the property faces northeast, and the area in which construction is proposed appears to have a very gradual slope toward the southwest. Tree 1 is a 7" diameter dual trunk coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) that has both poor health and structure. This specimen has an advanced case of the disease Prepared by: Michael L. Bench March 17, 1998 2 Jayakumar 14265 Burns Way Saratoga botryosphaeria dothidea, which is common for this species when stressed. The disease on this specimen is beyond the point that treatment would be effective, and the disease will advance until the tree dies. If either of the two leaders were to break apart and fall there would be at least moderate damage to property or persons. Consequently, I consider this tree moderately hazardous. Tree 2 is a multi -stem coast redwood (Sequoia Sempervirens) with the larger 3 leaders measuring 20, 15 and 12" in diameter. This tree stands approximately 50' in height and has overall spread of about 27'. It has excellent health but only fair structure. This specimen is at a location that will likely suffer root damage during demolition of the adjacent patio or root damage by soil compaction as a result of construction. Soil compaction is an insidious problem that inflicts severe damage to trees at construction sites, but the decline is not observed until two to three years following construction. Many trees die as a result of soil compaction at construction sites. Tree 3 is 13" diameter DBH English walnut (Juglans regia) that is in excellent health and good structure. The height is approximately 30' and the spread is approximately 39'. An outdoor spa and patio are proposed under the canopy of this tree on the northeast side. Typically the greater mass of root structure exists on the upper edge of a slope. This is presumed to be the case with this tree. As a result, construction of the spa at this location would be fairly severe treatment to the root zone of tree #3. Death would not likely occur, but would likely push this tree into a cycle of decline if construction occurs as proposed without mitigation. On the northeast side of the property stands an 11" at 2 feet Silk tree (Albizia julibrissin) which is slightly under the city ordinance size requirement for city protection. If this tree is to be retained I suggest an area within 12' from the trunk of this tree be undisturbed without grading or excavation or trenching for utilities or other services within this 12' guideline. Install a fence around the root zone at 12 to 14' from the trunk to protect the root zone from compaction until the patio is installed. Since this tree is not protected by city ordinance these are only suggestions to the homeowners if the tree is to be retained. And not intended to become a requirement. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench 3 March 17, 1998 111.; Javakumar 14265. Burns Way Saratoga Recommendations 1. Due to the fact Tree #1 poses a moderate hazard as a result of its poor condition, I suggest this tree be removed. 2. In order to reduce the damage to Tree 3, I suggest that the spa be relocated toward the proposed home and away from the trunk of this tree by a minimum of 15 feet. This implies no excavations, trenches, or any other cutting into the soil occur within this 15' limitation. 3. In order to prevent root damage to Trees 2 and #3, I suggest the installation of a protective fence a minimum of 15' from tree 2 and 12' from the trunk of tree 3. I suggest the fence constructed of chain link mounted on steel posts that are driven into the ground 18" to 2'. This protective fence must be installed prior to the arrival of materials or equipment, and must remain in place throughout the entire period of construction. 4. I suggest that no trenching for landscape irrigation cut across the root zone of retained trees. The minimum undisturbed area from Tree #2 is 25 feet for the trunk nearest the cut, and the minimum clearance for Tree #3 is 15 feet from the trunk. Value Assessment Removal of Tree #1 is suggested due to poor condition. Its value is $161, which is equivalent to 1 -15 gallon and 1 -5 gallon native trees. The combined value of Trees #2 and #3 is $7,994. A protective bond of 25% of their value or $1,999 is suggested for their protection. MLB /sh Respectfully su ed, Michael L. Bench, Associate Prepared by: Michael L. Bench March 17, 1998 4 A B e D. Coate, Prin a "a BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Key Plant Name sq. In 0 X $27 /sq. in. X sp. dsss $0 X cond. X loc. sq. h 0 X $27 /sq. in X sp. class 10 X cond. X loc. sq. h 0 X 327 /sq. in. X sp. class SO X cond. X loc. 1 1 sq. h 133 X $27 /sq. in. 3,582 X sp. class 90% $3,224 X cond. 90% 2,901 X loc. 70% 2.031 Juglans Regis [English Walnut sq. h 314 X $27 /sq. in. 8,478 X sp. class 90% $7,630 X cond. 75% 5,723 X loc. 70% 4,006 1 [Coast Redwood SO %SL X Ohl S %S t 'Puoo X SC6S %06 sseP X 6C0' l 'ul 'bs /LZZ X Tee ul'bs 'Sequoia sempervirens 'Coast Redwood x iil 90 4 9. g x -4 6 DBH MULTI-SYSTEM DBH DBH DIAMETER @2 FEET 3 '3 o a HEIGHT SPREAD A .t. HEALTH (1-5) STRUCTURE (1-5) CONDITION RATING (2-10) HAZARD RATING (3-9) 2 a. 0 1 m 1 CROWN CLEANING CROWN THINNING CROWN RESTORATION CROWN RAISING REMOVE END-VVEIGHT CABLES NEEDED PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5) la c 7 o u a 17; a al INSECTS (1-5) TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5) DEAD WOOD (1-5) TRUNK DECAY(1-5) ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5) ci o t Ii• o 3.3 o cr n 3 ta x NEEDS WATER (1-5) NEEDS FERTILIZER RECOMMEND REMOVAL REMOVAL. PRIORITY (1 -3) a "a S 1 T E PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY ASSES.. /EMIL No ADDRESS UR 1110.111 7 10NER 3 NAME STISTINC USED ZONS Slit nt 107 S171 Alf STR,T1 RE 1111, 11.0011 2 Sp FT 111013.01 C4108/1 $000l_fpnr_. 1,4, 08_ rf TOTAL 4.00 It 02 looffoious oaf 03011ACE 8011 Sy IT 2i 40012 0170 4310 oo 01 210 oo ACRES 43.510 2•.020 TT 11110!CtILLS. 000. 0042 0030$1007 2R020 Sy 1 00 8 1■11 711000 30 07 800 SP FT 2•211 Sp FT 0000 004IIOYO IOC _SLOP/ Of 120 metal.. 0 Tye. 002•• AILRA1.• 510. SLOPE SW, •I 111.111511E SITL 11. IN, NM 1 4444 4 11.01 O 00lerio 000 WPM $ox a$oxp vim 20211 Sy TT 20000 111211 10 0? 28211 SOFT 7334 os Sp 777 00070, 013 21.000 SQ E000/.121.x.01002110 DLutcnws oi.000 510 -15.000 SET 0. SP PT 41770 00 po Sp IT 401 SO Et. 0.070 00 07 NM 0007 1.311 Sp ET O 040t1107 102 JPIULIPT 01.1112110110 12 077001 of /001ostO MUG 1V-0 7 1 5 10 58 polo Sp FT- 474 311 Sp IT 4043 III SQ 4044 112 LEGEND 10011071 PROM! TRELI1S BRICE PA1117S 11.0 NUM STEPPING STOSES IANOSCAPING CONCRETE DEER 00,3000 1017211 TRW, 0 PATIO 1 WW1 ONICR •Atl. 2 -0 1111.11 •01.10 050 2 NC -0" RnAri EASF1410 -0 0 Til NI LINE S. SA•41,10 0,11 0285 .1.14NS isRATONA. CA IRON ANO ,11‘1714•11 xrSiorfrim. ECM St OT. 1.0110 5077 ul.TlI OK CUMQUIIs. 0116 .1110 WTE Co,o151 78•1011 pria 73 I 07 o I 11181.ast (Tallcs xxoppronoerrt SI I I: NAN To: Don Wolfe His Hon'ble Mayor of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 1 Dated: 19 May, 1998 Introduction Hello, I am lndu Jayakumar, the homeowner at 14265 Bums Way, Saratoga. I spoke to you over the weekend by phone. This is just a follow -up letter, to give you details of our basic dilemma. I work for NASA Ames Res Ctr and my husband Jay is a Computer Designer working for Sun Microsystems. Our two children Shruti and Shamita study here at the Redwood School and Oak St school. We are both professionals, and have decided that good education is one of the most important gifts a parent can give a child. That is primarily why we moved from San Jose to Saratoga, although we also truly love the atmosphere and community -spirit here. We enjoy the Saratoga Library, the Civic Theatre, the Village events, the Wildwood and Sanbom Parks, etc. We could live anywhere, but we live BY CHOICE in Saratoga... Recently, we had applied to the the City Planning Commission for re building our house on Burns Way. This really was a simple project from our point of view, culminating in the request for approval, after 2 years of planning, modifications and satisfying neighbors' concems. But, our Application got DENIED! (DR -98 -007, on Wed, May 13, 1998) History of the Design A brief history of how we started the house design may help. After having lived in the same old house in South San Jose for 10 years, with Tots of repairs and problems, and as our 2 daughters were growing up to need good schools, we started looking for a good and relatively -new house in a good school neighborhood. We had to give up searching for newer homes in Saratoga, and happened to come across this particular property in an idyllic setting at the end of the cul -de -sac Burns Way. Our selling and buying real estate agents both worked at the same local Saratoga office, and were thoroughly familiar with the property, and its prior history. We were immediately referred to our current Architect, Mr Kartik Patel, and a suggested local Builder Mr Mark Thomas Dumont, by our Realtor. So, even BEFORE we made the offer on the property, all 5 of us visited the place together, discussed several advantages and short- comings of the area (such as sewer line), and actually were fortunate enough to meet and inform 2 of the immediate neighbors of our 2 -story re- building intentions! We purchased the 1905 -built 1750 sq ft 3 -BR run -down property in an "as is" condition, exclusively to demolish and re- build, i.e. the sellers sold it to us for the land value We discarded the original intention of IMMEDIATELY starting the house design, soon after we moved in, and instead opted to absorb the local culture for about a year, meet with all our neighbors, and take our time in designing an appropriate home, that would reflect the local character of the area. So, over the past 2 years, we have refined our plans, made the whole house smaller, and simpler in terms of the basic 4 bedrooms plus library, carefully selected the exterior appearance, etc. Further, after satisfying all the setback requirements, back in Jan 98 (working with John Cook's predecessor at the City), we changed it dramatically for this reason: I actually visited our immediate neighbors' master bedroom, with multiple high windows facing our new house, and realized that avoiding upstairs windows on their side would be of immense mutual benefit, in terms of privacy. So, we moved our child's bedroom to the opposite side, and avoided any overlooking windows. Inputs to Architect We bought the property on Bums Way for the express purpose of building a newer home in a nice neighborhood. When we hired our Architect, we explicitly asked him to take his time and address any potential concerns that our neighbors may have, and to make the exterior of the house blend in with the surroundings. The exact placement of the house, the rooflines, the setbacks, sun angles, the potential views from windows for us AND for our neighbors were major issues throughout. We decided to avoid cutting down any trees on the property and preserve the wild wooded nature of half our property across the creek, where families of deer roam. We also opted to preserve the redwood deck and bridge in our backyard, and adjust our family room windows to get a view of the creek. We wanted a countryside feeling instead of a crowded suburban one, and being at the end of a cul -de -sac with most neighbors situated far away really helped. Inputs from Neighbors' Some neighbors we've been talking to actually indicated a preference for larger houses, as they claimed their potential property values would go up more! Our opposite house neighbor (who has rented it out for years), over past year has indicated no resistance to our re- building, and in fact specifically said that "he'd given up on the view of the hills BEHIND and ABOVE our current 1 -story house some 8 or 10 years ago, as the tall trees way behind our property completely block his view of hills anyway." From his house, some 4 or 5 large trees in his own frontyard completely block the view of our house, ensuring good privacy for BOTH of us. Another neighbor has been concemed with the state of the private road surface, and was hoping that, with my re- modeling, we would be able to fix the potholes on Bums Way. A backyard neighbor (living in a probably more than 5000 sq ft house) encouraged us throughout, explaining how he went through the City approval process for cutting down several trees adjoining our property line to put in a new lawn. Our immediate and closest 1 -story neighbor has been involved in the design process from Day 1, with my Architect and Builder explaining with detailed blueprints, and they indicated no direct concems. Personal Family Needs I don't know if we have to justify why we really want to design our house in this particular way, but 1'11 make an attempt. We wanted a 4- bedroom house, as we have 2 pre -teen children, and often, our parents or other elders visit us, who we thought could stay downstairs in the guest bedroom. We hoped our mini library could house all our school books, documents, computers, etc. in one place. We are only planning on features which we KNOW we will need and use, such as lots of shelves, 2 -car garage, island kitchen, etc while skipping things like master bedroom spa and fireplaces. There are no exotic elements or expensive features in this design such as a media room, skylights, 3-car garages, grand stairways, both due to a limited budget and land shape restrictions. An important reason for us to re -build is the current complete lack of privacy between our 2 houses, wherein our bedroom and bathroom windows DIRECTLY FACE EACH OTHER! Public Hearing The City held a Public Hearing on our application on May 13th, 1998. Being later on the Agenda, our Architect was barely given 10 minutes to present his case, and he did a wonderful job, objectively explaining how we satisfied all Code F.A.R. requirements, much as the Analysis from the City Staff recommended, and how we addressed our neighbors' potential concerns. He included a slide show and color prints of new house, clearly showing how the dense vegetation around our property would preclude any loss of privacy: I mean, we can barely SEE our neighbors, except one! But then, several of our neighbors (who had been so helpful and nice to us during the design process for 2 years) tumed up, and made GENERALIZED remarks regarding the SIZE of our planned house (4000 sq ft, including garage) and how a NEW house may not fit in, in a supposedly 'historic' neighborhood! My husband and I were so much in shock at these sudden and weak complaints, that we declined to comment or speak up on this, when we were given an opportunity to refute for "30 seconds': we are also by nature NOT the type to personalize and politicize in public, criticizing our own fellow Saratogans quickly, as if they are our opponents! So, when the Commissioner asked us whether we wanted a vote or to go to "Study Session', WITHOUT EXPLAINING what such a session is (nor is it explained in the letters from the City, and our Architect didn't quite know either), we simplistically asked for a Vote, thinking the Members of the Commission would Approve! But, since the first 2 Commissioners hesitated and decided to Deny, the last 2 also "went with the flow" it seemed to us, although all 4 of them agreed THIS IS AN EXCELLENT DESIGN, and makes the 2 -story house look like a 1 -story from the street and our neighbor's side! We went into shock. This entire drama has been captured on our home videotape from Chan 6, which we would love to show you to prove the points that: our Architect was brief and to the point, rattling off distances, clearances and viewpoints; the Commissioners were barely giving him full attention, as they watched the clock, and asked about why we hadn't considered a basement (to stuff our mother -in- law or children to make it a 1 -story house; our neighbor brought out an old book of house- pictures with supposedly historic Saratoga homes, and COULD NOT EASILY FIND the house in this area that could be considered "historic Some of our neighbors who were enthusiastic about our project were indeed at the Hearing (or watched on TV), and since they did not feel it necessary to write us letters of support earlier (nor did we beg them to) or speak up, they were also shocked at the outcome! Conclusion For us, it has been a long and expensive design process in order to get here. We have been extraordinarily proactive over 2 years in frequently discussing our upcoming construction with our neighbors and in welcoming their suggestions. We have never received any serious concems from them, even after walking them through the set of blueprints with our Architect present, which is in itself quite unusual, I would think. We really consider this a fairly straightforward project, designed and RE- designed carefully with extensive verbal inputs from neighbors over two years, and hope that you can approve it for construction immediately, as part of the Appeal Process. We love the neighborhood, our kids love the excellent Saratoga school system and having been in the Bay Area for 16 years, we are no newcomers either: as Saratoga residents, we have also been paying our share of property taxes (probably double our neighbors' share, which will further double soon!) and would like the City to listen to our needs and inputs too. Since our own concems in terms of new houses in our nice area IS exactly the same as our neighbors' (i.e. we don't want large ugly stucco monsters either!), we designed our exterior and shape carefully to really "fit in' to Saratoga... Is this what we have come to: City approval process for every re- modeling and re- construction pitting neighbor against neighbor, and dividing the community?? Thank you! lndu Jayakumar 14265 Bums Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Ph: 408 741 -8183 To: Me Gillian Moran Dated: 9 June, 1998 Saratoga City Council Subs: Appeal of house construction DR- 98-007 Introduction Hello, I am Indu Jayakumar, the homeowner at 14285 Burns Way, Saratoga. I work for NASA Ames Res CU and my husband Jay is a Computer Designer working for Sun Microsystems. Our two daughters study here at the Saratoga School. We are both professionals, and have decided that good education is one of the most important gifts a parent can give a child. That Is primarily why we moved from San Jose to Saratoga, although we also truly love the atmosphere and small -town community -spirit here. We enjoy the Saratoga Civic Theatre, the llorary, the Village events, the Wildwood and Sanbom Parke, YMCA, etc. We could live anywhere, but we live here BY CHOICE In Saratoga... Recently, we had applied to the the City Planning Commission for converting our 1-story house to 2 -story on Bums Way. This reaNy was a simple project from our point of view, culminating in the request for approval, after 2 years of planning, design modiflcatlons and satisfying city codes and neighbors' concerns. But, although the City Staff had recommended Approval, our application suddenly got DENIED at the Public Hearing) (DR.Q8-007, on May 13. 1998). Our Appeal comes up on Wed, 17 June, 1998. The reason for the denial was that 'the combined height, size and massiveness of the proposed house are Incompatible with lower, smaller and less massive residences In the immediate area.' As it turns out, this is not true, and we are ready to justify it nowt We did not refute anything said at the Hearing, due to lack of detailed neighborhood information and not knowing that we Hooded to show support for this proposal!! 11 you will please read this letter through, you will understand the spedal nature of this particular house design and location, as well as how we lost Approval, thanks to some neighbors' last- minute activities In collecting apparent opposition. We hope you will vote strongly on our behalf/ History of the Design A brief history of how we started the house design may help. After having lived In the same old house in South San Jose for 10 years, with lots of repairs and problems, and as our 2 daughters were growing up to need good schools, we started looking for a good and relatively -new house In a good school neighborhood. We had to give up searching for newer homes In Saratoga, and happened to come across this particular property in an idyllic setting at the end of the cul-de -sac Bums Way. Our selling and buying real estate agents both worked at the same local Saratoga office, and were thoroughly familiar with the property, and its prior history. We were immediately referred to our current Architect, Mr Kartik Patel of Fremont, and a suggested local Builder Mr Mark Thomas Dumont, by our Realtor. So, even BEFORE we made the offer on the property, all 5 of us visited the place together, discussed several advantages and short- comings of the existing 1-story house (such as septic tank UNDER the Master Bedroom, termite infiltration, almost- leaking roof), and actually were fortunate enough to meet and Inform 2 of the immediate neighbors of our re -building Intentional We purchased the 1905 -built 1750 aq ft 3 -BR run -down property in an 'as is' condition, exclusively to demolish and re- build, I.e. the sellers sold It to us for the land value'. We discarded the original Intention of immediately starting the house design, soon after we moved In, and Instead opted to absorb the local culture for about a year. meet with all our neighbors, and take our time in designing an appropriate home, that would reflect the local character of the area. So, over the past 2 years, we have refined our plans, made the whole house smaller, and simpler in terms of the basic 4 bedrooms plus library, carefully selected the exterior appearance to match surroundings, etc. Further, after satisfying all the setback requirements, back in Jan 98 (working with John Cook's predecessor at the City), we changed it dramatically for this reason: I actually visited our Immediate neighbors' master bedroom, with multiple high windows facing our new house, and realized that minimizing upstairs windows on their side would be of immense mutual benefit, in terms of privacy. So, we moved our child's bedroom to the opposite side, and avoided any directly overlooking windows. We also moved our house forward on the lot, so as to increase the view of the Saratoga foothills for our neighbors, although limited by tell trees anyway. Page 1 Input to Architect We bought the property on Bums Way for the express purpose of building a newer home in a nice neighborhood. When we hired our Architect. we explicitly asked him to take his time and address any potential concerns that our neighbors may have, and to make the exterior of the house blend In with the surroundings. The exact placement of the house, the rooflines, the setbacks, sun angles, the potential views from windows for us AND for our neighbors were major Issues throughout. We decided to avoid cutting down any trees on the property and preserve the wild wooded nature of half our property across the creek, where families of deer roam. We also opted to preserve the redwood deck and bridge in our backyard, and adjust our family room windows to get a view of the creek. We wanted a countryside feeling instead of a crowded suburban one, and being at the end of a cul-de-sac with all nelghbora (except one) slluated far away or hidden by dense vegetation or both, really helped Inputs from Neighbors Some neighbors we've been talking to actually Indicated a preference for larger houses, as they claimed their potential property values would go up morel Our opposite house neighbor (who has never lived there but rented it out for years), has Indicated no resistance over past year to our re- building, and In fact specifically said that 'he'd given up on the view of the hills BEHIND and ABOVE our current 1- story house some 8 or 10 years ago. as the tall trees way behind our property completely block his view Of hills anyway.' From his house, some 4 or 5 large trees In his own fronlyard completely block the view of our house, ensuring good privacy for BOTH of us. Another neighbor has been concerned with the state of the private road surface (and the sewer line), and was hoping that, with my re modeling, we would be able to fix the potholes on Burns Way. A backyard neighbor encouraged us throughout, explaining how he went through the City approval process for cutting down several trees adjoining our property to put in a new lawn. Our Immediate and closest 1-story neighbor has been Involved In the design process from Day One, with my Architect and Builder explaining with detailed blueprints, and they indicated no direct concerns to us at any time. Personal Family Needs I don't know if we have to justify why we really want to design our house in this particular way, but I'll make an attempt. We are only planning on features which we know we will need and use, such as 4 bedrooms, mini-library, lots of shelves, 2-car garage, island kitchen, etc while skipping exotic elements or expensive features like master bedroom spa, media room, skylights, 3-car garages, grand stairways, Imposing fronts, both due to a limited budget and neighborhood characteristics! To us, a 3400 sq ft house (plus garage double counting of stairs area puts it at 4043 eq ft, by City code) for a growing family of 4, seems perfectly reasonable, and Is consisted with this area, where thin are squally large houses on Marion Rd, the closest street, and behind our backyard!! Public Hearing The City held a Public Hearing on our application on May 13th, 1998. Being later on the Agenda, our Architect was barely given 10 minutes to present his case, and he did a wonderful (If too technical) job, carefully explaining how we satisfied all Code requirements, much as the excellent Design Analysis from the City Staff recommended, and how we addressed our neighbors' potential concerns. He Included a slide show and large color prints of new house, clearly showing how the dense vegetation around our property would preclude any Mss of privacy: I mean, we can barely see our neighbors, except one! And, at the end of a cul-de-sac, no neighbor le ever going to drive past our house! But then, three of our neighbors (who had been so helpful and nice to us during the design process for 2 years) turned up, and made generalised remarks regarding the perceived sin of our planned house (4000 aq It, including garage) and how a NEW house may not fit in, In a supposedly 'historic' neighborhood, My husband and I were so much In shock at these sudden and weak complaints, that we declined to comment or refute anything said, when we were given an opportunity to refute for '30 seconds': we are also by nature NOT the type to personalize and politicize in public, criticizing our own fellow Saratogans quicldy, as If they are our opponents! So, when the Planning Commissioner asked us whether we wanted a vote or to go to 'Study Session', WITHOUT EXPLAINING what such a session is (nor is it explained In the letters from the City, and our Architect didn't quite know either; his first design In Saratoga). we simplistically asked for a Vote, thinking the'Mernbere of the Commission would Approve! All 4 of the Commissioners AGREED THIS IS AN EXCELLENT HOUSE DESIGN, and that it made the 2-story house look like a 1 -story from the Page 2 street and on our neighbor's side. But, probably 10 avoid any controversy, and convinced by our neighbors' comments, they denied Approval saying 'this home will be too big for the area.' We went Into shock. This entire drama has been captured on our home videotape from Chan 6, which we would love to show you to prove the points that: our Architect was precise and to the point, rattling off distances, clearances and viewpoints; the Commissioners, as they watched the clock, only asked about why we hadn't considered a basement to make It a 1-story house (would be prohibitively expensive right next to the creek which flows through the mlddle of our property). Some of our neighbors who were enthusiastic about our project were indeed at the Hearing (or watched on TV), and since they did not feel it necessary to write us letters of support (nor did we beg them to) or speak up, they were also shocked at the outcome) Objections (PLEASE READ THIS!) Addressing the main objections that came up at the Hearing from III Informed neighbors, of: (1) apparent bulk, (2) modem style of design, (3) logs of privacy to neighbor, and (4) precedence of such construction: (1) the second -etory has been pushed back AND away from immediate neighbor, as much as possible, and lowered in height to 23 ft above grading; besides, there are already tailor and larger houses on Burns Marion anyway There's a huge two story stucco home right at the comer of Burns and Marion. The first home on Bums Is partly two-story tool (2) the Craftsman -style design has been fully accepted by City Staff as Indeed being compatible, alongwfth wood siding, similar color to neighbor. red -brick finish, white picket fence, fountain and mini statue; (3) sx/ating lack of privacy with directly facing bedroom and bathroom windows on both sides is abominable, and will be rectified by low garage wall, and no large windows upstairs; and (4) Currently there are three two-story homes on Marion and plenty of others in the neighborhood, on all our other neighboring streets. This is NOT a predominantly one-story neighborhood. Mr. James Walgren agreed on -stage that the houses In this neighborhood Is a very 'detect/0 mbe already. We hope to set a precedence for such well- designed homes which would Only Improve this neighborhood. Conclusion For us, It has been a long and expensive design process in order to get here. We have been extraordinarily proactive over 2 years in frequently discussing our upcoming construction with our neighbors and in welcoming their suggestions. We have never received any serious concerns from them, even after walking them through the set of blueprints with our Architect present, the week before the Hearing, which Is in Itself quite unusual, I would think We really consider this a fairly straightforward project, designed and RE- designed carefully with extensive verbal inputs from neighbors over two years, and hops that you can approve It for construction Immediately, as part of the Appeal Process. We love the neighborhood, our kids love the excellent Saratoga school system and having been in the Bay Area for 16 years, we are no newcomers either: As Saratoga residents, we have also been paying our share of property taxes (probably double our neighbors' share, which will further double soon!) and would like the Cfty to listen to our needs and inputs too. Is this what we have come to: City approval process for every re- modeling and re- construction pitting neighbor against neighbor, and dividing the community?? Thank voul Ul. Indu Jayakuma 14286 Bums Way Saratoga, CA 96070 Ph: 408- 741 -8183 4. 0 1 1, 1 1 /,lei i• 11 1 1 1 9 a. Yes. The house right at the corner of Burns and Marion has a two-story addition on Burns way. b. There is a huge stucco home on Marion again at the comer of Burns and Marion. c. An older rather tall two-story structure is directly posite the above stucco home. d. There is a huge newer two -story home with over 1 t t square feet in area at the end of Marion -with whom we share fences with. e. There are plenty of two-story homes that are quite large (largest being 6000 square feet) on Brookwood, Springer and Paul who are all directly behind or adjacent to us. 2. Ma iyene Did we consider a otoiy home on this lot? Yes...we did. We felt that a one -story structure looked too massive on this lot due to the narrowness of the lot. The City Staff report says the same too. We have designed the house with low hip -roofs to reduce the impact on the street the staff report clearly states this tool A one -story will be around 21 feet in height by today's standards which is not very much different from our current two -story plan which is 23 feet in height. 3. Compatibility: Dic4wc design something totally uncharacteristic of the neighborhood? No...we did not. We took great care to match the surrounding houses. The house has wood siding with brick finish, arbor entrance and white picket -fence like most of the houses in the area. We even coordinated the colors with our neighbors. The second story is set back so that it will appear like a one -story from the front. Loss of view.+ rivaccv ar` d ne Yes...we did. We have been working with them closely and even moved a bedroom around to respect their privacy. We moved the whole house 5 feet forward so that they wont lose their light and view. We have taken great pains to keep most of the house one- story (only 12 feet in height) on their side. S. eighbntL...Onpoai� ion: Did we show and discuss the plan&with the neighbors? Yes...we did. But, unfortunately only to our immediate neighbors on Burns Way. They were very happy with the design at that time and expressed no concerns at all. They got protest signatures from neighbors on Marion Road who had not seen our house plans and our house at the end of this secluded private road is not visible to them anyway. But after 1 showed the design to everybody in the neighborhood, after the hearing, most of them changed their minds and actually apologized for protesting against such a well designed house. Mayor Wolfe, City of Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Subject: Support for Planning Commission denial of new two -story residence on Burns Way APN 503 -23 -006 appeal to City Council for Design Review by Mr. and Mrs. Jayakumar Dear Mayor Wolfe and City Council Members, Foothill Farm Subdivision established January 13, 1891 by W.D.Pollard from Quito Rancho Stephen and Roselye Williams, 1937 -1966, Grandparents of Gary Campbell Gary and Jan Campbell, Owners, 1967 present June 10, 1998 20731 Marion Road Saratoga, California 95070 We appreciate the democratic process of communication on this matter to allow our comments as 31 year property owners to support the Planning Commission denial of a new two -story residence proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Jayakumar for their property at 14265 Burns Way. This is a serious issue of infringement on an adjacent neighbor. Please note that we have never previously objected to any of the housing improvements or building construction that have been in our area during the last 30 years. Each of them have been well considered for their site, their neighbors and in conformance with City guidelines. This proposal by Mr. and Mrs. Jayakumar is seriously different from any of the other design reviews that we have experienced in our area. We are frequent visitors to their neighbors and hence know all negative issues related to the height and location of their proposed structure. These negative issues were completely expressed in the recent open forum Planning Commission meeting and were considered by our representatives in denying the two -story residence. The Appeal Process to the City Council is fair and just hence the following issues further support denial of the proposed design: The Jayakumar's knew that a two -story house design had been previously rejected by the Planning Commission when they bought the property. They were not, therefore, denied potential nor misled in their investment. The size of the property is misleading for the zoning of R -1- 15,000 because the creek splits it in the middle and forces development in a small, narrow part of the parcel next to Burns Way that is close to their neighbors on the north. The downward view from the proposed two -story house would have a very negative impact on the peace and tranquility of these neighbors. This would distress us greatly if such a thing could be allowed to occur by our Council members after public review and rejection by the Planning Commission. We commend the Jayakumar's for wanting to improve their residence and recommend they review the findings of the past two rejections for 2 story designs and then reconsider the opportunities for alternative single story designs that would fit the size of the avajaable site as well as bflrmony with their neighbors. cc: Grace Cory, Deputy City Clerk ampbell J/ Jan Campbell APN 503 -22 -102 To Mr James Walgren Director, Community Development City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Subj: Concessions toward Appeal of Denial of construction at 14265 Burns Way (DR -98 -007) Mr Walgren: We are the homeowners Jay and Indu Jayakumar, who planned on the 25 -feet high 2 -story 4043 sq ft new home on Burns Way, which was denied by the Saratoga Planning Commission on May 13,1998, due to some neighbors' concerns regarding bulk and privacy issues. After attending several Planning Commission Hearings on other similar projects over the past few weeks, and talking to several neighbors as well as local architects and builders thoroughly familiar with this area, we fully realize what the "hot" issues are, in terms of new construction in Saratoga! Therefore, we are offering to make these following concessions, (although difficult to do at this stage,as you know), as part of the process of Approval of the Appeal, due to be heard before the Saratoga City Council on Wed, June 17, 1998. 1) Completely remove the 2 small upstairs bedroom windows facing our immediate neighbors on right side. 2) Move the entire house backwards (away from Burns Way) on our lot by say, 6 feet, in order to increase sunlight and hill view for our immediate neighbors. 3) Lower the maximum height of roof from the current 25 feet above ground to 23 feet. 4) Reduce the overall square footage of house by another 50 sq ft or so. We hope you would pass on this critical information to the City Council as soon as possible so that they could approve our home design for construction. Thanking u, Jy� Indu Ja kumar 14265 Burns Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Ph: 408 741 -8183 Dated: 6/11/98 RECEIVED JUN 1 1 1998 PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 11, 1998 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fraitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Appeal of denial for Design Review DR98-007 (APN 503 -23 -006) JAYAKUMAR, 14265 Burns Way I was surprised and also puzzled to receive the notice of hearing before the City Council concerning the above appeal. Puzzled, because the design review presented to the Community Development Department a couple of weeks ago was rejected inanimously. Surprised, because it appears the plans are the same as the ones submitted originally same square footage, same height, etc. I assume my letter of May 11 is still on file. My opinions have not changed since I wrote it. I hope you give serious consideration to the impact that the construction of a large house will have on the immediate surrounding neighbors. Sincerely, Dorothy Stamper 20562 Marion Road Saratoga, -CA 95070 June 11, 1998 Planning Commission City of Saratoga Regarding: DR -98 -007 appeal Dear members of the Planning Commission, I am writing this to you again, on behalf of Mr. Jayakumar, supporting his proposal for building a new house on his lot on Burns Way. I urge the commission to consider the plan based on its merits, and vote for its passing if it satisfies the city regula- tions. I am not supporting the building of this house because of ulterior motives. I am sup- porting it because in my nine years of residence on Burns Way, this house, then a rental and owned by another owner, was the single source of noise and traffic and multitude of various renters (4 setsat least). If in its current condition, the house becomes a rental again, the nuisance and neighborhood deterioration will continue. Also, I do not believe 4000+ sq -ft (including garage) as excessive, but about aver- age for a reasonable house built anywhere, especially Saratoga. I hope the commission will reconsider itsposition. Sincerely, 2id/Z Dr. Farshid Zarbakhsh 18938 Sara Park Circle Saratoga SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: June 17, 1998 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Christina Ratcliffe, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDED MOTION Deny the appeal and reaffirm the Planning Commission's decision. REPORT SUMMARY BACKGROUND SUBJECT: UP -98 -005; CellularOne (Associates I), S/E Corner of Quito Road Hwy. 85 Appeal of Planning Commission grant of Negative Declaration and Use Permit approval to construct three panel antennas mounted on an existing 110 ft. tall PG &E transmission tower located at the intersection of Hwy. 85 and Quito Road. The project also includes construction of an equipment building 10 ft. (w) x 16 ft. (1) x 10 ft. (h) located underneath the base of the existing transmission tower. During its May 22 regular public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the application of CellularOne for Negative Declaration and Use Permit approval to mount three 8 ft. tall panel antennas on an existing 110 ft. tall PG &E transmission tower, and a 160 sq. ft. equipment cabinet located underneath the transmission tower. The Planning Commission visited the property, reviewed the planning staff's analysis and recommendations and heard testimony from a neighbor present at the public hearing. Staff recommended that the Commission could make all of the required Use Permit findings required in City Code Section 15- 55.070. The Commission then voted 4 -0 (Commissioners Bernald and Kaplan were absent) to adopt the Negative Declaration and Resolution UP -98 -005 with added modifications for landscaping and a revised paint scheme to screen the structure. An appeal application was filed on May 28t The appellant, Cheriel Jensen, requests that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's granting of an environmental Negative Declaration adoption and Use Permit approval. ISSUES The appellant addresses several issues in her letters of May 7 and 26 as well as her comments at the Planning Commission hearing on May 13` The appellant maintains that the Negative Declaration is improper in that it does not sufficiently address aesthetics, health, and traffic impacts. Further, the appellant asserts that the proposed project is a violation of Measure G, and that these antennas interfere with radio and TV reception. Aesthetics Staff found that the proposed antennas would be unobtrusive as viewed from the street and neighboring properties. The three antennas would be mounted on an existing 110 foot tall PG &E transmission line tower at a height of 68 ft. The antennas would be painted silver to match the color of the tower. The equipment building, measuring 10 ft. (w) by 16 ft. (1) by 10 ft. (h), would be located underneath the transmission tower base, and painted beige with a brown asphalt shingle roof. The natural topography of the site provides that the visual impact of the equipment building will be reduced due to placement below the existing transmission tower. The shelter would be located below the grade level of Quito Road which reduces its visibility from the right of way and adjacent neighborhoods. In addition, the Planning Commission is requiring the applicant to install and maintain native landscaping in order to further screen the equipment structure from view. Health As a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as long as wireless telecommunications facilities meet standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a local government may not base any decision denying a request to construct such facilities on the grounds that radio frequency emissions from the facilities will be harmful to the environment or health of residents. It has been determined by Hammett Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, that the radio frequency associated with the telecommunication antennas proposed for this project do not create or result in harmful transmissions. Their findings are based on the most restrictive industry standards promulgated by the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers as adopted by the FCC. Traffic The appellant states that the Initial Study is improper because it did not address traffic impacts of the proposed project. Appellant maintains that the presence of the proposed antennas will "...increase the hazard of our roads and highways in an entirely preventable way... because drivers using cell phones are dangerous. Staff feels this argument is not germane to the issue at hand. Certainly not all drivers using cell phones are dangerous, and not everyone uses cell phones while driving. It is not an appropriate function of an environmental Initial Study to investigate this issue for this project. Measure G The appellant maintains that approving this Use Permit is a violation of Measure G. Measure G is the citizen initiative passed in March, 1996 that prohibits the City Council from approving any amendments to Saratoga's General Plan that would result in an increase of development density or intensity for those lands designated Residential or Outdoor Recreation, without prior approval of a majority of Saratoga voters. Page 3 of the attached Measure G document specifically lists the land use Density and Intensity standards adopted therein, and as excerpted from Saratoga's General Plan Land Use Element. The following is a summary of the applicability of these standards to this proposal: Density The General Plan designation for this site is Medium Density Residential. This designation would not change and no increase in residential dwelling unit density would be permitted as a result of approving this Use Permit. The Land Use Element does allow for accessory structures, such as public utilities and transmission antennas, to be located on residentially designated land. The CellularOne project is a transmission antenna, in addition, CellularOne is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), and as such, is considered a utility. Intensity Measure G limits the maximum permitted intensity of building and impervious surface coverage for land designated as Medium Density Residential to 60% of the site area. The proposed antennas themselves would add no additional impervious surface. The 160 sq. ft. equipment building would add impervious surface to the property, but well below 60% of the 68,809 sq. ft. total site area. Based on the above, it is staff's determination that wireless transmission antennas are not prohibited by the adopted text of Measure G. Radio and TV Interference The appellant further states that wireless providers in general interfere with her reception of radio and TV channels. The FCC assigns individual band frequencies to every wireless provider, just as it assigns individual frequencies to radio and TV stations. These frequencies are different than the frequencies assigned to radio and TV stations, and as such do not interfere with the broadcast or reception of radio, TV, or other wireless providers. SUMMARY The Planning Commission found that the Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared properly and conform to the findings required in Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commissioners felt that the application was appropriate for this location, and is in accord with the necessary findings set forth in Section 15- 55.070 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission added conditions of approval to the Use Permit to address aesthetics. The Commissioners noted that the City Council has already determined that a Conditional Use Permit is appropriate for this type of project, that it conforms with FCC standards, that although the existing tower is not aesthetically pleasing, the location for the antennas was reasonable, and that the City should allow the project. FISCAL IMPACTS: None foreseeable. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 ft. of the subject property and same notice was published in the Saratoga News on April 29th, 1998. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission's decision and approves the appeal on the grounds that the application is detrimental to the health or environment, they will be in violation of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. If the Council approves the appeal on the basis of aesthetic impacts, they will need to direct the applicant to reduce the project's impacts by specified measures. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The City Attorney shall prepare Resolutions for the next available meeting memorializing the decisions of the City Council on this matter. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated May 13 1998 2. Staff Report dated May l3` 1998, which includes: Resolution UP -98 -005 Measure G Supporting documentation from the applicant Initial Study and Negative Declaration Correspondence submitted prior to the Planning Commission public hearing 3. Appeal Correspondence 4. Exhibit "A plans 5. Exhibit "B photo simulation showing existing conditions and proposed project Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1998 PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO DENY DR -98 -007; MOTION PASSED 4/0. Page 4 applicant a great view at the expense of the neighbors. She was unwilling to impinge on the neighbors and wondered why there had been no consideration of a basement. Murakami noted that most of the opponents to the project live on Marion. not Burns Way. He felt that anything would be an improvement from what is existing, especially since the applicant has worked with staff and neighbors to mitigate privacy concerns. He felt the size could be reduced. or that a basement might be utilized. Pierce liked the design of the house and felt it was considerate of the neighbors. but questioned whether the design is appropriate to the lot. He did not want to take away from the uniqueness of the neighborhood, and felt that a 1 story house with a basement might be more appropriate. The Commissioners advised the applicant that there were not enough votes to approve the project. and they offered the applicant the opportunity to re- design for presentation at a future public hearing. In lieu of a continuance. the applicant asked for a vote. 5. UP -98 -005 (403 -24 -001) CELLULAR ONE, East of Quito Road and Adjacent to Hwy 85; Request for Use Permit approval to install 3 cellular panel antennas on an existing PG &E transmission tower with an associated radio equipment shelter (approximately 160 sq. ft.) to be located directly beneath the tower. The site is located within an R -1- 10,000 residential zoning district. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environment Quality Act. Walgren presented the staff report. Jennifer McCook of Cellular One, applicant's representative, said this project would provide service to Saratoga residents and that the aesthetic impact would be minimal. Martlage questioned the paint colors on the antenna and the structure. Murakami raised questions and received confirmation that there would be no interference with radio transmission, that additional cell sites were needed largely because of an increase in the use of phones in cars, and that application for a site at West Valley College was a few months away. Pierce said there was a similar configuration on Pollard Road, and the applicant confirmed that it belongs to Sprint. He asked if co- location on this site might be a possibility, to which the applicant said that the landlord has requested there be only one carrier. The applicant requested that the Commission make an exception in the process for submitting building plans, as they wished to submit before the end of the appeal period. Walgren said this might be a possibility and that a form is available covering assumption of risk. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, spoke in opposition to the project, raising issues that the Initial Study was inaccurate and violated the City's and County's General Plan, also challenging the aesthetic and health impacts. The applicant's representative responded that the area will be kept clean, that Cellular One is regulated by the PUC, and that the Engineer's report is within the FCC Standards for cellular antennas. Martlage felt the location for this utility is a logical one but that the area needs landscaping. She suggested Murakami said that the City Council has already determined that a Conditional Use Permit is appropriate for this project. and the FCC has done the same. It is logical that the City allow this project. Pierce did not feel the existing tower is aesthetically pleasing, but that it is needed. Regarding color. he recommended the applicant work with staff. MURAKAMI/PATRICK MOVED TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE UP -98 -005 WITH MODIFICATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING TO SCREEN THE STRUCTURE AND REMOVAL OF CONDITION #6 FROM THE RESOLUTION; MOTION PASSED 4/0. DIRECTOR ITEMS None COMMISSION ITEMS 1. Murakami asked if applications had been received for the vacant position on the Planning Commission.. Walgren responded that none had been received as yet, as the vacancy had just been posted in the Saratoga News the previous week. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 13, 1998 modifications to the approval. including addition of landscaping to screen the structure. elimination of Condition #6 of the Resolution, painting of the antennas to match the tower. and painting of the structure in a light brown. with staff s approval. Patrick concurred that the location is reasonable, that the structure should be painted a light brown, and that the weeds will need to be controlled. Patrick reported she had been contacted by a resident who said she had not been noticed for the Fitzsimmons project. Patrick assured the resident we would do our best. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated April 15 and April 21, 1998 2. Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of May 27, 1998 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING 9:32 p.m. to Wednesday, May 27, 1998, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA ITEM 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: UP -98 -005; S/E Comer of Quito Rd. Hwy. 85 Applicant /Owner: CellularOne /Associates I Staff Planner: Christina Ratcliffe, Assistant Planner Date: May 13, 1998 403 -24 -001 APN: Department Head; S/E Corner of Quito Rd. Hwy. 85 File No. UP -98 -005; S/E Corner of Quito Road Hwy. 85 CASE HISTORY Application filed: 2/13/98 Application complete: 3/20/98 Notice published: 4/29/98 Mailing completed: 4/30/98 Posting completed: 4/23/98 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Use Permit approval to construct three panel antenna mounted on an existing 110 ft. tall PG &E transmission tower located at the intersection of Hwy. 85 and Quito Road. The project also includes construction of a equipment building 10 ft. (w) x 16 ft. (1) x 10 ft. (h) located underneath the base of the existing transmission tower. An Environmental Initial Study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Use Permit application by adopting the attached environmental Negative Declaration and Resolution UP -98 -005. ATTACHMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution UP -98 -005 3. Measure G 4. Supplemental Information 5. Correspondence 6. Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration with attachments 7. Photo of existing site photo simulation of proposal 8. Plans, Exhibit "A" File No. UP -98 -005; SIE Corner of Quito Road Hwy. 85 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R- 1- 10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 68,809 sq. ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Three antennas to be painted silver to match transmission tower. Concrete building to be painted beige with brown asphalt shingles. PROJECT DISCUSSION Background In May of 1996, the City Council adopted an ordinance which established communication antenna facilities as conditionally permitted uses in all zoning districts within the City. Since then, the Planning Commission has approved several of these facilities at appropriate locations on vacant and developed properties. Emphasis has been placed on ensuring that the antennas and their support equipment were as unobtrusive as possible. For example, approved antennas have been located atop existing structures, within existing trees, and co- located with existing utility equipment. Safety It has been determined by Robert D. Weller, consulting engineer of Hammett Edison, Inc., that the radio frequency associated with these wireless telecommunications antennas will not create or result in harmful transmissions. Their findings, attached to the Environmental Initial Study are based on the most restrictive industry standards promulgated by the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers as adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. As a result of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, as long as wireless telecommunications facilities meet standards set by the FCC, a local government may not base any decision denying a request to construct such facilities on the grounds that radio frequency emissions from the facilities will be harmful to the environment or health of residents. Aesthetics Staff finds that this site is an appropriate location for telecommunication antenna facilities. The placement of three antennas 68 ft. above the base of the existing 110 ft. tower would have minimal aesthetic impacts. The antennas are 1 ft. (w) x 8 ft.(1). Construction of the equipment building within the base of the tower will also have minimal aesthetic impacts on the area. The custom -built structure is 10 ft. (w) x 16 ft.(1) x 10 ft.(h). The proposed location is below the grade of Quito Road, thereby reducing the view of the structure from the road. As shown on the photo simulation, the location and color of the building, would also reduce the aesthetic impact. Staff feels that in order to further reduce visual impact, the structure should be painted beige rather than the white shown in the photo simulation, and applicant has agreed to this condition. File No. UP -98 -005; S/E Corner of Quito Road Hwy. 85 Existing and Future CellularOne Sites The applicant has provided supplemental information on the existing CellularOne sites in Saratoga, as well as a map of possible future locations. The existing CellularOne sites are referred to as macrocell sites, as is the proposal currently before the commission. There are two existing CellularOne macrocell sites in Saratoga: 1) a monopole at 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale road, and 2) a roof -top installation at 14471 Big Basin Way. CellularOne is currently testing West Valley College as a possible location for an additional macrocell site. The applicant anticipates that the installation of that macrocell site may reduce the future need for one to three surrounding microcell sites. The configuration for microcell sites is somewhat different from the macrocell sites. In general, these sites consist of only two antennas and a small telephone equipment cabinet. Microcell antennas measure approximately 1 ft. (h) x 8 in. (w). The accompanying equipment cabinet is approximately 5 ft. (w) x 4 ft. (1) x 4.5 ft. (h). These smaller antennas can be installed on existing buildings or signs. In addition, the applicant has stated that they have agreements with PG &E to mount antennas on existing towers, and that they are working with the Joint Pole Commission to use existing utility poles along city streets in the future. Maps showing possible future locations for CellularOne macrocell and microcell sites are attached. These locations are tentative and are not a part of this application, but for informational purposes only. Future sites would be considered by the Planning Commission individually. Measure G Applicability At the January 28, 1998 public hearing, the Planning Commission heard a request to install a cellular transmission antenna at a Sousa Lane site across from this site on the North/West side of Quito Road and Hwy. 85. Though that specific Use Permit request was denied for site incompatibility reasons, a statement was made by a neighbor that cellular transmission antennas should be considered prohibited by Measure G. Measure G is the citizen initiative passed in March, 1996 that prohibits the City Council from approving any amendments to Saratoga's General Plan that would result in an increase of development density or intensity for those lands designated Residential or Outdoor Recreation, without prior approval of a majority of Saratoga voters. The Planning Commission requested that staff respond to this statement the next time a cellular antenna proposal was brought before the Commission. Page 3 of the attached Measure G document specifically lists the land use Density and Intensity standards adopted therein, and as excerpted from Saratoga's General Plan Land Use Element. The following is a summary of the applicability of these standards to this proposal: Density The General Plan designation for this site is Medium Density Residential. This designation would not change and no increase in residential dwelling unit density would be permitted as a result of approving this Use Permit. The Land Use Element does allow for accessory structures, such as public utilities and transmission antennas, to be located on residentially designated land. Intensity Measure G limits the maximum permitted intensity of building and impervious surface coverage for land designated as Medium Density Residential to 60% of the site area. The proposed antennas themselves would add no additional impervious surface. The 160 sq. ft. 1047 Cr, File No. UP -98 -005; S/E Corner of Quito Road Hwy. 85 equipment building would add impervious surface to the property, but well below 60% of the 68,809 sq. ft. total site area. Based on the above, it is staff's determination that wireless transmission antennas are not prohibited by the adopted text of Measure G. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Use Permit application by adopting the attached Negative Declaration and Resolution UP -98 -005. RESOLUTION NO. UP -98 -005 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA CellularOne (Associates I): S/E Corner of Quito Road Hwy. 85 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Use Permit approval to construct three panel antenna mounted on an existing 110 ft. tall PG &E transmission tower and to construct an equipment building 10 ft. (w) x 16. ft. (1) x 10 ft. (h) located underneath the base of the existing transmission tower, 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 Planning Commission finds: a. That the proposed wireless communication antenna is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located. b. That the proposed wireless communication antenna and equipment building and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. That the proposed wireless communication antenna complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of CellularOne /Associates I for Use Permit approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed antennas shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A incorporated by reference. 2. The proposed antennas shall be painted silver to match the existing tower. 3. The proposed equipment structure shall be painted beige, with a brown shingle roof. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all equipment and structures in a timely manner per the conditions of this approval. 5. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. 5 0 II, File No. UP -98 -005; S/E Corner of Quito Road Hwy. 85 b. Paint samples for both the antennas and the equipment structure. 6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 7. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 8. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. 9. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 10. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13 day of May 1998 by the following roll call vote: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission TO THE HONORABLE CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA We, the undersigned, registered and qualified voters of the City of Saratoga, hereby propose an ordinance to amend the City of Saratoga General Plan. We petition you to submit the same to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for its adoption without change, or for rejection and submission of the same to the voters of the City of Saratoga at a special election. In the event that the initiative petition is not signed by the number of voters required by Elections Code section 9214 and the City Council of the City of Saratoga does not adopt the ordinance without change, we petition you to submit the ordinance to amend the City of Saratoga General Plan to the voters of the City of Saratoga at the next regular municipal election. AMENDMENT TO THE CITY GENERAL PLAN REQUIRING VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO INTENSIFY EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR ALL LANDS DESIGNATED "RESIDENTIAL OR "OUTDOOR RECREATION" The people of the City of Saratoga do hereby ordain as follows: Section 1_ Purpose and Fin in A The protection of the character of existing low density residential neighborhoods and outdoor recreational open space areas in the City of Saratoga is of critical importance to Saratoga residents. The City was founded as a semi -rural residential community and most residents moved here because of this distinctive feature. Saratoga remains unique among South Bay communities because of its country atmosphere and open space areas, its majestic trees, an unusually low crime rate, and quiet neighborhoods free of or only minimally affected by retail, commercial and office development. Page 1af10 AUG 2 8 1995 August 24, 1995 B. In recent years, however, the very attributes that make Saratoga so desirable have become threatened. The City Council is under strong and unceasing pressure from developers to convert residential and open space lands to retail commercial or high density residential developments. Proposals for more intensive development in residential neighborhoods are now regularly before the City; almost certainly some of these will be granted. C. The opening of the Route 85 freeway through Saratoga may also dramatically increase development pressure in Saratoga. Newly opened freeway corridors typically undergo an intensification of commercial, industrial and high density residential development. D. The unique character and quality of life of City residents depend on the protection of Saratoga's residential neighborhoods and recreational open space areas. This initiative, if approved by the voters, will provide this assurance by giving greater stability to the City's General Plan, specifying that general plan provisions essential to the protection of the residential and recreational open space areas in the City can be amended or repealed only by the voters ofthe City of Saratoga. In particular, the initiative requires, with certain exceptions, a vote of the people to permit: (1) the redesignation of residential lands to commercial, industrial or other land use designations, (2) an increase of densities or intensities of residential land use, or (3) the redesignation of recreational open space lands to other land use designations. This initiative does not affect the City's existing regulations that authorize the creation of second dwelling units. Nor does the initiative interfere with the City's obligation under state law to revise the Housing Element of the General Plan every five years. E. The Land Use Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan, adopted May 4, 1983 as amended through August 7, 1995 (hereinafter, "City's Land Use Element sets forth policies that protect the character of Saratoga's residential neighborhoods, including the following: Page 2 af 10 "LU.8.0 Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single- family detached residences. LU.8. Existing non developed sites zoned single- family detached residential should remain so designated." This initiative serves to further the purpose underlying the foregoing policies. F. The City's Land Use Element establishes development standards for residential land use in six subcategories (using the term "DU" to refer to dwelling units), as follows: "A. Hillside Conservation Single Family Maximum density of .5 DU /net acre or 1.55 people/acre. Maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage: 15,000 square feet or 25% of site area, whichever is less. B. Very Low Density Single Family Maximum density of 1.09 DU /net acre or 3.38 people/acre. Maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage: 35% of site area. C. Low Density Single Family Maximum density of 2.18 DU /net acre or 6.76 people/acre. Maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage: 45% of site area. D. Medium Density Single Family 1. M -10 maximum density of 4.35 DU /net acre or 13.5 people/acre. 2. M -12,5 maximum density of 3.48 DU /net acre or 10.8 people/acre. 3. M -15 maximum density of 2.90 DU /net acre or 9.0 people/acre. In all cases above, the maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage is: 50%- 60% of site area. E. Multi-family Maximum density of 14.5 DU /net acre or 27 -45 people/acre. Maximum intensity of building coverage: 40% of site area. F. P -D (Planned Development) Residential 4.35 to 12.45 DU /net acre or 13.5 to 38.6 people/acre. Maximum intensity of building coverage: 25% 35% of site area. All projects proposed on sites with this designation shall require use permit approval as provide for in Article 16 of the zoning ordinance. Page 3 of 10 It should be noted that any discussion of the number of people per acre is nat meant to act as a limit to family size or maximum number of people that would be permitted to live on a site. The population densities given are meant only to act as a guide to the average number of people likely to occupy a given area." G. The Open Space Element of the Saratoga General Plan declares that the City should, where possible, improve the existing inventory of local public park and recreation facilities. In the face of increasing development pressures within the City, it is essential that the City, at a minimum, affirm its intention to maintain its existing recreational open space resources The City's Open Space Element sets forth policies that call for the protection of Saratoga's outdoor recreation open space lands, including the following: "Preserve, through a variety of methods, as much as possible of the open space areas described in the Open Space Element for visual greenbelts, conservation and management of environmental resources, public health and safety protection and for recreational use." Further, the City's Land Use Element establishes development standards for the outdoor recreation open space subcategory of open space lands as follows: "Outdoor recreation This subcategory consists of City or County parks or lands designated for those uses. Only recreational facilities (i.e. playground equipment, recreational courts, etc.), structures necessary to support the parks or structures of particular historic value are permitted in these areas. These sites are considered to be of particular value for recreational purposes. Some parks preserve significant vegetation features such as Hakone Gardens and Villa Montalvo County Park." This initiative serves to further the purpose underlying the foregoing policies. H. The purpose of this initiative is to ensure that residential lands are not unnecessarily converted to higher density residential, commercial or industrial land use designations and to protect the City's existing recreational open space resources. Accordingly, the initiative ensures that until December 31, 2025, the foregoing provisions of the City's Land Use Element governing building densities and intensities on residential lands may not be changed Page 4 10 r'• t1 a .s 4 except by vote of the people to increase the maximum densities and intensities stated. In addition the initiative provides that any lands designated as "Hillside Conservation Single Family," "Very Low Density Single Family," "Low Density Single Family," "Medium Density Single Family," "Multi Family," "P D (Planned Development)," or "Outdoor Recreation" by the City's General Plan and amendments thereto through August 7, 1995 will remain so designated until December 31, 2025 unless the land is redesignated by the City Council pursuant to the procedures set forth in this initiative or redesignated to another land use category by vote of the people. AD ,Section 2 A. This Initiative hereby reaffirms and readopts, until December 31, 2025, the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan adopted in 1983 as amended through August 7, 1995 specifying maximum densities and intensities of uses permitted in the City's residential subcategories, which provisions are set forth in their entirety in finding F of Section 1 of the initiative. In addition, the initiative hereby reaffirms and readopts, until December 31, 2025, the "Hillside Conservation Single Family," "Very Low Density Single Family," "Low Density Single Family," "Medium Density Single Family," "Multi- Family," and "P- D (Planned Development)" designations of the City of Saratoga General Plan and amendments thereto through August 7, 1995. Further, the following text is added as the last paragraph of the "Residential" section of the City of Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element adopted in 1983 as amended through August 7, 1995, at page 3 -2: "Limitations on General Plan Amendments Relating to 'Residential' Lands. 1. Until December 31, 2025, the foregoing provisions governing maxinnim building density and intensity for lands designated Conservation Single Family," "Very Low Density Single Family," "Low Density Single Page 5of10 1 Family," "Medium Density Single Family," "Multi Family," and "P -D (Planned Development)" shall not be amended to increase such densities or intensities unless such amendment is approved by vote of the people. 2. All lands designated "Hillside Conservation Single Family," "Very Low Density Single Family," "Low Density Single Family," Medium Density Single Family," Multi Family," or "P -D (Planned Development)" by the City of Saratoga General Plan and amendments thereto through August 7, 1995 shall remain so designated until December 31, 2025, unless said land is redesignated to another general plan land use category by vote of the people, or redesignated by the City Council pursuant to the procedures set forth in subsections 3 and 4 below. 3. Except as provided in subsection 4 below, land designated by the City of Saratoga General Plan as "Hillside Conservation Single Family," "Very Low Density Single Family," "Low Density Single Family," "Medium Density Single Family," "Multi- Family," or "P -D (Planned Development)" may be redesignated to a more intensive residential land use by the City Council pursuant to its usual procedures only if the City Council makes each of the following findings: a. The proposed redesignation is essential for the Housing Element to be in substantial compliance with state law, and no other feasible redesignation (including, but not limited to, redesignation elands designated for non residential uses) or measures other than the proposed redesignation are available to achieve such compliance that would involve less intensive use of the land to be redesignated; and Page 6 of 10 B. This Initiative hereby reaffirms and readopts, until December 31, 2025, the "Outdoor Recreation" designations of the City of Saratoga General Plan and amendments thereto through August 7, 1995. Further, the following text is added as paragraph G of the "Open Space" section of the City of Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element The Housing Element of the City's General Plan is in substantial compliance with state law, and the state Department of Housing and Conmmmity Development has found such compliance. 4. Land designated by the City of Saratoga General Plan as "Hillside Conservation Single Family," "Very Low Density Single Family," "Low Density Single Family," "Medium Density Single Family," "Multi- Family," or "P -D (Planned Development)" maybe redesignated to another land use category by the City Council if each of the following conditions are satisfied: a. The City Council makes a finding that the application of subsection 2 of this policy on "Limitations on General Plan Amendments Relating to 'Residential' Lands" would constitute an unconstitutional taking of the landowner's property; and b. In permitting redesignation, the City Council allows additional land uses only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid said unconstitutional taking of the landowner's property, and protects to the maximum extent possible the character of immediately surrounding residential neighborhoods." adopted in 1983 as amended through August 7, 1995, at page 3-4: "Limitations on General Plan Amendments Relating to 'Outdoor Recreation' Lands. 1. All lands designated "Outdoor Recreation" by the City of Saratoga General Plan and amendments thereto through August 7, 1995 shall remain so designated until December 31, 2025, unless said land is redesignated to another general plan land use category by vote of the people, or redesignated by the City Council pursuant to the procedures set forth in subsections 2 and 3 below. 2. Except as provided in subsection 3 below, land designated "Outdoor Recreation" by the City of Saratoga General Plan and amendments thereto through August 7, 1995 may be redesignated to residential land use by the City Council pursuant to its usual procedures only if the City makes each of the following findings: a. The proposed amendment is essential for the Housing Elemenrto be in substantial compliance with State law, and no other feasible designation (including, but not limited to, redesignation of lands designated for non residential uses) or measures other than the proposed redesignation are available to achieve such compliance that would involve a less intensive land use of the land to be redesignated; and b. The Housing Element of the City's General Plan is in substantial compliance with state law, and the state Department of Housing and Community Development has found such substantial compliance. Page 8 of 10 3. Land designated by the City of Saratoga General Plan as "Outdoor Recreation" may be redesignated to another land use category by the Cite Council if each of the following conditions are satisfied: a. The City Council makes a finding that the application of subsection 1 of this policy on "Limitations on General Plan Amendments Relating to 'Outdoor Recreation' Lands" would constitute an unconstitutional taking of the landowner's property; and b. In permitting redesignation, the City Council allows additional land uses only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid said unconstitutional taking of the landowner's property, and protects to the maximum extent possible the character of the immediately surrounding residential neighborhoods." Section 1 JmplementRtinn A. Upon the effective date of this initiative, the provisions of Section 2 of the initiative are inserted into the Land Use Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan as an amendment thereo4 except that if the four amendments of the mandatory elements of the general plan permitted by state law for any given calendar year have already been utilized in 1996 prior to the. effective date of this initiative, this general plan amendment shall be the first amendment inserted in the City's General Plan on January 1, 1997. At such time as this general plan amendment is inserted in the City General Plan, any provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance, as reflected in the ordinance itself or the City of Saratoga Zoning Map, inconsistent with that amendment shall not be enforced to the extent of the inconsistency. B. The provisions of this initiative and the terms it adds to the City's General Plan shall supersede any conflicting provisions of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance that may be enacted by the City Council between the date this initiative is filed with the City and the effective Page 9 of 10 date of the initiative. Upon the effective date of the initiative, all general plan amendments, rezonings, specific plans, tentative or final subdivision maps, conditional use permits, building permits and other ministerial and discretionary entitlements for use not yet approved or issued shall be approved or issued only if consistent with the policies and provisions of this initiative. Section 4 Exemptions fo rtrtam Projects_ This initiative shall not apply to any development project which has obtained as of the effective date of the initiative a vested right pursuant to state law. Section 5 Severahility If any portion of this initiative is declared invalid by a court, the remaining portions are to be considered valid. Section 6 Amenciment_or_RepPal This initiative may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the City of Saratoga at a City election. S2`r 9S 35" /{oSicL fir, SetraZogct, CA- 9so70 E -e s Sho 8. 02q. 95 91 /emAmezezza *Ho Shadow aks Way satzub e» 95040 "F 4 SY9 Uw,. ZIAL L SCo CELLULARONE' •I' DIGITAL NETWORK'" Project Description CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Supplemental Information YEARS (1t1.1.11.•• 0141 Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company "Cellular One currently has coverage and capacity issues along Highway 85 and major thoroughfares in the City of Saratoga. The solution to these issues is a proposal to install a cellular telecommunications facility "macrocell site on an existing PG &E tower located at the intersection of Quito Road and Highway 85. The zoning of the property is R- 1(single family residential) and currently the premises is a vacant lot. The proposed cell site would be located on the existing 110' PG &E transmission tower located on the northwest portion of the parcel. The associated equipment shelter will be located directly beneath the transmission tower. CellularOne's main concern is to construct an aesthetically pleasing and inobtrusive facility that provides the needed cellular coverage to our customers. Therefore, we are proposing to install the antennas on an existing structure and are proposing a custom -built shelter. The shelter will be constructed to look like a small shed with a stucco finish and a shingle roof. The colors are a neutral beige or brown in color. The antennas will be painted to match the PG &E tower and will blend in with the existing cross -bars and structural features of the tower. CellularOne's proposal consists of installing three (3) cellular antennas placed at a height of approximately 68' on the PG &E transmission tower. The antennas measure 12 "(w) x 96" (1) x 7" (d). Radios and radio processing equipment for the cellular antennas are to be located within a new 10'(w) x 16'(1) x 10' (h) custom -built shelter. The impact of the shelter's height will be diminished greatly as there is a significant slope at this area of the parcel. The natural topography of the site provides a reduced line of sight from Quito Road. Coaxial cables connect the radio equipment with the antennas. This cable will be routed from the equipment shed underground to a cable tray that sweeps up the leg of the tower. This cable tray is to be painted to match the tower. All necessary utilities for the operation of the site, telephone and power, will be routed underground. Photosimulations are attached for your review and information. City of Saratoga Regulations Section 15- 80.080 Radio and television antennas. This proposal to locate three cellular antennas on an existing PG &E transmission tower and the installation of an equipment shelter beneath the tower conforms with the standards outlined in Section 15- 80.080. CELEBRATING 10 YEARS OF BUSINESS Conditional Use Permit Supplemental Information Page 1 651 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1500, So. San Francisco, CA 94080 (415) 871 -9500 hap: //www celone -sf.. com v ;jr 4 j Recycled Paper (d) Location Requirements. (1) The antennas and associated support structures do not extend over property lines or street lines. The antennas will be mounted directly to the PG &E tower legs and will not require large mounting structures. (2) The antenna support structure (PG &E tower) is located several yards away from the property line and/or street line. (3) N/A No satellite dish is to be installed. (4) The existing PG &E tower is located in the northwest portion of the property adjacent to Quito Road. The installation of the antennas on this existing structure effectively reduces any visual impact of the antennas. The natural topography of the site provides that the visual impact of the equipment shelter will be reduced due to the placement and installation of the equipment shelter. The shelter will be located below the grade level of Quito Road and therefore less visible from the right of way and adjacent neighborhoods. (e) Height Restrictions CellularOne is proposing to locate at an approximate height of 68' on an existing structure. The PG &E transmission tower is 110' in height. Our proposed installation does not increase the height of the structure. (f) Installation Requirements PG &E, the tower owner, and CellularOne will comply with all installation and maintenance requirements as outlined in this Subsection. (g) Mitigation of Visual Impact The antennas will be adequately screened by painting the antennas to match the existing PG &E tower. This proposal does not adversely affect the impact of the already existing PG &E tower. The antennas will be mounted on the legs of the tower and no visually obtrusive support structures are required. The installation of the equipment shelter, as stated above will be mitigated by the fact that the location is below the grade level of Quito Road, thereby reducing the visual impact to travelling cars on Quito Road and the adjacent residential area. The equipment shelter will also be custom built to resemble a small shed. Additionally, the shelter will be painted in neutral, earthtone colors. Upon approval from the landowner, CellularOne is open to adding landscaping to buffer any impact the shelter may cause. Portable Coverage and Coverage Enhancement As I touched on briefly above, this proposed cell site will provide necessary coverage .to travelers on north and southbound Highway 85 through Saratoga, on Quito Road south to Highway 9, west to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, east to Winchester and north to Payne Avenue, as well as the surrounding residential areas. These areas are severely lacking in adequate coverage. CellularOne is regulated by the F.C.C. and C.P.U.C. and is required to provide satisfactory coverage to its customers. I have attached a map and a computer- generated printout of the coverage this site will provide for your information and reference. Conditional Use Permit Supplemental Information Page 2 651 Gateway Boulevard. Suite 1500. So. San Francisco, CA 94080 (415) 244 -5615 FAX (415) 244 557. J,,1 CellularOne Future Needs CellularOne is in the process of supplementing its existing digital and analog cellular service in the greater Bay Area. A major component of this process is filling in some locations, usually along major highways and city thoroughfares, with "microcell" sites. These "microcell" sites supplement the "macrocell" sites by offloading callers from the larger sites to enhance call quality and clarity. In evaluating the City of Saratoga, CellularOne's radio frequency engineers have determined that the major thoroughfares such as Saratoga Avenue, Fruitvale Avenue, Highway 9 and Quito Road south of Pollard Avenue may require enhanced coverage in the near future. I have attached a map indicating potential microcell site locations. Please note that the locations indicated on the attached map are estimated locations of future sites. Some sites may be eliminated or added due to needed coverage or capacity issues. The attached map is our best estimate for future sites. Also, CellularOne's engineers are testing the West Valley College as a potential location for a macrocell" facility. The installation of a macrocell facility may reduce the need for one to three surrounding or adjacent "microcell" sites. General description of a microcell site: A microcell site consists of two cellular antennas and an accompanying radio equipment cabinet. The antennas measure approximately 14" (H) x 8" (W). The telephone equipment cabinet measures approximately 5' (W) x 4' (L) x 4.5' (H). These small antennas can be installed on existing buildings or signs along major thoroughfares and are not visually obtrusive. As you are aware, we have agreements with PG &E to mount on existing towers and are working with the Joint Pole Commission to use existing utility poles along city streets. The equipment cabinet may be installed inside a building or if necessary, are easily screened from view if placed outdoors. Microcell sites generally do not require as much height as the macrocell sites. The average height of a microcell site is a 20' antenna centerline. Depending on the topography of the area and location of existing structures, these sites are located .70 of a mile to 1 mile apart. Because of the low antenna height and the relatively small equipment cabinets, these sites do not create a large visual impact. The macrocell sites, on the other hand, generally require a greater height for the antenna location, usually a larger antenna or more antennas per sector and an equipment shelter to house the telephone and radio equipment. (The current application is for a macrocell site.) In the initial design of potential macrocell sites, we consider sites that do not impact the surrounding areas. CellularOne attempts to locate the macrocell sites on existing structures, such as PG &E towers, on building roof tops or we co- locate with existing telecommunications carriers. The installation of any site depends on various factors. 1) Radio frequency coverage objectives; 2) Topography and existing structures in the area; 3) The jurisdiction's zoning guidelines for telecommunications sites; 4) Ability to lease space from a prospective landlord; 5) Constructability; and 6) Budget. All of these factors will play a key role in the determination of the type and number of sites CellularOne proposes. Conditional Use Permit Supplemental Information Page 3 651 Gateway Boulevard. Suite 1500, So. San Francisco. CA 94080 (415) 244 -5615 FAX (415) 244 -5575 0 Recycled Paper Existing Macrocell Facilities CellularOne currently operates two macrocell sites within the City of Saratoga. 1) 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Monopole 2) 14471 Big Basin Way Roof top Installation I have attached a map reflecting .existing macrocell sites and the proposed macrocell site at Highway 85 and Quito Road. Serves to Protect the Value for Private and Public Investments The proposed cell site, in effect, serves to protect the value of private and public investments in the area. Cellular communication is typically instrumental in aiding police, fire and other emergency response personnel in preventing crime and hazardous situations. In addition, cellular communications allows private citizens to alert public servants of situations which jeopardize Life, liberty and both private and public investment. Further, CellularOne believes it has both identified a quality location for its facility and appropriately sited the facility based on the requirements of the City of Saratoga and its residents. Attachments: Map of existing sites and proposed macrocell at Highway 85 Quito Road Map of future microcell sites RF plot map reflecting coverage obtained from site Coverage map Conditional Use Permit Supplemental Information Page 4 4 i_ 1 %r 651 Gateway Boulevard. Suite 1500. So. San Francisco, CA 94080 (415) 244 -5615 FAX (415) 244 -5575 1 0 OAK 1.; MCI S Ca) I cRUITVA i I r R11101101 .1111 taw syt I SY) STIA '81 oats 6 t.F --1-1 Q „k -4 0, tly--- ).-0,4y gojo ,CIVIAI 1 F r,, Z-;' f. •'''-'9 r, 7 g e p4s4:ci, t I 1 9 'lc V I J A A :14'717 0 Recycled Paper Map of Future Sites Proposed "Microcells *Please note these are proposed site locations and are subject to change. Ro ��1 tC- ""s' :tea!• I MOrTPEA .9a TISMLE 051 r a r SITE �cm� a ewe s gs tt nu a v gif 651 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1500, So. San Francisco, CA 94080 (415) 244 -5615 FAX (415) 244 -5575 Project Location: Southeast corner of Hwy. 85 and Quito Road Applicant: CellularOne 651 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1500 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Lead Agency: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 City of Saratoga CellularOne P. 1 planning\SN\CellOne Neg Dec ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared For CellularOne Proposed Telecommunication Antenna March 1998 Project Description: Request for Use Permit approval to construct three panel antenna mounted on an existing 110 foot tall PG &E transmission tower located at the intersection of Hwy. 85 and Quito Road. The project also includes construction of a equipment building 10 feet (w) by 16 feet (1) by 10 feet (h) located underneath the base of the existing transmission tower. Environmental Evaluation/Checklist CONTENTS Environmental Evaluation/Checklist Negative Declaration Attachment A: statement of William F. Hammett, Consulting Engineer City of Saratoga CellularOne p. 2 planninglSNMCellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) Potentially Significant Impact I. LAND. USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the proposal: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? City of Saratoga CellularOne P. 3 planninglSNICe1lOne Neg Dec Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people'to potential impacts involving: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Environmental Evaluation/Checklist s ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? IV. WATER. Would -tht; groposal:result in:. Potentially Significant Impact a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alterations of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: City of Saratoga CellularOne p. 4 planning \SN1CellOne Neg Dec 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 0 0 0 0 e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) Potentially Significant Impact VI. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION.. Would the .proposal result in: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICALS RESOURCES. Would the proposal result inimpacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? City of Saratoga CellularOne p. 5 planninglSNlCellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) Potentially Significant Impact VIII. ENERGY. AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and state residents? IX. :HAZARDS. Would:the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? It has been determined by Hammett Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, that the radio frequency associated with this project does not create or result in harmful transmissions. Their findings are based on the most restrictive industry standards promulgated by the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers as adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X.NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? City of Saratoga CellularOne p. 6 planning\SNlCellOne Neg Dec Environmental Evaluation /Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. ""Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services, in any of the following areas: a) Fire Protection? b) Police Protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? XIII AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? City of Saratoga CellularOne P. 7 planninglSN\CellOne Neg Dec Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact XII. 'UTILI 11ES AND SE_ RVICE: SYSTEMS:' Would the, proposal result in a need for:new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to °the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer, septic systems, or wastewater treatment and disposal facilities? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste materials recovery or disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? The proposed antennas would be unobtrusive as viewed from the street and neighboring properties. The three antennas would be mounted on an existing 110 foot tall PG &E transmission tower at a height of 68 feet. The antennas would be painted silver to match the color of the tower. The new equipment building, measuring 10' (w) x 16' (1) x 10'(h), would be located underneath the transmission tower base, and painted beige with a brown asphalt shingle roof. The natural topography of the site provides that the visual impact of Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) the equipment building will be reduced due to placement below the existing transmission tower. The shelter would be located below the grade level of Quito Road which reduces its visibility from the right -of -way and adjacent neighborhoods. c) Create adverse light or glare effects? XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: "Wouldthe` proposal:- a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XV. RECREATION Would the proposal:. a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Saratoga CellularOne P. 8 planninglSNlCellOne Neg Dec Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (see attachments for information sources) City of Saratoga CellularOne P. 9 planninglSN\CellOne Neg Dec Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Environmental Evaluation/Checklist XVII. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fmd the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. DATE City of Saratoga CellularOne p. 10 I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I fmd the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. EA Si planninglSNMCellOne Neg Dec For: JAMES C. WALGREN, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Environmental Evaluation /Checklist The undersigned, Manager of Community Development and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined and does hereby determine pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 of the City of Saratoga, and based on the City's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. Project Description: Request for Use Permit approval to construct three panel antenna mounted on an existing 110 foot tall PG &E transmission tower located at the intersection of Hwy. 85 and Quito Road. The project also includes construction of a equipment building 10' (w) x 16' (1) by 10' (h) located underneath the base of the existing transmission tower. Project Location: Northwest corner of Hwy. 85 and Quito Road Name and Address of Proponent: CellularOne 651 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1500 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Reason for Negative Declaration The proposed personal communications antennas are not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Although the proposed antennas will modify the existing use of the site, it is a minor modification which will not cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to the terms of the Environmental Quality Act. Executed at Saratoga, California this City of Saratoga CellularOne p. 11 planninglSNMCellOne Neg Dec NEGATIVE DECLARATION Declaration That Environmental Impact Report Not Required For Use Permit #98 -005 CellularOne day of 1998. Environmental Evaluation/Checklist City of Saratoga CellularOne p. 12 planninglSNMCellOne Neg Dec ATTACHMENT A Environmental Evaluation/Checklist Cellular One Proposed Base Station Sire (No. 492) Highway 85 at Quinto Road San Jose, California Statement of William F. Hammett, Consulting Engineer The firm of Hammett Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of CellularOne Communications, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station facility proposed to be installed near the intersection of Highway 85 and Quinto Road in San Jose, California (Site No. 492), for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress has required of the Federal Communications Commission "FCC that it evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 79 -144, effective January 1, 1986, the FCC adopted the radio frequency protection ,guide of the American National Standards Institute "ANSI Standard C95.1 -1982, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 GHz." Exposures are to be averaged over a six minute period. In 1992, ANSI published a revised standard, C95.1 -1992, which defined "controlled" and "uncontrolled" environments, setting for the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The C95.1 -1992 controlled (i.e., occupational) limits are approximately the same as in C95.1 -1982. In Docket 93 -62, the FCC adopted the exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements "NCRP a standard very similar to C95.1 -1992. A summary of the exposure limits contained in NCRP -86 is shown in Figure 1. The effective date for applying this standard to FCC licensees was October 15, 1997. The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency "RF energy for several wireless telecommunications services "WTS are as follows: Wireless Telecommunications Service Operating Frequency Personal Communication "PCS 1,900 MHz Paging (NPCS) 900 Cellular Telephone 870 Specialized Mobile Radio "SMR 850 [most restrictive limit] 30-300 HAMMETT EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO Occupational Limit Public Limit 5.0 mW /cm 3.1 2.9 2.8 1.0 1.0 mW /cm 0.60 0.58 0.57 0.20 General Facility Requirements Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned for WTS, the antennas require line -of- sight paths for their signals to propagate. Antennas for base station use are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the 970120 -492 Page 1 of 3 FED CelluiarOne Proposed Base Station Sire (No. 492) Highway 85 at Quinto Road San Jose, California ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the limits without being physically very near the antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC has provided direction for determining compliance in the Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation," dated August 1997. The attached_Figure 2 describes the ground level calculation methodology in detail and the computerized techniques for modeling particular sites. This method of evaluating expected exposure conditions is accepted by the FCC, and its accuracy has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Architectural drawings by Delta Groups Engineering, Inc., dated February 12, 1998, and information provided by CellularOne indicate that three panel antennas are to be mounted about 64 feet above ground on an existing lattice tower, to provide service in three different compass directions, called sectors. Sector orientations of 20 °T, 140 °T, and 270 °T are proposed. Effective radiated power is to be 1,330 watts, which is the maximum in any direction. There are no reported buildings of a similar height nearby. Study Results The maximum ambient RF levels at ground level due to the proposed operation, are calculated to be 0.59% of the applicable public limit. Levels inside nearby buildings are expected to be even lower due to the attenuation effects of typical building materials. It should be noted that these results include several "worst- case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. Recommended Mitigation Measures The antennas are not directly accessible to the general public. Such access as would allow authorized personnel to approach within 8 feet of the proposed transmitting antennas themselves may result in exposure levels greater than the occupational limit and should be prohibited while the stations are in operation. Warning signs* posted near each transmitting antenna, such that they Warning signs should comply with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. In addition, contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. HAMMETT EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO 970120 -492 Page 2 of 3 CellularOne Proposed Base Station S,,e (No. 492) Highway 85 at Quinto Road San Jose, California would be visible to workers intending to perform work on the site, would be sufficient to meet FCC adopted standards. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station facility proposed by CellularOne near the intersection of Highway 85 and Quinto Road in San Jose, California, can comply with the prevailing standards for limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E -13026 and M- 20676, which expire on June 30, 2001. This work has been carried out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. March 27, 1998 HAMMETT EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO William F. HarnMett, P.E. 970120 -492 Page 3 of 3 Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Contact Currents Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far -Field (mA) Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (MHz) (V /m) (A/m) (mW /cm 0.3 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 200 1.34 3.0 614 823.8/f 1.63 2.19/f 100 180 /f 200 3.0 30 1842/f 823.8/f 4.89/f 2.19/f 900 /f 180 /f 200 30 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 no limit 300 1,500 3.54Jf 1.59Jf ✓17106 ✓j7238 f /300 f1500 no limit 1,500 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 no limit National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report No. 86 (Published 1986) "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" Radio Frequency Protection Guide Note: f is frequency of emission, in MHz. Power Density (mW/cm 1 100 1 0 1 0.1 Contact 1000 Current (mA) 100 HE HAMMETT EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO 0.1 1 Occupational Exposure Public Exposure 10 100 10 Frequency (MHz) 10 1 0 5 NCRP -86 Standard Figure 1 RFR.GROUND Calculation Methodology Determination by Computer of Compliance with Human Exposure Limitations The U.S. Congress has required of the FCC that it evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 79 -144, the FCC adopted the radio frequency protection guide of the American National Standards Institute Standard C95.1 -1982, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 GHz." Exposures are to be averaged over a six minute period. In 1992, ANSI published a revised standard, C95.1 -1992, which defined "controlled" and "uncontrolled" environments, setting for the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The C95.1 -1992 controlled (i.e., occupational) limits are approximately the same as in C95.1 -1982. In Docket 93 -62, the FCC adopted the exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. This standard is very similar to C95.1 -1992, and the effective date for applying it to all FCC licensees was October 15, 1997. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives the formula for calculating power density from an individual radiation source: 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF x [0.4xVERP AERP] P ower density S 4nD2 in mW /cm where VERP total peak visual ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, AERP total aural ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half -wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 0.4 converts NTSC peak visual ERP to an average RMS value; for FM, cellular, and PCS stations, of course, the value of VERP is zero. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a computer program by Hammett Edison that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of the actual terrain at the site to obtain more accurate projections. The calculated results can be shown on a plat of the calculation grid as a percentage of the appropriate limit. Generally, a solid black dot appearing on the plat indicates an RF field calculated to be in excess of 1% of the appropriate limit. The dots increase in size proportionally with the magnitude of the calculated field up to 100% of the appropriate limit. At calculated fields above 100% of the limit, the dots become open circles, again increasing in size proportionally with the magnitude of the calculated field. HAMMETT EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO Methodology Figure 2 Cheriel Jensen 13737 Quito Road. Saratoga. CA 995070 408 379 -0463 May 7. 1998 City of Saratoga Planning Commission, Saratoga City Council, and Editor of the Saratoga News, Dear Commission, Council and Editor, RE: UP 98 005 (403 24 001) It is a puzzle as to why proposals continue to come up for cellular microwave towers along highway 85, particularly in the Quito Road area. When Highway 85 went to the vote residents were promised that the adjacent area would not become a magnate for more intensive land uses or for non residential land uses. Continual vigilance has been required and there are now substantial losses along the corridor. Commercial cellular tower microwave emitters are clearly not residential uses, and are clearly more intensive uses than the uses specified in our General Plan and zoning. Because there are electric towers in the area does not mean that the area is or should be wide open for more junk -in- the -sky, even if attached to the existing power towers. It is enough to have to tolerate the ugliness of the power towers themselves along Highway 85 and the overhead power, telephone and cable lines along Quito. But is it outrageous to expect people in the area to tolerate more junk together with more potential health risks than those from the existing power towers. Cellular panel antennas with their on- ground structures of approximately 160 square feet are commercial land uses. They, with their on- ground structures do not conform to the residential zoning or the General Plan. Under state General Plan law and Guidelines, as commercial land uses they are not eligible for a use permit without a change of the General Plan and zoning. Under the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines they are not eligible for the Negative Declaration the staff has prepared without conformance to the General Plan and Zoning. The Negative Declaration is improper. It is a violation of Measure G to put a microwave emitter in the sky, with its on- ground building, without a vote of the people changing the General Plan and Zoning. There are health risks associated with microwave emitters. These microwave cellular emitters operate in the 1850 to 1865 MHz and 1930 to 1945 MHz ranges-the upper middle of the microwave band. The microwave band is 100 MHz -3000 MHz. The operating frequencies of microwave ovens are 1900 to 2500 MHz. Microwaves are used to cook vegetation and meat. We are meat. The landscape is vegetation. Any claim of safety microwaves -in- the -sky due to "low power" is irrelevant. As microwaves are transmitted to your receiver they reach you. They- thus have enough power to reach you These microwaves will not serve you up as roast beef, but how many of the cells in your body and brain will be altered and in what manner? Before the dangers were known, fluoroscopes (x -rays) were used to see if shoes fit, acne was treated with x -rays, and nuclear power was claimed to be clean energy. Many have been injured by these and similar reckless assumptions. Microwave cellular emitters are another reckless use without controlled testing and with a great potential for short and long term but insidious injury. We already know we must stay away from microwave ovens when they are in operation. We know even minor leakage is dangerous. Lastly, since the first tower came into operation on Quito and Highway 85, roughly half a mile away, I can barely receive KDFC and KALW radio stations, radio stations I formerly received well. The city staff should not continue to facilitate these proposals when they know or should know, they do not conform to the General Plan, Zoning or Measure G. Yours truly, Cheriel Jensen CherielJ@aol.com 2 May 26, 1998 Saratoga City Council 1377 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council, Cherie] Jenben 13737 Quito Road. Saratoga. CA 995070 408 379 -0463 RE: UP 98 005 (403 24 001) I hereby appeal the Planning Commission's granting of Use Permit UP 98 005 (403 24 001) to Cellular One, for three microwave transmission panels perched high on the electric power tower next to Quito Road with a commercial building below of 160 square feet by ten feet, for the following reasons: 1) Recent findings -that persons operating cellular phones while driving are as dangerous to public safety on the roads and highways as drunk drivers- show this proposal to be a significant traffic hazard. This proposal will increase the hazard of our roads and highways in an entirely preventable way- preventable directly by a single act of this council. It is the single most important step this council can take at this time to protect our safety. The negative declaration does not address this impact. and is thus improper. 2) Cellular panel antennas with their on- ground structures of approximately 160 square feet are commercial land uses. They, with their on- ground structures do not conform to the residential zoning or the General Plan. Under state General Plan law and Guidelines, as commercial land uses they are not eligible for a use permit without a change of the Saratoga General Plan and zoning. Under the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines they are not eligible for the 'Negative Declaration the staff has prepared without conformance to the General Plan and Zoning. The Negative Declaration is improper because of this non conformance. When a proposal violates the General Plan a finding of significant impact must be made. Such a non- conforming proposal is not eligible for a negative declaration. 3) It is a violation of Measure G to put a microwave emitter in the sky, with its on- ground building, without a vote of the people changing the General Plan and Zoning. When the General Plan of the City of Saratoga was adopted there were no microwave tower facilities. The General Plan is exclusive not inclusive. Thus these uses were not planned or anticipated and are not properly allowed in our city as utilities. They are simply commercial land uses. In fact most homes in our city and most cars coming to and from our city do not and never will want these. A utility is defined by general necessity. 1 Lf 5 2-6- 4) It sets a dangerous precedent in two ways. First, if any residentially zoned and planned land in the city can be considered commercial for the purposes of erecting microwave towers no residential land is safe from these towers. What is to stop any neighbor from offering and getting equal treatment -that is to make a bundle by erecting a microwave tower at your property line? What is to stop the next buyer of your backyard neighbor's house from being a cellular company and erecting a tower at the property line? If microwave towers and tower uses, with their on ground buildings, are defined as a public utility this is exactly what could happen. Hillside areas are especially vulnerable to such uses as many are optimal sites. The towers could beam their microwaves down to all more directly. Second, this proposal sets a dangerous precedent along the power line corridor as all the cellular companies will want to use these towers along the corridor. A remarkable increase in these hazardous uses and the ugliness will proceed. There is an endless stream of cellular phone companies. Without a proper policy this issue could take more and more of the time and energy of this city and it's citizens. 5) It violates the promises that were made to protect the land uses near Highway 85 from further degradation. When Highway 85 was placed on the ballot, residents were promised by the council that in exchange for their approval, the adjacent area would not be allowed to degrade, would not become a magnate for more intensive land uses or for non residential land uses. But the council has not kept it's promise. Continual vigilance has been required and there are already substantial losses along the corridor. Those near the corridor have been required to go before the Commission many times and, at great expense, before the Council to try to stop this continual erosion of our environment. Measure G was adopted with the promise that this continual erosion would stop and our vigilance would not be necessary. Commercial cellular tower microwave emitters are clearly not residential uses, and are clearly more intensive uses than the uses specified in our General Plan and zoning. The council could help us at this time by stopping this erosion right now by properly defining these microwave uses as commercial, as they should be. 6) Because there are electric towers in the area does not mean that the area is or should be wide open for more junk -in- the -sky, even if attached to the existing power towers. It is enough to have to tolerate the ugliness of the power towers themselves along Highway 85 and the overhead power, telephone and cable lines along Quito. But is it not reasonable to expect people in the area to tolerate more ugliness on those towers. 7) There are significant health risks associated with microwave emitters. These microwave cellular emitters operate in the 1850 to 1865 MHz and 1930 to 1945 MHz ranges -the upper middle of the microwave band. The microwave band is 100 MHz -3000 MHz. The operating frequencies of microwave ovens are 1900 to 2500 MHz. Microwaves are used to cook vegetation and meat. We are meat. The landscape is vegetation. Any claim of safety of microwaves -in- the -sky due to "low power" is misleading and inaccurate. As microwaves are transmitted to your receiver they reach you. They thus have enough power to reach you. In fact the power of these 2 emitters is many times the power of your microwave oven but your microwave oven must be shielded. In contrast these emitters are powered up to reach you and your cellular phone inside the home and inside car and zap everyone in the path whether or not they use cellular phones. How many of the cells in our bodies and brains are altered by this exposure and in what manner? Without answers to these questions the Environmental Impact report is incomplete. The effects are obviously much greater closer to the emitters. We already know we must stay away from microwave ovens when they are in operation. We know even the most minor leakage from them is very dangerous. People in the immediate neighborhoods are at very great risk. 8) Lastly, since the first tower came into operation on Quito and Highway 85, roughly half a mile away, I can barely receive KDFC and KALW radio stations, radio stations I formerly received well. Since the tower was erected our reception of Channel 4 TV has been degraded as well. Testimony at the Commission meeting claimed that this was impossible because the frequencies are different. This testimony was given by a non technical company representative and is incorrect. It is entirely possible to interfere with radio waves, particularly FM radio waves and TV frequencies as the microwave towers operate at multiples of radio frequencies and can thus cause selective interference and spoil transmission of certain radio waves. Because our family is located about 400 feet from cable line access we cannot have cable and depend upon our own reception. Our family is directly impacted by this interference from the existing tower and we do not want more interference. The negative declaration does not propely address this impact. The city staff should be instructed by this council not continue to facilitate these proposals because they do not conform to the General Plan, Zoning or Measure G. Yours truly, Cheriel Jensen cc: Saratoga News 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: JUNE 17, 1998 ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): REPORT SUMMARY: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Landscaping Lighting Assessment District LLA -1: Public Hearing and tabulation of ballots to consider proposed assessments for FY 98 -99 Conduct the required public hearing. At the close of the hearing, direct the City Clerk to tabulate the ballots and report the results. Afterwards, direct staff accordingly. At your meeting, you will be conducting the required public hearing to consider the proposed assessments for the LLA -1 for FY 98 -99. The notice of the hearing was published in the Saratoga News. Additionally, property owners within certain zones were mailed separate notices of the hearing along with a postcard ballot and other information required under Proposition 218. The zones for which ballots will be counted and the reasons for the balloting in these zones are as follows: Zone 27 (Cunningham Place /Glasgow Court Landscape District) This is a new Zone created by merging the current zones 14 (Cunningham Place) and 18 (Glasgow Court) which the Council ordered last year. Eventually, zone 10 (Tricia Woods) will be combined into the new zone as well so that all three zones will share equally in the cost of maintaining the landscaping along the east side of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road between Miljevich Dr. and Blauer Dr. However, until zone 10 retires its accumulated deficit from prior years, it will remain as a separate zone. The ballot issues which the property owners in the new zone 27 are voting on are: 1) whether to approve an increase in next year's annual assessment from $69.78 and $64.24 for zones 14 and 18 respectively, to $80.84 for the combined zone 27; and 2) whether to authorize a maximum annual assessment of $120 in FY 99 -00 along with a 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent years, above which only higher future proposed assessments would need to be voted on. Zone 28 (Kerwin Ranch Landscape District) This is a new zone proposed to be annexed into the District to pay for the cost of landscape maintenance along the Fruitvale and Saratoga Aves. frontages of the Kerwin Ranch subdivision. Although the subdivider agreed to waive his right and the rights of successor owners in the subdivision to protest annexation into the District, the passage of Proposition 218 effectively voided this waiver. For the past year, the landscape maintenance costs have been funded from the proceeds of a cash bond posted by the subdivider for this purpose. However the proceeds of the cash bond will be exhausted at the end of this month. The ballot issues which the property owners in the new zone 28 are voting on are: 1) whether to approve an annual assessment for FY 98 -99 of $229.94; and 2) whether to authorize a maximum annual assessment of $300 in FY 99 -00 along with a 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent years, above which only higher future proposed assessments would need to be voted on. Zone 29 (Tollgate Landscape Lighting District) This is a new zone proposed to be annexed into the District to pay for the cost of landscape maintenance and lighting along Tollgate Road just above Congress Springs Road. Presently these services are managed by the Tollgate Homeowners Association, however the HOA Board would like to annex their development to the District primarily to ensure that all property owners within the Tollgate area contribute to the costs of maintenance and operation. Not surprisingly, not everyone contributes when "the hat is passed around" and this is an ever increasing source of frustration for many of the Tollgate area property owners. The ballot issues which the property owners in the new zone 29 are voting on are: 1) whether to approve an annual assessment for FY 98 -99 of $70.34; and 2) whether to authorize a maximum annual assessment of $100 in FY 99 -00 along with a 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent years, above which only higher future proposed assessments would need to be voted on. Zone 30 (Saratoga Oaks Center Traffic Signal) This is a new zone proposed to be annexed into the District consisting of a single commercial property known as Saratoga Oaks Center located on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road opposite Pierce Road. The purpose for the zone is to have the property owner share 25% of the costs for the maintenance and operation of the traffic signal controlling the Saratoga Sunnyvale/Pierce intersection from which the property is accessed and benefits. This is one of only three traffic signals in the City which partially controls access to and from private properties and it seems only reasonable that the property owners benefiting from these signals should share in these maintenance and operating costs. Obviously however since there is only one property in the proposed zone, the property owner will ultimately decide whether the zone is created. If the property owner either fails to return his ballot or votes against the assessment proposal, the property cannot be annexed into the District by the City. The ballot issues which the property owner in the new zone 30 is voting on are: 1) whether to approve an annual assessment for FY 98 -99 of $1,665; and 2) whether to authorize a maximum annual assessment of $2,000 in FY 99 -00 along with a 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent years, above which only higher future proposed assessments would need to be voted on. Copies of the materials mailed to the property owners in the above zones are attached. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council should direct the City Clerk to tabulate and report the results of the balloting. Only those ballots returned by the close of the hearing will be counted. Since the proposed assessments are the same for all properties in any one zone, each ballot within each zone is given equal weight. Thus, voting will be determined by simple majority of the ballots cast within each zone. After the results of the balloting are reported, the Council should direct staff accordingly. This could range from proceeding with the preliminary assessments for each zone as proposed in the Engineer's Report, to adjusting some of the assessments downward, to canceling some of the assessments altogether. Depending on what the Council directs, the Resolution confirming the assessments for FY 98 -99 will be prepared, and the Engineer's Report amended as necessary, for your meeting on July 1. FISCAL IMPACTS: None at this time. Eventually, the costs associated with administering and servicing the District will be recovered by the assessments levied against the properties in the District. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: As noted above. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The public hearing would not be held. In that event, the renewal process for the assessment district could not proceed. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Depending on Council's decisions, the Resolution confirming assessments for FY 98 -99 will be prepared and the Engineer's Report amended as necessary for the Council meeting of July 1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notices mailed to property owners. 2. Preliminary assessment proposals as per Engineer's Report. 3. History of LLA -1 assessments. 4. Majority Protest Procedures for LLA -1 adopted via Resolution No. 97 -21 on May 21, 1997. CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TIME: 8:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1998 PLACE: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA NOTES: 1. THE AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT CHARGEABLE TO THE ENTIRE DISTRICT IS $57,620. 2. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE ENCLOSED WITH THIS NOTICE: A LETTER FROM THE CITY MANAGER A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF INTENTION (RESOLUTION NO. 98 -05.3) INFORMATION CONCERNING DURATION OF ASSESSMENTS, REASON FOR ASSESSMENT, BASIS OF ASSESSMENT CALCULATION, AND SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEDURES ASSESSMENT BALLOT TO BE RETURNED, INDICATING THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR YOUR PROPERTY Duration of Assessments Assessments may be levied annually at a rate not exceeding that described under Rules for Spreading Assessment (Exhibit 1 enclosed herein), until 1) this entire district is dissolved or the within referenced parcel is detached from the district by City Council action, or 2) a proposal to increase assessments, beyond those allowed in the Rules for Spreading Assessment, is approved by vote of the affected property owners. Reason for Assessment This assessment is proposed to be levied to provide the work and improvements described in Exhibit "A" attached to the Resolution of Intention enclosed herein. This work specially benefits the parcels assessed therefor since 1) the work is adjacent to the neighborhoods within which said parcels are located, and results in a) helping to identify, distinguish and enhance these neighborhoods, including the entrances thereto; b) helping to improve the quality of life in these neighborhoods by reducing the potential for graffiti, eliminating dust and litter, providing sound attenuation, eliminating the potential for blight, and providing added security and safety through lighting and an added City presence; and 2) in the absence of this assessment district, the work and improvements would not be otherwise accomplished by the City. Basis of Assessment Calculation The amounts of the proposed assessments have been calculated in accordance with the Rules for Spreading Assessment (Exhibit 1 enclosed herein). Summary of Assessment Ballot Procedures The enclosed ballot should be completed by indicating support for or opposition to the proposed assessment and the proposed Rules for Spreading Assessment (copy enclosed), and should-be mailed or hand delivered to the address printed thereon, to arrive no later than the close of the public testimony portion of the public hearing, Wednesday, June 17, 1998. At the public hearing, the City shall tabulate the ballots. The City shall not impose any assessment in any zone where the number of ballots received in opposition to the proposed assessment exceeds the number of ballots received in support of the proposed assessment, weighing these assessment ballots by the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed upon the identified parcel for which each ballot is submitted. In the absence of a negative vote, the City may impose an assessment that is less than the proposed assessment amount. Any owner of property subject to an assessment may, prior to the conclusion of the public testimony portion of the public hearing, submit, change or withdraw an assessment ballot with the Clerk. In the event that more than one of the record owners of an identified parcel submits an assessment ballot, the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed upon the identified parcel shall be allocated to each ballot submitted in proportion to the respective record ownership interests or, if the ownership interests are not shown on the record, as established to the City's satisfaction by documentation submitted by those record owners. The assessment for cost of servicing thereof, in Zone shall be spread as follows: Costs related to street the lots or parcels of usable parcel area. EXHIBIT 1 RULES FOR SPREADING ASSESSMENT The amounts to be assessed against the assessable lots or parcels of land to pay the estimated cost of the improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental thereto, shall be based upon the estimated benefits to be derived by the various lots or parcels of land within the assessment district. The assessment for administrative costs shall be spread equally to all of the lots or parcels of land located in the assessment district. The assessment for cost of improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof, in Zones 1 through 7B, 9 through 12, 15 through 17, 22, and 25 through 30, as described in Resolution No. 98 -05.3, shall be spread equally to all of the lots or parcels of land located within each said respective zone of the assessment district. improvements, including the maintenance and 24, as described in Resolution No. 98 -05.3, lights and street trees shall be spread to all land located within said zone, proportional to Costs related to the Village Parking District (VPD) parking lots shall be spread to all the lots or parcels of land in commercial use located within said zone, proportional to the number of parking spaces existing in the VPD parking lots that are assigned to each parcel within said zone, rounded to the nearest one tenth (0.1) of a parking space. Spaces shall be assigned by adding the total number of spaces in the VPD parking lots and the total private spaces existing on assessable parcels, distributing this sum proportionally by weighted building area, and deducting the number of private spaces, if any, from the resulting number for each parcel. Weighted building area shall be defined as actual building area multiplied by a factor dependent on parcel use, as follows: Retail 1.0; office /service 0.5; restaurant 2.0. Zones 0, 8, 13, 14, 18 through 21, and 23 have been either detached or merged with other zones. A portion of Zone 4 was redesignated Zone 26 in 1997. Notwithstanding the above, the assessment levied for Fiscal Year 1998 -1999 for each parcel in Zones 2, 3, 6, 11, 16, 22, 25, and 26 shall not exceed the amount indicated in Table 1 attached hereto, and the assessment levied for Fiscal Year 1999 -2000 for each parcel in Zones 27 through 30 shall not exceed the amount indicated in Table 2 attached hereto. In subsequent years, the maximum assessment for each parcel in said zones shall be the amount calculated by multiplying its maximum assessment for the previous year by 1.05. TABLE 1 MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 MAXIMUM ZONE ASSESSMENT 2 50.00 3 60.00 6 75.00 11 50.00 16 90.00 22 50.00 25 $325.00 26 $475.00 TABLE 2 MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 -2080 MAXIMUM ZONE ASSESSMENT 27 $120.00 28 $300.00 29 $100.00 30 $2,000.00 Printed on recycled paper. April 28, 1998 Sincerely, Larry I. Perlin City Manager MULE ©0 EU' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. Wolfe Subject: Landscaping Lighting Assessment District Renewal for FY 98 -99 Dear Property Owner: Enclosed with this letter is important information pertaining to the renewal of the City's Landscaping Lighting Assessment District for the fiscal year commencing on July 1, 1998, (FY 98 -99). The City is required to send you this information since you are the owner of property within one of the Zones of the District for which the City has preliminarily determined that it may be necessary to increase the assessment for next year over the current year's assessment. Along with this letter, you will find the following information: A Notice, which among other things, indicates the date and time for the Public Hearing on the assessment proposal. A copy of Resolution No. 98 -05.3, adopted by the City Council on April 21, otherwise known as the "Resolution of Intention A postcard ballot required by the passage of Proposition 218 in November, 1996. Additional information about the proposed assessment also required by Proposition 218. After reviewing the enclosed materials, it is extremely important that you mark your ballot and return it to the City by the close of the Public Hearing on June 17 regardless of whether you support or oppose next year's proposed assessment. To simplify things for you, the ballot is pre stamped and pre addressed. Only those ballots returned in time will be counted to determine whether the proposed assessment for next year will be levied, and whether the City will continue to administer on your behalf the services provided through the assessment district which directly and specially benefit your property. The City will cease to administer these services in your Zone if the number of ballots returned in opposition to the proposed assessment exceed the number of ballots returned in support of the proposed assessment for your Zone. In that event, the responsibility for administering these services could be turned over to your homeowners association if one exists, or to any third party duly authorized to act on behalf of all of the property owners within your Zone. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this information and for returning your ballot. If you have any questions about these materials or the assessment district in general, please call my office directly at (408) 868 -1216. To: Members and friends of Tollgate Homeowners' Association From: President, Tollgate Homeowners' Association The contents of this letter you have received from the city of Saratoga is the formal follow up to our earlier request for your input on landscaping and maintenance. Please read the contents carefully and send in your formal vote for or against the city assuming the duties of maintaining our common area at Big Basin Way and Tollgate. The dollar amounts (around $70 per year) are estimated at this point, and future increases will allow for inflation so that we do not have to vote on the assessment district issue each and every year. The vast majority of our members voted in favor of this assissment method, and I endorse it personally in that the burden will shifted off us individually. We can always terminate the contract if that is our wish in the future. Thanks for your prompt return of the ballot. Gary Engelking, President THA follows: RESOLUTION NO. 98-05.3 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 98 -05, "A Resolution Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1998- 1999," for City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1, adopted on March 18, 1998, by the City Council of said City, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the Engineer of said City has prepared and filed with the Clerk of this City the written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 98 -05, which said report has been submitted and preliminarily approved by this Council in accordance with said Act; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1. In its opinion the public interest and convenience require and it is the intention of this Council to order the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 1998 -1999 pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by reference incorporated herein. 2. The cost and expenses of said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable upon the assessment district designated as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1," the exterior boundaries of which are the composite and consolidated areas as more 1 particularly described on a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said City, to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in the district and of any zone thereof and the general location of said district. 3. Said Engineer's Report prepared by the Engineer of said City, preliminarily approved by this Council, and on file with the City Clerk of this City is hereby referred to for a full and detailed description of the improvements and the boundaries of the assessment district and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the district. 4. Notice is hereby given that Wednesday, the 17th day of June, 1998, at the hour of 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, be and the same are hereby appointed and fixed as the time and place for a hearing by this Council on the question of the levy and collection of the proposed assessment for the construction or installation of said improvements, including the maintenance and servicing, or both, thereof, and when and where it will consider all oral statements and all written protests made or filed by any interested person at or before the conclusion of said hearing, against said improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and any zone therein, the proposed diagram or the proposed assessment, to the Engineer's estimate of the cost thereof, and when and where it will consider and finally act upon the Engineer's report, and tabulate the ballots. 5. The Clerk of said City be, and hereby is, directed to give notice of said hearing by causing a copy of this Resolution to be published once in the Saratoga News, a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and by conspicuously posting a copy thereof upon the official bulletin board customarily used by the City of Saratoga for the posting of notices, said posting and publication to be had and completed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing specified herein. 6. The Office of the City Engineer be, and hereby is designated as the office to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein, and may be contacted during the regular office hours at the City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, or by calling (408) 868 -1216. 2 Attest: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: None d City Clerk None ec)- MSR:dsp April 6, 1998 J: \W PD\MNRS W\2 73\RES98 \ORDLLA.98 Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 21st of April, 1998, by the following vote of the Members thereof: Councilmembers Bogosian, Jacobs, Moran, Shaw and Mayor Wolfe 3 The design, construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities, and public lighting facilities for the lighting of any public places, including traffic signals, ornamental standards, 1eres, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances,.includingthe cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements; and the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. MSRdsp March 28. 1997 lAWPDIMNRSWVTA tES9TEX/b1Lt97 Exhibit A DESCRIPTION OF IMP$OVEMENTS r Supplement to Exhibit A City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 Benefits provided to each Zone Zone 1 (Manor Drive Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance of the Manor Drive medians and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road frontage along Tract 3822. Zone 2 (Fredericksburg Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance along the Cox Avenue frontage of Tracts 3777, 4041, and 4042. Zone 3 (Greenbriar Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance of the Seagull Way entrance to Tract 4628, 4725 and 4726, and of the common areas along Goleta Avenue and Guava Court. Zone 4 (Quito Lighting District) Provides for streetlighting and landscape maintenance in the El Quito Park residential neighborhoods; Tracts 669, 708, 748, 6785, 7833, and 8700. Zone 5 Azule Lighting District) Provides for streetlighting in the Azule Crossing residential neighborhoods: Tracts 184, 485, 787, 1111 and 1800. Zone 6 Sarahills Lighting District) Provides for streetlighting in the Sarahills residential neighborhood; Tracts 3392 and 3439. Zone 7 (Village Residential Lighting District) Provides for streetlighting in four separate residential neighborhoods surrounding Saratoga Village. Includes all or a portion of Cunningham Acres, La Paloma Terrace, Mary Springer #1 and #2, McCartysville, Saratoga Park, Williams and Tracts 270, 336, 41 2399, 2502, 4477, 5350, 5377, 5503, 5676, 6419 and 6731. Zone 9 (McCartysville Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tract 5944. Zone 10 (Tricia Woods Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tracts 6199, 7495 and 7928. Shared with Zone 27. Zone 11 (Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance of the Via Monte entrances to all or a portion of Tracts 2694, 2835, 2844, 3036 and 4344. Zone 12 (Leutar.Court Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance of the Leutar Court frontage in Tract 6996. Zone 15 (Bonnet Way Landscape District) Provides for monthly landscape maintenance along Bonnet Way; Tract 5462. Zone 16 (Beauchamps Landscape District) Provides for landscaping and lighting of the Prospect Road entrance to the Beauchamps subdivision; Tract 7763. Zone 17 (Sunland Park Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance along the Quito Road frontage of Tracts 976 and 977. Zone 22 (Prides Crossing Landscape District) Provides for periodic landscape maintenance along Prospect Road between the Route 85 overcrossing and Titus Avenue and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85 overcrossing and Saratoga Creek. includes all properties bordered by Route 85, Prospect Road and Saratoga Creek with the exception of the Brookview neighborhood (Tracts 1493, 1644, 1695, 1727, 1938 and 1996). Zone 24 (Village Commercial Landscape and Lighting District) Provides for routine maintenance of Village Parking Districts 1 -4, Big Basin Way landscaping and street lighting. Zone 25 (Saratoga Legends Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga Sunnyvale Road frontage, and pedestrian pathways within Tract 8896. Zone 26 (Bellgrove Landscape and Lighting District) Provides for common area landscape maintenance and lighting associated with Tract 8700. Zone 27 (Cunningham Place /Glasgow Court Landscape District) See description for Zone 10. Zone 28 (Kerwin Ranch Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance along the Fruitvale and Saratoga Aves. Frontages of Tracts 8559 and 8560. Zone 29 (Tollgate Landscape and Lighting District) Provides for maintenance of the common area landscape and lighting improvements along Tollgate Road at the entrance to Tracts 3946 and 5001. Zone 30 Provides for 25% of the operational costs for the traffic signal at the Saratoga Sunnyvale Road /Pierce Road intersection. RECORD OWNER(S) SIGNATURES) RECORD OWNER(S) SIGNATURE(S) RECORD OWNER(S) SIGNATURE(S) ZONE 27 BALLOT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 EXISTING ASSESSMENT S 69.78 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT S 80.84 SUPPORT PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OPPOSE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ZONE 27 BALLOT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 EXISTING ASSESSMENT S 64.24 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT S 80.84 SUPPORT PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OPPOSE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ZONE 28 BALLOT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 EXISTING ASSESSMENT 0.00 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT 229.94 SUPPORT PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OPPOSE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT RECORD OWNERS) SIGNATURES) RECORD OWNERS) SIGNATURE(S) ZONE 29 BALLOT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 ZONE 30 BALLOT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 EXISTING ASSESSMENT 0.00 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT 70.34 SUPPORT PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OPPOSE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT EXISTING ASSESSMENT 0.00 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT $1,665.00 SUPPORT PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OPPOSE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT CITY OF SARATOGA LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 98 -99 ZONEI ZONE2 ZONE3 ZONE4 ZONE5 ZONE6 OF PARCELS 29 85 176 693 113 64 FACTOR 0.0079 0.0232 0.0481 0.1893 0.0309 0.0175 (1) EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES $146.46 $429.27 $888.83 52,687.58 5438.23 $248.20 (2) Public Works Dir. 28.15 82.52 170.86 672.75 109.70 62.13 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 49.18 144.14 298.45 1,175.13 191.62 108.53 Office Spedalist I1 35.14 102.99 213.26 839.70 136.92 77.55 Park Maint. Leadworker 33.99 99.62 206.27 Park Maint. Worker II 2001 BENEFITS $43.94 $128.78 5266.65 $806.27 5131.47 574.46 (3) Public Works Dir. 8.45 24.75 51.26 201.82 32.91 18.64 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 14.75 43.24 89.53 352.54 57.48 32.56 Office Spedalist II 10.54 30.90 63.98 251.91 41.08 23.26 Park Maint. Leadworker 10.20 29.89 61.88 Park Maint. Worker 11 4010 GENERAL CONTRACTS 4011 LEGAL SERVICES 53.96 511.61 524.04 $94.65 515.43 $8.74 (4) 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES Engineer's Report New Parcel Charge $48.74 $142.86 $295.80 $1,164.72 $189.92 $107.56 (5) 48.74 142.86 295.80 1,164.72 189.92 107.56 4014 REPAIR SERVICES 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $1,320.00 $1,320.00 $1,320.00 (6) 4040 ADVERTISING 53.96 $11.61 524.04 594.65 515.43 $8.74 (7) 4022 WATER $600.00 $250.00 $725.00 (8) 4023 POWER $0.00 50.00 $0.00 $9,978.00 51,965.00 $2,396.00 (9) Controllers Streetlights 9,978.00 1,965.00 2,396.00 SUB -TOTAL 52,167.05 $2,294.12 $3,544.36 514,825.86 52,755.49 $2,843.71 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION 5216.71 $229.4I 5354.44 $1,482.59 5275.55 $284.37 (10) TOTAL EXPENDITURES 52,383.76 $2,523.53 $3,898.79 516,308.44 $3,031.04 $3,128.08 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES $1,650.00 $330.00 $2,200.00 $19,450.00 57,825.00 (11) CARRYOVER FROM FY 97 -98 5936.00 $75.00 (51,508.00) 522,602.60 $9,935.35 (5131.00) (12) TOTAL TO ASSESS ($202.24) $2,118.53 $3,206.79 ($25,744.16) ($14,729.31) 53,259.08 CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED (13) CARRYOVER TO FY 99 -00 5202.24 525,744.16 $14,729.31 (14) NET TO ASSESS ($0.00) 52,118.53 $3,206.79 50.00 (50.00) 53,259.08 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ($0.00) $24.92 518.22 $0.00 ($0.00) 550.92 (15) MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT $50.00 $60.00 $75.00 (16) LLA9899P CITY OF SARATOGA LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 98 -99 ZONE 7A ZONE 7B ZONE 9 ZONE 10 ZONE 11 ZONE 12 OF PARCELS 470 292 48 9 250 9 FACTOR 0.1284 0.0798 0.0131 0.0025 0.0683 0.0025 (1) EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES 81,822.74 $1,132.43 8242.41 $45.45 $1,262.55 $45.45 (2) Public Works Dir. 456.26 283.47 46.60 8.74 242.69 8.74 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 796.98 495.15 81.39 15.26 423.93 15.26 Office Specialist II 569.49 353.81 58.16 10.91 302.92 10.91 Park Maint. Leadworker 56.26 10.55 293.00 10.55 Park Maint. Worker II 2001 BENEFITS 8546.82 8339.73 872.72 $13.64 8378.76 $13.64 (3) Public Works Dir. 136.88 85.04 13.98 2.62 72.81 2.62 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 239.10 148.54 24.42 4.58 127.18 4.58 Office Specialist II 170.85 106.14 17.45 3.27 90.88 3.27 Park Maint. Leadworker 16.88 3.16 87.90 3.16 Park Maint. Worker II 4010 GENERAL CONTRACTS 4011 LEGAL SERVICES 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES Engineer's Report New Parcel Charge 864.19 839.88 86.56 81.23 $34.14 81.23 (4) $789.92 $490.76 $80.67 815.13 $420.17 815.13 (5) 789.92 490.76 80.67 15.13 420.17 15.13 4014 REPAIR SERVICES 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES 8540.00 $405.00 $900.00 8900.00 (6) 4040 ADVERTISING $64.19 839.88 86.56 81.23 834.14 1.23 (7) 4022 WATER $2,005.00 $700.00 81,065.00 $275.00 (8) 4023 POWER 85,775.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 (9) Controllers Streetlights 5,775.00 SUB -TOTAL $9,062.87 $2,042.68 $2,953.92 $1,181.67 $4,094.77 81,251.67 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION 8906.29 $204.27 $295.39 $118.17 $409.48 $125.17 (10) TOTAL EXPENDITURES 89,969.16 82,246.94 83,249.31 $1,299.84 $4,504.25 $1,376.84 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES 816,530.00 85,120.00 (11) CARRYOVER FROM FY 97 -98 $22,918.12 (82,873.06) ($451.00) (83,150.00) (82,208.00) ($1,156.00) (12) TOTAL TO ASSESS (829,478.96) $0.00 $3,700.31 84,449.84 $6,712.25 82,532.84 CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED ($1,860.93) (8668.79) (13) CARRYOVER TO FY 99 -00 829,478.96 80.83 (14) NET TO ASSESS (80.00) 80.83 83,700.31 $2,588.91 $6,712.25 81,864.05 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT (80.00) 80.00 877.09 8287.66 $26.85 8207.12 (15) MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT 850.00 (16) LLA9899P CITY OF SARATOGA LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 98 -99 ZONE 15 ZONE 16 ZONE 17 ZONE 22 ZONE 24 ZONE 25 OF PARCELS 41 55 200 863 124 15 FACTOR 0.0112 0.0150 0.0546 0.2357 0.0339 0.0041 (1) EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES $207.06 5277.76 81,010.04 54,358.31 $9,689.22 875.75 (2) Public Works Dir. 39.80 53.39 194.15 837.78 120.38 14.56 Public Works Sva. Mgr. 69.52 93.26 339.14 1,463.40 210.27 25.44 Office Spedalist II 49.68 66.64 242.34 1,045.69 150.25 18.18 Park Maint. Leadworker 48.05 64.46 234.40 1,01 1.44 4,902.33 17.58 Park Maint. Worker II $4,306.00 2001 BENEFITS Public Works Dir. Public Works Svcs. Mgr. Office Spedalist II Park Maint. Leadworker Park Maint. Worker II 4010 GENERAL CONTRACTS 4011 LEGAL SERVICES 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES Engineer's Report New Parcel Charge 562.12 583.33 5303.01 81,307.49 $2,906.77 $22.73 (3) 11.94 16.02 58.25 251.33 36.11 4.37 20.86 27.98 101.74 439.02 63.08 7.63 14.90 19.99 72.70 313.71 45.07 5.45 14.42 19.34 70.32 303.43 1,470.70 5.27 1,291.80 $5.60 57.51 827.31 8117.86 $16.94 82.05 (4) 868.91 892.44 5336.14 $1,450.43 $208.41 $25.21 (5) 68.91 92.44 336.14 1,450.43 208.41 25.21 4014 REPAIR SERVICES 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $2,880.00 $1,920.00 8900.00 5900.00 $3,800.00 (6) 4040 ADVERTISING 55.60 $7.51 $27.31 $117.86 $16.94 $2.05 (7) 4022 WATER 8575.00 $1,200.00 51,000.00 $1,925.00 (8) 4023 POWER $0.00 5113.00 50.00 565.00 518,064.00 80.00 (9) Controllers 65.00 Streetlights 113.00 18,064.00 SUB -TOTAL $3,804.28 $2,501.55 $3,803.81 $9,316.96 $36,627.27 $127.79 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $380.43 $250.15 $380.38 $931.70 $3,662.73 $12.78 (10) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,184.71 $2,751.70 $4,184.20 510,248.66 540,289.99 $140.56 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES $17,250.00 (1 1) CARRYOVER FROM FY 97 -98 (52,369.00) ($182.00) $32.00 $453.00 $23,039.99 $3,655.00 (12) TOTAL TO ASSESS 86,553.71 $2,933.70 $4,152.20 $9,795.66 $0.00 ($3,514.44) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED ($1,334.55) (13) CARRYOVER TO FY 99 -00 $3,514.44 (14) NET TO ASSESS 85,219.16 $2,933.70 $4,152.20 $9,795.66 80.00 80.00 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 5127.30 $53.34 820.76 511.35 N/A $0.00 (15) MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT $90.00 850.00 $325.00 (16) LLA9899P CITY OF SARATOGA LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 98 -99 EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES Public Works Dir. Public Works Svcs. Mgr. Office Specialist II Park Maint. Leadworker Park Maint. Worker II 2001 BENEFITS Public Works Dir. Public Works Svcs. Mgr. Office Specialist II Park Maint. Leadworker Park Mains. Worker 11 4010 GENERAL CONTRACTS 4011 LEGAL SERVICES 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES Engineer's Report New Parcel Charge 4014 REPAIR SERVICES 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES 4040 ADVERTISING 4022 WATER 4023 POWER Controllers Streetlights OF PARCELS FACTOR INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION TOTAL EXPENDITURES ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES CARRYOVER FROM FY 97 -98 TOTAL TO ASSESS CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED CARRYOVER TO FY 99-00 NET TO ASSESS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT LLA9899P ZONE26 ZONE27 94 31 0.0257 0.0085 $474.72 $156.56 91.25 30.09 159.40 52.57 113.90 37.56 110.17 36.33 $142.42 846.97 27.38 9.03 47.82 15.77 34.17 11.27 33.05 10.90 $108.43 $12.84 84.23 $157.98 $52.10 157.98 52.10 $11,700.00 $12.84 $3,600.00 $600.00 600.00 0.00 $10.13 $0.00 $0.00 8475.00 $1,395.00 84.23 8515.00 SUBTOTAL 3661 1.0000 (1) 825,639.00 (2) 83,554.00 $6,208.00 $4,436.00 7,135.00 $4,306.00 87,691.70 (3) 81,066.20 $1,862.40 $1,330.80 82,140.50 $1,291.80 8108.43 8500.00 (4) $6,153.00 $6,153.00 $0.00 80.00 $30,200.00 $500.00 $14,435.00 838,956.00 $665.00 $38,291.00 SUB -TOTAL 816,700.79 82,282.52 8124,183.13 81,670.08 $228.25 $12,418.31 818,370.87 $2,510.77 $136,601.44 $70,355.00 $18,381.00 85.00 $88,005.00 (810.13) $2,505.77 ($21,758.56) (83, 864.27) 873,680.07 $2,505.77 848,057.24 880.83 (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) CITY OF SARATOGA LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 98 -99 ZONE 28 ZONE 29 ZONE 30 SUBTOTAL TOTAL OF PARCELS 16 60 1 77 3,738 FACTOR 0.0044 0.0161 0.0003 (1) EXPENDITURES 1001 WAGES $61.79 5228.96 $3.88 $294.62 525,933.62 (2) Public Works Dir. 15.46 57.31 0.97 $73.74 53,627.74 Public Works Svcs. Mgr. 27.01 100.10 1.70 $128.81 $6,336.81 Office Specialist 11 19.30 71.53 1.21 592.04 54,528.04 Park Maint. Leadworker 0.01 0.02 50.02 57,135.02 Park Maint. Worker 11 $4,306.00 2001 BENEFITS Public Works Dir. Public Works Svcs. Mgr. Office Specialist II Park Maint. Leadworker Park Maint. Worker II 4010 GENERAL CONTRACTS 4011 LEGAL SERVICES 4013 ENGINEERING SERVICES Engineer's Report New Parcel Charge $18.54 $68.69 $1.16 $88.39 4.64 17.19 0.29 $22.12 8.10 30.03 0.51 538.64 5.79 21.46 0.36 527.61 0.00 0.01 50.01 57,780.09 (3) $1,088.32 $1,901.04 $1,358.41 52,140.51 $1,291.80 50.00 5108.43 $2.18 $8.06 50.14 $10.37 5510.37 (4) $139.77 5522.22 58.68 5670.67 56,823.67 (5) 26.77 99.22 1.68 5127.67 56,280.67 113.00 423.00 7.00 $543.00 $543.00 4014 REPAIR SERVICES $0.00 50.00 4015 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $1,920.00 53,000.00 $1,500.00 $6,420.00 $36,620.00 (6) 4040 ADVERTISING $2.18 58.06 $0.14 $10.37 $510.37 (7) 4022 WATER $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $15,635.00 (8) 4023 POWER 50.00 $38,956.00 (9) Controllers $0.00 $665.00 Streetlights $0.00 $38,291.00 SUB -TOTAL $3,344.45 $3,835.98 $1,513.99 $8,694.42 $132,877.55 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION $334.44 5383.60 5151.40 5869.44 513,287.76 (10) TOTAL EXPENDITURES 53,678.89 $4,219.58 $1,665.39 $9,563.87 $146,165.31 ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES 50.00 570,355.00 (I 1) CARRYOVER FROM FY 97 -98 50.00 $0.00 50.00 50.00 588,005.00 (12) TOTAL TO ASSESS 53,678.89 $4,219.58 51,665.39 $9,563.87 ($12,194.69) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED 50.00 (53,864.27) (13) CARRYOVER TO FY 99 -00 50.00 573,680.07 (14) NET TO ASSESS 53,678.89 54,219.58 51,665.39 $9,563.87 $57,621.11 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 5229.93 $70.33 $1,665.39 $1,965.65 (15) MAX ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT (16) LLA9899P Notes for Assessment Schedule 1. The Factor for each Zone represents the number of parcels in each Zone as a percentage of the total number of parcels in the District. 2. Wages include 5% of Public Works Director, 10% of Public Works Services Manager, 10% of Office Specialist II, 15% of Parks Maintenance Leadworker, and 10% of Park Maintenance Worker II. Wages are spread to each zone per the factor. 10% of wages for Parks Maintenance Leadworker are spread proportionately to landscape districts only. The remaining 5 plus wages for the Park Maintenance Worker II, are assigned to Zone 24 only. 3. Benefits are estimated at 30% of wages and are spread the same as wages. 4. Legal Services are fixed at $500 and are spread to each Zone per the factor. 5. Engineer's Report charges are spread to each Zone per the factor. New Parcel Charges are assigned to those Zones in which new parcels have been added from the previous year. 6. Maintenance Services are the proposed landscape maintenance costs for landscape districts as bid on April 7, 1998. 7. Advertising is spread to each zone per the factor. 8. Water is estimated annually for landscape districts based on historical usage. 9. Power is estimated for both landscaping and street lighting districts based on historical usage. 10.Indirect Costs are determined from the City's Indirect Cost Allocation model and are spread to each zone per the factor. Preliminary estimate is 10% of direct costs. 11. Property Tax revenues are estimated annually for the original 7 Zones of the District. 12.Carryover from FY 97 -98 is calculated from the audited fund balance figures for FY 96 -97 projected through the end of FY 97 -98. 13.Carryover Not Assessed represents a portion of the negative carryover balances for those Zones in a deficit position. The amounts not assessed are covered by the available fund balance. 14.Carryover to FY 99 -00 represents the projected surplus for each Zone at the end of FY 98 -99. 15. Preliminary Assessment is the Net to Assess for each Zone divided by the number of parcels, except for Zone 24. 16. Maximum Allowable Assessment represents what the property owners in each Zone have approved via their assessment ballots. ZONE DATE FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY CREATED 80-81 81 -82 82 -83 83 -84 84-85 85 -86 86 -87 87 -88 0 (7C) 4/16/80 5102.01 592.50 $92.58 556.80 521.02 534.56 $35.38 $21.60 1 4/16/80 534.26 $10.54 $0.00 $10.90 $6.80 5203.76 $207.82 5113.70 2 4/16/80 $11.30 55.62 56.16 56.62 57.86 58.86 535.14 527.40 3 4/16/80 54.76 $4.46 50.00 50.00 54.20 511.60 58.70 520.50 4 4/16/80 $20.95 $1 8.54 50.00 52.06 52.30 55.86 56.70 52.26 5 4/16/80 523.52 521.28 52.12 50.84 51.24 55.00 56.56 55.14 6 4/16/80 542.03 536.68 50.00 515.68 $11.32 514.78 516.94 510.54 7 (7R) 4/16/80 $10.41 $8.90 56.66 55.78 52.54 52.50 53.32 $3.14 8 (VPD #1) 4/16/80 5269.07 $48.26 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 $213.80 5341.32 9 5/4/83 $65.00 584.86 583.52 590.82 587.40 10 4/18/84 51,416.00 50.00 $167.34 $186.26 11 4/18/84 $14.32 55.66 58.38 $7.70 12 4/17/85 5172.00 5153.02 5154.16 13 4/17/85 $18.00 55.24 53.04 14 4/17/85 5142.10 5121.30 $107.04 15 4/17/85 5222.00 5170.76 587.44 16 4/16/86 52,376.44 53.04 17 4/15/87 $10.00 18 4/15/87 550.00 19 (VPD #2) 4/19/89 20 (VPD #3) 4/19/89 21 (VPD #4) 4/19/89 22 4/17/91 23 5/1/91 24 8/3/94 25 7/1/97 26 7/1/97 27 7/1/98 28 7/1/98 29 7/1/98 30 7/1/98 (1) Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 21 merged to create Zone 24. (2) Zone detached on 5/20/92. (3) Zone detached in FY 96 -97. (4) Zones 14 18 merged to create Zone 27. LLA- HISTORY SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT HISTORY 30 7/1/98 (1) Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 21 merged to create Zone 24. (2) Zone detached on 5/20/92. (3) Zone detached in FY 96 -97. (4) Zones 14 18 merged to create Zone 27. SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT HISTORY ZONE DATE FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY CREATED 88 -89 89 -90 90-91 91 -92 92 -93 93 -94 94-95 95 -96 0 (7C) 4/16/80 $21.66 $21.66 14.64 $73.56 $49.72 S72.64 (1) 1 4/16/80 $113.54 $105.94 $95.12 $101.54 $62.20 $90.32 $77.68 $33.88 2 4/16/80 $29.66 $32.00 $34.62 $36.50 $5.98 $18.15 $118.68 $40.04 3 4/16/80 $23.06 $46.82 $13.14 $15.36 $25.80 $45.21 $25.26 $32.52 4 4/16/80 $1.86 $1.86 $1.60 $2.10 $23.84 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 4/16/80 $4.98 $4.98 $6.24 $6.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 4/16/80 $10.60 $10.60 $8.62 $8.58 $0.00 $0.00 $25.40 $52.50 7 (7R) 4/16/80 $2.64 $2.64 $3.78 $4.26 $6.88 $0.00 $10.88 $0.00 8 (VPD #1) 4/16/80 $330.36 $1 17.20 $0.00 $133.36 $0.00 $0.00 (1) 9 5/4/83 $113.74 $157.20 $136.74 $144.82 $138.82 $161.30 $169.92 $201.02 10 4/18/84 $234.70 $435.80 $348.74 $385.38 $371.12 $326.17 $442.58 $337.98 11 4/18/84 $8.04 $8.76 $9.58 $10.72 $11.32 $15.48 $19.02 $13.86 12 4/17/85 $168.04 $188.04 $209.84 $222.60 $242.42 $203.01 $380.00 $307.22 13 4/17/85 $3.60 $3.60 $3.70 $3.16 $0.00 $0.00 $3.46 $11.24 14 4/17/85 $114.48 $152.48 $137.56 $148.72 $192.74 $110.10 $264.58 $193.40 15 4/17/85 $83.76 $126.18 $102.60 $100.72 $98.90 $227.39 $202.04 $146.92 16 4/16/86 $3.22 $3.22 $59.88 $40.56 S45.16 $42.58 $54.40 $40.80 17 4/15/87 $7.70 $7.70 $8.72 $8.66 $0.00 $5.06 $25.20 $213.18 18 4/15/87 $6.08 $135.18 $154.56 $164.94 $88.10 $0.00 $0.00 $104.50 19 (VPD #2) 4/19/89 $1,851.00 $1,520.30 $5,243.00 $6,969.76 $13,620.00 (1) 20 (VPD #3) 4/19/89 $6,412.00 $6,414.00 $14,092.00 $18,770.62 $21,252.35 (1) 21 (VPD #4) 4/19/89 $0.00 $977.78 $2,933.00 $5,406.00 $14,385.56 (1) 22 4/17/91 $36.00 $0.00 $13.21 $22.58 $21.68 23 5/1/91 $110.00 (2) 24 8/3/94 $0.00 $0.00 25 7/1/97 26 7/1/97 27 7/1/98 28 7/1/98 29 7/1/98 LLA- HISTORY SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT HISTORY Preliminary ZONE DATE FY FY FY CREATED 96 -97 97 -98 98 -99 0 (7C) 4/16/80 1 4/16/80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 4/16/80 $18.48 $23.00 $24.92 3 4/16/80 $24.66 $38.40 18.22 4 4/16/80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 4/16/80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 4/16/80 $0.00 $50.50 $50.92 7 (7R) 4/16/80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 8 (VPD #1) 4/16/80 9 5/4/83 $175.58 $136.14 $77.09 10 4/18/84 $337.48 $287.66 $287.66 11 4/18/84 $9.38 $35.74 $26.85 12 4/17/85 S285.98 $207.12 $207.12 13 4/17/85 (3) 14 4/17/85 570.18 $69.78 (4) 15 4/17/85 $145.12 $127.30 $127.30 16 4/16/86 $30.42 $60.96 $53.54 17 4/15/87 $210.50 $35.68 $20.76 18 4/15/87 $64.28 $64.24 (4) 19 (VPD #2) 4/19/89 20 (VPD #3) 4/19/89 21 (VPD #4) 4/19/89 22 4/17/91 $9.96 $33.74 $11.35 23 5/1/91 24 8/3/94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 25 7/1/97 S262.26 $0.00 26 7/1/97 $207.10 $0.00 27 7/1/98 $80.83 28 7/1/98 $229.93 29 7/1/98 $70.33 30 7/1/98 $1,665.39 (1) Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 21 merged to create Zone 24. (2) Zone detached on 5/20/92. (3) Zone detached in FY 96 -97. (4) Zones 14 18 merged to create Zone 27. LLA- HISTORY MAJORITY PROTEST PROCEDURES FOR SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT The following procedures have been adopted by the Saratoga City Council for the purpose of conducting this majority protest procedure. These procedures are intended to comply with Article XIIID of the California Constitution. Where no specific procedures are imposed by Article XIIID, these procedures comply with the requirements of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, other relevant statutory requirements, or basic principles of due process in order to ensure the integrity of the process. 1. The notice and ballot required by Article XIIID, Section 4(c) and (d) shall be mailed to all property owners of record subject to the assessment at least 45 days prior to the date of public hearing on the proposed assessment or increase in the assessment. The list of property owners of record shall be prepared by using the Santa Clara County equalized assessment roll as of the preceding. March 15. 2. Ballots must be returned to the City Clerk. The ballots may be returned by persons other than the property owner. 3. Only original ballots, not copies, will be accepted. 4. The City Clerk may issue duplicate or replacement ballots to property owners (for instance where the original is lost or not delivered to the current owner) if the owner is able to provide sufficient evidence of ownership, such as a deed or property tax bill. In order to avoid multiple ballots being returned for a single property, the City Clerk shall maintain a log of all duplicate ballots issued. 5. Ballots may be returned until the close of the public hearing. Any person who has previously returned a ballot may withdraw his or her ballot or change his or her vote prior to the close of the public hearing, upon providing sufficient proof that he or she is the property owner of record or the authorized agent who cast the ballot. 6. The City Clerk may begin a preliminary tabulation of ballots prior to the public hearing as necessary to allow for a complete and timely final result at the public hearing. The tabulation shall be conducted by the City Clerk and any staff or contractors, as authorized by the City Clerk, necessary to complete the task. At the conclusion of the tabulation, the City Clerk shall certify the accuracy of the count. 7. All ballots received by the City Clerk prior to the public hearing shall remain 1 7. All ballots received by the City Clerk prior to the public hearing shall remain in the City Clerk's safe and shall only be accessible by the City Clerk and any staff and contractors authorized by the City Clerk. Individual ballots that are opened for counting prior to the close of the public hearing shall remain confidential until after the conclusion of the hearing and the certification of the results. Upon completion of the hearing, the ballots shall be public records and will be available for inspection by any member of the public. 8. The City Clerk shall determine the validity of all ballots submitted and shall exclude any invalid ballots from the final tabulation. The City Clerk shall accept as valid all ballots except those in the following categories: a. the ballot returned is a copy and not an original; b. the ballot does not have an identifiable yes or no vote; c. multiple ballots returned for a single property where no previous request for a duplicate or replacement ballot has been made; d. any other circumstances that reasonably demonstrate that the ballot has been tampered with or is otherwise invalid. The City Clerk's decisions shall be valid and binding. All invalid ballots shall be retained by the City Clerk. 9. The City Clerk shall have notice of the public hearing published in a newspaper of general circulation at least once, ten days before the date of the public hearing. 10. At the public hearing, the City Council shall hear any public testimony regarding the proposed assessment and accept ballots until the close of the public hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Clerk shall complete the tabulation of the ballots including those received during the hearing. If the number of ballots received at the hearing is such that it is not feasible to accurately tabulate the ballots that evening, the Council may continue the meeting until a subsequent date for the sole purpose of receiving the final tabulation. 11. Ballots shall be weighted as provided in Article XIII D, Section 4(e). 2 12. If the final tabulation of the ballots shows that a majority protest exists, the Council shall not impose the increased assessments. If no majority protest exists, the Council may adopt a resolution confirming the assessment for the following fiscal year. The resolution shall be forwarded to the County for inclusion on the county assessment roll. MSR:dsp F:\WPD\MNRSW\273\RES97\PROTEST.PRC 3 TIME: Tuesday, June 9, 1998 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting 1. Roll Call MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers Moran and Shaw and Mayor Wolfe were present. Councilmembers Bogosian and Jacobs were absent. Staff members present were: City Manager Perlin, Recreation Director Pisani, Administrative Analyst Jacobs, and Deputy City Clerk Cory. 2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 5. The notice of adjournment from the June 3 Council meeting was properly posted on June 4. 3. Oral Communications from the Public on Non- Agendised Items None. 4. Interviews with Youth Commission Applicants Altafi 7:00 Ho 7:05 Mount 7:10 Siadat 7:15 Weiner 7:20 Rekhi 7:25 (ineligible -not Saratoga resident) Farnum 7:30 Johnson 7:35 Hopkins 7:40 (ineligible -not Saratoga resident) The City Council interviewed all eligible applicants. SHAW /MORAN MOVED TO APPOINT THE SEVEN ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS. Passed 3- 0. 5. Proposal for Painting of City Hall Administration Building City Manager Perlin reviewed the staff report and noted that staff had checked references for Student Works Painting. He explained various concerns about the condition of the current sealant. Councilmembers brought up questions as to the guarantee: whether it was for three years or five years and whether it would be handled by the painters, who might be transient, or by the head office. SHAW /MORAN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL FROM STUDENT WORKS PAINTING FOR $2,260 WITH CLARIFICATIONS AND CHECKS AS MENTIONED. Passed 3 -0. (Clerk's Note: See further discussion after Item 7.) 6. Appointment of Councilmember to Playfield Development Committee Administrative Analyst Jacobs explained the membership, structure, schedule, and procedures of the Committee. Councilmembers discussed their schedules and found that no single Councilmember could attend all the proposed meetings. There was consensus to appoint Councilmember Bogosian initially, with Mayor Wolfe and other Councilmembers to substitute when necessary. 7. Appointment of Representative to Advisory Council of the Council on Aging There was consensus to refer this item to the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council. (Clerk's Note: See Item 5 above.) A representative of Student Works City Council Minutes arrived and answered Councilmembers' questions. She stated that the guarantee for this project is for five years and that any guarantee questions are handled by the head office. She estimated that the project would take three or four days. 8. Self- Evaluation of Previous Meeting June 3 Councilmembers commented that the staff should have done more research for the undergrounding item so that they would have been aware of concerns expressed by the public. 9. Agency Assignment Reports Councilmembers reported on meetings. Mayor Wolfe brought up the list of projects to be covered by funds from Measures A and B since the court had ruled them valid. The City Manager was directed to obtain the complete list within two weeks and forward a copy to Joan Hershkowitz. Mayor Wolfe stated that Valley Transportation Agency would have a meeting on June 18 to address the court ruling. The City Manager was directed to prepare a letter on the subject to be placed in the VTA packet. He was also directed to send to the Freeway Noise Abatement Committee carbon copies of any letters relevant to this issue and to be open to their suggestions. 10. Other 2 June 9, 1998 City Manager Perlin displayed plans for Council furniture. He also announced that the new Council photographs had been hung in the City Hall. He then reported that the candidates for Human Resources Administrative Analyst had been interviewed and in a few days those for Public Works Director would be interviewed. He asked about financial assistance for travel and accommodations for them and for the Finance Director candidates. There was consensus to approve reasonable reimbursements for the candidates. 11. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk