The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-15-1998 City Council packetPublic hearings will start promptly at 8:00, When the Council will mov 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. TIME: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 6:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting 6:30 p.m. Special Meeting for the purpose of a Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Title: City Manager Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Mayor's Report on Closed Session.- 7:30 Pledge of Allegiance 1. ROLL CAL AGENDA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS a A. Resolution DD appointing Public Safety Commissioners c4 il L B. Administration of Oath of Office to Above &4 3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 10. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS City Council Agenda B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS None. 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. a te MS/4/ et B. New Items 2 April 15, 1998 1) Planning Commission Actions, 4/8 Meeting cancelled due to lack of a quorum. 2) Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings No hearings scheduled for May 6. 3) Resolution amending Resolution 97 -48 appointing the Hakone Foundation Liaison 4) Approval of Check Register 5) Quarterly Report to Regional Water Quality Control ,D Board on City NPDEB Activity 6) Resolution setting Bond Amounts for Certain City Officers 7) Approval of License Agreement betwen City and Primary Plus, Inc. regarding Property adjacent to El Quito Park and Authorization for Mayor to Execute City Council Agenda 3 April 15, 1998 C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY 1) claim of Morris in connection with automobile damage due to pothole Recommended Action: Deny and refer to San Jose Water Company. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:00 pm. A. Vessing Road Assessment District Protest Hearing (continued from 1/21) Recommended Action: Open hearing; continue to July 15 in accordance with •etition from majority of property owners. i wygt/e4: 11 A LL il B. Appeal of Design Review Approval and Variance Approval to construct a new 4,047 sq. ft. house, 25 feet in height on a vacant 1.002 acre lot at 21194 Haymeadow Dr. in the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. Applicant requested variance approval in order to adhere to that zoning district's standard front yard setback rather than the percentage based setbacks prescribed for all vacant lots. Applicant also requested design review exception to permit construction of garage with 7 foot, 6 inch underfloor clearance, exceeding City limitation of 5 feet, and floor area exception to waive required floor area reduction for houses in excess of 18 feet in height. (Applicant, Persson; Appellant, Weiser)(DR97 -053; 797- 011)(APN 503- 55 -53) &r„- 11.- tt: A, J oi/r, r/u4 4-z City Council Agenda 4. A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications 7. OLD BUSINESS 4 April 15, 1998 A. Review of Village Valet Parking Program continued from November 19 i 1-( A :e r 4-44-8 -4962- �y� 6a� aJ 8. NEW BUSINESS �T A. Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -i Resolution preliminarily Approving Engineers Report and setting Public Hearing Position on Proposition 224 (gi ry t/��'' n I e A/24w 9. ROUTINE MATTERS (Note: City Attorney will be excused at this point if no longer needed.) A. Approval of Minutes 4/1; 4/7 /42. 10. r. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS iK° A. Agenda items for adjourned regular meeting April 21 1) Joint Meeting with Library Commission Internet Access Use of Community Room space Other Items: 2) Recommendation from Parks and Recreation Commission on fee structure changes for use of parks by sports leagues City Council Agenda 5 April 15, 1998 3) Quarterly Program and Major Project Review (includes Litigation Update by City Attorney) 4) Third Quarter Financial Review 5) FY98 -99 and 99 -00 Budget Preview B. Other 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT �/f 10 6 01mA eilAVIA 470,4 7 4— tr\ -442. 4 „„e44, 2 144.„,, 2, 7 4- 1 A frV' /1441 f A 44 1 e11 7 ,,,Y,„,",du #7 fr 1 2 t A D.7OURNME NT ext meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 21, at Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. 0 o 73 In compliance with t 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] AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOINTING AND REAPPOINTING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION WHEREAS, the terms of Hexamer on the Public have been conducted, vacancies. Kenneth Biester, Angie Frederick, and Hugh Safety Commission have expired, interviews and it is now appropriate to fill the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE following appointments to the Public Safety Commission are made for terms ending April 2002: Brigitte Ballingall Kenneth Biester Hugh Hexamer The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 15th day of April, 1998, by the following vote: Mayor WHEREAS, because of scheduling difficulties it is necessary to appoint a member of the City Council to replace Councilmember Bogosian as liaison to the Hakone Foundation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT Vice Mayor Shaw is appointed to replace Councilmember Bogosian as liaison to the Hakone Foundation for a term ending December 3, 1998, or until replaced. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 15th day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING RESOLUTION 97 -48 AS TO THE HAKONE FOUNDATION LIAISON Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 97 -48.1 Mayor b' CJ Subtotal PAYROLL CHECKS: B23338 -23364 B23336-23337 void TOTAL U:VANICE \CERTIFY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECKS: A74601- A74744 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 10-Apr-98 $290,378.42 5,563.50 4,031.98 4,228.97 4,100.73 3,379.00 2,475.47 2,591.91 4,916.00 16,608.35 218.45 20,171.63 $3,923.15 s6 $294,301.57 $5,563.50 $4,031.98 $4,228.97 $0.00 $4,100.73 $3,379.00 $2,475.47 $2,591.91 $4,916.00 $16,608.35 $0.00 $218.45 $0.00 $20,171.63 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $358,664.41 $3,923.15 $362,587.56 74,666.93 37,254.49 Prepared by: Date: Approved by: Date: Fund Amount Amount Void Manual Fund Name 4/10/98 Checks Checks Total Subtotal PAYROLL CHECKS: B23338 -23364 B23336-23337 void TOTAL U:VANICE \CERTIFY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECKS: A74601- A74744 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 10-Apr-98 $290,378.42 5,563.50 4,031.98 4,228.97 4,100.73 3,379.00 2,475.47 2,591.91 4,916.00 16,608.35 218.45 20,171.63 $3,923.15 s6 $294,301.57 $5,563.50 $4,031.98 $4,228.97 $0.00 $4,100.73 $3,379.00 $2,475.47 $2,591.91 $4,916.00 $16,608.35 $0.00 $218.45 $0.00 $20,171.63 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $358,664.41 $3,923.15 $362,587.56 74,666.93 37,254.49 Prepared by: Date: Approved by: Date: PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 1 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 04/10/1998 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 0000011 ABLE RIBBON TECHNOLOGY 077789 003695 04/08/1998 001 1050 513.30 -01 1 DZ HP51626A RIBBONS 316.60 0000026 ANDERSON, MARJORIE A. 003588 04/02/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE VENDOR TOTAL 0000005 ANNE MARIE HARROP 003534 0001305 APPY, BROOKE 003582 0000005 ARMSTRONG, SARAH 1773 003620 0000005 BARBARA ZOLTON 003530 0000005 BERGSTEN, MARY BETH 1582 003621 04/08/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 0000005 46269 0000052 4/98 0001296 1793 BERNALD, MARY -LYNNE 003578 BOGOSIAN, STAN 003537 BORCH, ANDREA 003622 0000704 BURNS, LORI 04/01/1998 290- 6005- 445.03 -00 class cancelled VENDOR TOTAL 04/02/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE VENDOR TOTAL 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 04/01/1998 290 6005- 445.01 -00 class cancelled 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 316.60 VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 04/02/1998 001 1015 511.40 -04 PRKNG FEE CONF LONG BEACH VENDOR TOTAL 04/01/1998 001 1005 511.20 -01 april expense allowance VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 21.00 21.00 12.00 12.00 500.00 500.00 89.00 89.00 129.00 129.00 19.00 19.00 21.00 21.00 250.00 250.00 19.00 19.00 PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 2 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 04/10/1998 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 0000704 BURNS, LORI 003546 04/01/1998 001 1040 513.40 -05 mileage reimbursement 14.10 0000005 CALLAGHAN, MARY 1950 003617 04/08/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 0000065 CAMPBELL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 8348 003676 04/08/1998 110 2020 523.40 -70 CROSSING GUARD 0000071 CELLULAR ONE 71000160 003691 71000160 003692 71000160 003693 04/08/1998 04/08/1998 04/08/1998 001 1050 513.40 -20 GENERAL SERVICES /CODE EN. 001 1050 513.40 -20 GENERAL SERVICES /CODE EN. 001 1050 513.40 -20 GENERAL SERVICES /CODE EN. 0000005 CHARU GANESAN 003526 04/01/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 refund /illness VENDOR TOTAL 0000005 CHAY, MARY 003576 04/02/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 Class Refund VENDOR TOTAL 0000005 CHENG, PETER 1732 003616 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 0001287 CLEARY, JEANETTE 665 003623 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 14.10 VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 19.00 19.00 851.60 851.60 56.76 56.76 56.76 170.28 34.00 34.00 138.00 138.00 79.00 79.00 0001384 CITY OF SAN JOSE, CDBG PROGRAM 003565 04/01/1998 270- 7015 572.40 -40 annual cdbg luncheon 16.00 VENDOR TOTAL 16.00 26.00 26.00 0000091 COMMONWEALTH CREDIT UNION 040998 003710 04/08/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS CHECK 74602 VENDOR TOTAL .00 3,820.00 3,820.00 +1•' PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. NO NO NO 0000091 COMMONWEALTH CREDIT UNION CONWAY, RALPH 2001 003611 04/08/1998 0000005 0000434 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES INC 35667 003678 04/08/1998 170- 9010 622.40 -10 VILLA OAKS LANE 0000108 DATA TICKET, INC. 0006572 003707 18227 04/08/1998 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 1 -2 -3 003603 04/02/1998 0000120 CHECK /DUE DATE 0001383 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIORNMENTAL HEALTH 730600 003564 04/01/1998 260 5015 552.30 -01 enviorn. health permit 0000122 29875 29875 29875 29875 29875 29875 29875 29875 29875 29875 29875 29875 29875 0000612 54190L 54189L 54200L DIABLO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 003660 200006 04/08/1998 003661 200006 04/08/1998 003662 200006 04/08/1998 003663 200006 04/08/1998 003664 200006 04/08/1998 003665 200006 04/08/1998 003666 200006 04/08/1998 003667 200006 04/08/1998 003668 200006 04/08/1998 003669 200006 04/08/1998 003670 200006 04/08/1998 003671 200006 04/08/1998 003672 200006 04/08/1998 DMS INC 003673 200004 04/08/1998 003674 200004 04/08/1998 003675 200004 04/08/1998 ACCOUNT NO 180- 3040 532.40 -15 180 3040 532.40 -15 180 3040 532.40 -15 180 3040 532.40 -15 180- 3040 532.40 -15 180- 3040 532.40 -15 180- 3040 532.40 -15 180 3040 532.40 -15 180 3040 532.40 -15 180- 3040 532.40 -15 180- 3040 532.40 -15 180- 3040 532.40 -15 180- 3040 532.40 -15 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 3 AS OF 04/10/1998 ITEM DESCRIPTION 290 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND 001 1040 513.40 -10 MONTHLY PARKING PROCESS'G 250- 4015- 422.01 -00 SMIP FEES 1ST QTR '98 180 -304d- 532.40 -15 ZONE 15 180 3040 532.40 -15 ZONE 16 180- 3040 532.40 -15 MEDIANS VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 9 ZONE 10 ZONE 14 ZONE 18 ZONE 11 ZONE 12 ZONE 17 ZONE 22 CIVIC CENTER SARATOGA AVE MEDIANS VENDOR TOTAL EXPENDITURE AMOUNT 164.00 164.00 4,100.73 4,100.73 100.00 100.00 503.87 503.87 18.50 18.50 35.00 75.00 150.00 75.00 49.20 60.30 40.50 75.00 75.00 150.00 295.00 850.00 285.00 2,215.00 204.00 102.00 858.00 VENDOR TOTAL 1,164.00 HAND ISSUED PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 4 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 04/10/1998 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 0000612 DMS INC DROZDIAK, JIM 640 003624 0000977 0000138 41282 0000005 1633 0001041 ECONOMY LUMBER 003533 0000005 ELIZABETH HAKANSON 003529 0000005 ERIC LEE 0000150 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 27944 003679 17969 04/08/1998 27705 003535 04/01/1998 FOSTER, KIM 003625 FRANCIS, LESLIE 276 003626 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 04/01/1998 001- 3030 532.30 -01 traffic materials VENDOR TOTAL 04/01/1998 290- 6005- 445.02 -00 schedule conflict 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 003571 04/01/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 class cancelled VENDOR TOTAL 001 3030 532.40 -15 APPLY PESTICIDES TO PARKS 150- 3005 532.40 -15 weed control medians VENDOR TOTAL 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 69.00 69.00 49.36 49.36 359.00 359.00 0000146 ENGINEERING DATA SERVICE I980302 003602 04/02/1998 001- 1030 511.40 -10 LEGAL NOTICES MAILED 288.52 VENDOR TOTAL 288.52 79.00 79.00 360.00 2,950.00 3,310.00 0000005 FIREPLACES MORE, INC. 65782 003531 04/01/1998 001- 1040 413.05 -00 cont. lic expires 6/30 45.00 VENDOR TOTAL 45.00 29.00 29.00 19.00 19.00 0000162 G. N. RENN, INC. 235009 003536 17974 04/01/1998 001 1035 512.30 -20 products for fuel tanks 732.08 uF PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 5 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF 04/10/1998 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 0000162 G. N. RENN, INC. 0000005 GAST, JAMES 1794 003627 04/08/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 0000197 HUMANE SOCIETY OF 598SARA -A 003650 200150 04/08/1998 598SARA 003649 200150 04/08/1998 001 2025 523.40 -10 SHELTER SERVICES 260 5005 552.40 -10 FIELD SERVICES 0000005 HUSSIN, NADA 1949 003615 04/08/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 732.08 VENDOR TOTAL 19.00 19.00 0000169 GHAFOURIFAR, ZAHRA 003587 04/02/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 135.00 VENDOR TOTAL 135.00 0000173 GOLDEN GATE TOURS 173 003639 18549 04/08/1998 290 6005-564.40 -51 SR TRIP 5/13 -5/15 (30) 3,106.00 VENDOR TOTAL 3,106.00 0000179 GTE MOBILNET 482 -8631 003559 17937 04/01/1998 260 5015 552.40 -20 Cell Phone /Feb '98 70.41 VENDOR TOTAL 70.41 0000005 HARROP, ANNE MARIE 5 003708 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.03 -00 CLASS REFUND 44.00 VENDOR TOTAL 44.00 0001272 HUFFMAN, RYAN 003584 04/02/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 REFEREE FEE 360.00 VENDOR TOTAL 360.00 VENDOR TOTAL 1,284.00 2,503.00 3,787.00 82.00 82.00 0000201 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 003714 04/08/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 DEFERRED COMP P/R 4/9/98 4,191.42 0001395 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF VENDOR TOTAL 4,191.42 PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 6 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF 04/10/1998 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 0001395 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF 98586794 003652 04/08/1998 250- 4015 542.30 -30 CLASS A MEMBER ANN. DUES 195.00 0000610 00450 0000005 INTERSTATE SALES 003560 IVANCOVICH, CAROLYN 1451 003642 0000208 JACOBS, PAUL 4/98 003538 0000209 JAMELLO, NANCY 003586 0001264 JEFFERS, JAMES A. 003563 0000929 KOEHLER, PETER 64 003610 0001391 KOVACH, SONIA M. 003686 0000466 KUHN, BRIAN VENDOR TOTAL 195.00 04/01/1998 150- 3015 532.30 -01 red traffic paint 855.61 VENDOR TOTAL 855.61 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 69.00 VENDOR TOTAL 69.00 04/01/1998 001 1005 511.20 -01 april expense allowance 250.00 VENDOR TOTAL 250.00 04/02/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 450.00 VENDOR TOTAL 450.00 0000005 JEANETTE O'FLAHERTY 003524 04/01/1998 290 -6005- 445.04 -00 refund /schedule conflict 147.00 VENDOR TOTAL 147.00 04/01/1998 250- 4010 542.40 -10 tree inspections- mar /apr 220.00 VENDOR TOTAL 220.00 0000222 KANEN TOURS 21298 003640 18546 04/08/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -51 RENO TRIP 4/27 4/28 1,796.00 VENDOR TOTAL 1,796.00 04/08/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 393.75 VENDOR TOTAL 393.75 04/08/1998 001 1040 513.40 -10 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200.00 VENDOR TOTAL 1,200.00 PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 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 0000466 KUHN, BRIAN 31 003608 04/08/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 857.60 VENDOR TOTAL 857.60 0000005 LAURIE GOHATA 003521 04/01/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 refund /conflict w /time 69.00 VENDOR TOTAL 69.00 0000005 LEGEMANN, ROY 1792 003613 04/08/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 288.00 VENDOR TOTAL 288.00 0001079 LEM, TONY 003592 04/02/1998 001 3030 532.30 -01 REPLCMNT FLAGS -CITY HALL 172.23 0001385 LEXIS LAW PUBLISHING V09298 003598 04/02/1998 V72361 003599 04/02/1998 V78329 003600 04/02/1998 V78577 003601 04/02/1998 0000005 LIN, JASON 165 003628 04/08/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 0000250 MISC MISC LOFT, JENNIE 003656 003658 0000005 MACH, LANG 04/08/1998 04/08/1998 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 7 AS OF: 04/10/1998 001 1030 511.30 -31 SUBSCPRIPT CODE GEN INDEX 001- 1030 511.30 -31 SUBSCPRIPT ELECTIONS CODE 001- 1030 511.30 -31 SUBSCPRIPT PUB RESOURCES 001 1030 511.30 -31 SUBSCPRIPT STREETS HWY VENDOR TOTAL 172.23 VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 001 1005 511.30 -01 FOOD FOR MEETING WITH 001 1005 511.30 -01 FRAMES FOR COUNCIL PHOTOS VENDOR TOTAL 0000310 LONGTHON, PAULETTE 003545 18537 04/01/1998 290 -600- 564.40 -41 rec summer guide fee VENDOR TOTAL 58.17 75.49 72.25 72.25 278.16 38.00 38.00 0000248 LINVILLE, DIANE 003585 04/02/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 135.00 VENDOR TOTAL 135.00 59.77 98.89 158.66 1,110.00 1,110.00 PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 8 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 04/10/1998 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 0000005 MACH, LANG 1744 003614 04/08/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 0000957 MAGUIRE, BARBARA 2 003604 04/08/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE VENDOR TOTAL 0001392 MAGUIRE, JOSEPH 85 003605 04/08/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE VENDOR TOTAL 0000005 MATTOX, JOEL 1474 003619 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 0000005 MAY TSZTOO 003570 04/01/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 class cancelled VENDOR TOTAL 0000267 MAZE ASSOCIATES 3/98 003688 04/08/1998 001 1040 513.40 -10 PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING 3/98 -A 003689 04/08/1998 001 1040 513.40 -10 PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING 3/98 -B 003690 04/08/1998 001 1040 513.40 -10 PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING VENDOR TOTAL 0000005 MEG HARTSOOK 003573 04/01/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 class cancelled 0000272 METRO PUBLISHING INC. CC409 003593 04/02/1998 001 1030 511.40 -40 LEGAL NOTICES VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 39.00 39.00 500.00 500.00 400.00 400.00 0000005 MARK HOWMILER, CYNTHIA 1442 003618 04/08/1998 290 -6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND 188.00 VENDOR TOTAL 188.00 58.00 58.00 69.00 69.00 4,230.00 237.55 1,435.50 5,903.05 59.00 59.00 22.50 22.50 0001211 METTE, ROBERT 578 003632 04/08/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 59.00 VENDOR TOTAL 59.00 PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 9 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF 04/10/1998 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 0001211 METTE, ROBERT 0000273 MEYER, GREG 003589 04/02/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 48.00 4 003609 04/08/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 156.00 0000005 MILTON, JILL 1207 003612 04/08/1998 290 6005- 445.02 -00 CLASS REFUND 0000005 1988 0000282 4/98 0001019 0000005 1842 MOORHOUSE, ABI 003630 MORAN, GILLIAN 003539 MORAN, THERESA 244 003629 NAQUI, MAHNAZ 003633 0000293 NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPLY 017002423127 003681 17988 04/08/1998 017002417162 003682 17988 04/08/1998 017002420734 003683 17988 04/08/1998 017002420735 003684 17988 04/08/1998 017002429094 003685 17988 04/08/1998 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 204.00 VENDOR TOTAL 0000280 MOORE BUICK 20884 003706 18171 04/08/1998 001 1035 512.40 -15 VEHICLE REPAIRS /MTC VENDOR TOTAL 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 04/01/1998 001 1005 511.20 -01 april expense allowance VENDOR TOTAL 04/08/1998 290- 6005 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 001- 1060 513.30 -02 JANITORIAL /CUSTODIAL 001 106i- 513.30 -02 JANITORIAL /CUSTODIAL 001 1060 513.30 -02 JANITORIAL /CUSTODIAL 001 1060 513.30 -02 JANITORIAL /CUSTODIAL 001 1060 513.30 -02 JANITORIAL /CUSTODIAL 87.00 87.00 116.13 116.13 59.00 59.00 250.00 250.00 57.00 57.00 19.00 19.00 0000292 NATIONAL PLAN COORDINATOR 003713 04/08/1998 001- 0000 210.20 -01 DEFERRED COMP P/R 4/9/98 2,394.61 VENDOR TOTAL 2,394.61 28.96 692.96 45.05 67.03 451.95 VENDOR TOTAL 1,285.95 a PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 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 0000293 NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPLY 0000005 NOLIT, KATHY 1203 003634 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 0000294 NORMAN PAUL PRINT CENTER 980399 003561 04/01/1998 980407 003562 04/01/1998 980583 003654 04/08/1998 0000295 NOVAKOVICH, MATT 9 -16 -97 003558 0000299 OEI, BOB 003583 0001387 OMODERA, MEA 003579 0000005 1097 ORGAN, KAREN 003635 0000306 PACIFIC BELL 003547 003548 003552 003549 003550 003551 0001394 PENEYRA, JOSEPH EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 10 AS OF 04/10/1998 VENDOR TOTAL 001- 2010 522.30 -01 3000 false alarm cards 001- 2010- 522.40 -41 2000 alarm permit applica 250- 4015 542.40 -41 BUSINESS CARDS FOR VENDOR TOTAL 04/01/1998 310 9010 622.40 -10 New Trees Heritage Orchar VENDOR TOTAL 04/02/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE VENDOR TOTAL '04/02/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE VENDOR TOTAL 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 04/01/1998 04/01/1998 04/01/1998 04/01/1998 04/01/1998 04/01/1998 VENDOR TOTAL 001 1050 513.40 -20 DID lines 001 1050 513.40 -20 868 -9497 001- 1050 513.40 -20 237 271- 4652319N7158 001- 2005 521.40 -20 867 -8550 Emergency 001 2005 521.40 -20 741 -2271 xerox 001 2005 521.40 -20 741 -1527 Emp. Emerg. VENDOR TOTAL 0000607 PCI CLEAN FUELS INC 1049 003704 18157 04/08/1998 001 1035- 512.30 -20 CNG VEHICLE FUEL VENDOR TOTAL 38.00 38.00 851.81 601.21 386.75 1,839.77 20,171.63 20,171.63 525.00 525.00 500.00 500.00 19.00 19.00 1,996.26 70.93 359.49 304.86 36.16 33.68 2,801.38 1,674.54 1,674.54 PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 11 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF 04/10/1998 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 0001394 PENEYRA, JOSEPH 87 003607 04/08/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 350.00 VENDOR TOTAL 350.00 0000005 PETER CHENG 003569 04/01/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 class cancelled 79.00 VENDOR TOTAL 79.00 0000326 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL 3 -23 -98 003644 04/08/1998 001-0000 210.20 -01 LIFE INSURANCE 4/98 1,264.06 VENDOR TOTAL 1,264.06 0000327 PROFESSIONAL FLEET SERV. 61662 003554 17972 04/01/1998 001- 1035 512.40 -14 repair fleet tires 404.13 61662 -A 003555 17972 04/01/1998 001- 1035 512.40 -14 maintain fleet tires 404.13 VENDOR TOTAL 808.26 0000328 PROJECT MATCH, INC. 4/1/98 003703 18087 04/08/1998 270- 7015 572.40 -70 MAR, APR, MAY, JUNE RENT 4,900.00 VENDOR TOTAL 4,900.00 0000593 PUB EMP RETIREMENT SYSTEM 430981 003544 04/01/1998 001 0000 210.20 01 long term care for april 11.08 VENDOR TOTAL 11.08 0000329 PUB. EMP. RETIREMENT SYSTEM 4/98 003643 04/08/1998 001 0000 210.20 -01 HEALTH INSURANCE 4/98 11,674.25 VENDOR TOTAL 11,674.25 0000330 PUBLIC EMPL RETIRE FUND 4/8/98 003711 04/08/1998 001- 0000 210.20 -01 PERS P/R ENDING 4/9/98 8,114.32 VENDOR TOTAL 8,114.32 0000334 REED GRAHAM, INC. 364235 003705 18196 04/08/1998 150- 3005 532.30 -01 STREET REPAIR PRODUCTS 54.73 VENDOR TOTAL 54.73 0000005 REES, ELIZABETH 003575 04/02/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 138.00 VENDOR TOTAL 138.00 PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 12 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF 04/10/1998 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 0000005 REES, ELIZABETH 0001228 RIES, KATHY 459 003631 04/08/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND 19.00 VENDOR TOTAL 19.00 0001388 ROBERTSON, JASON 003580 04/02/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 500.00 VENDOR TOTAL 500.00 0001121 RUSSELL, ANN 003581 04/02/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 500.00 VENDOR TOTAL 500.00 0000341 S.A.S.C.C. 4/1/98 003702 18088 04/08/1998 001 7005 573.40 -70 4TH QTR CDBG -SR DAY CARE 8,296.25 VENDOR TOTAL 8,296.25 0000342 S.C.A.C. TV FOUNDATION 43194 003680 04/08/1998 001 7010 571.40 -70 1ST QTR FRANCHISE PAYMENT 16,278.07 VENDOR TOTAL 16,278.07 0000344 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 6425816 003677 04/08/1998 150- 3005 532.30 -01 TRAFFIC ACCIDENT MAP 10.83 6368993 003556 04/01/1998 293 6015 564.60 -06 civic theater lghtng syst 218.45 VENDOR TOTAL 229.28 0000701 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 9812A 003647 200028 04/08/1998 001 2010 522.40 -10 SHERIFF'S TECH 2,368.50 9812 003646 200028 04/08/1998 001- 2015 523.40 -10 ADVANCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMT 195,344.83 98128 003648 200028 04/08/1998 100 2030 523.40 -10 SHERIFF'S TECH 5,563.50 VENDOR TOTAL 203,276.83 0000005 SARA LEE 003522 04/01/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 refund /too many in class 84.00 VENDOR TOTAL 84.00 0000353 SARATOGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 2259 003594 04/02/1998 001 1005 511.30 -30 QUARTERLY DUES APR -JUNE 836.25 0000357 SARATOGA UNION VENDOR TOTAL 836.25 PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 13 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF 04/10/1998 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 0000357 SARATOGA UNION 97 -98 -01 003557 0000358 SASO, VIRGINIA 003590 0000005 SATHE, VANDANA 003577 0000359 SAXTON HEINRICHS, KIM 003591 04/02/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -51 REIMB FOR 2 TKTS /SR TRIP 36.00 0000365 SHAW, JAMES 4/98 003540 0000005 SHEILA PENUEN 003523 0000005 SHELLEY RUSSELL 003525 0000005 SILVIA KANG 003572 0001386 SMITH, JOAN 003597 0000005 1116 SNOW, SUSIE 003636 0000382 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/01/1998 110 2020 523.40 -70 crossing guards VENDOR TOTAL 04/02/1998 290- 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE VENDOR TOTAL 04/02/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 Class Refund 04/01/1998 001 1005 511.20 -01 april expense allowance VENDOR TOTAL 04/01/1998 290- 6005-445.04 -00 refund /schedule conflict VENDOR TOTAL 04/01/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 refund /moving out of town VENDOR TOTAL 04/01/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 class cancelled VENDOR TOTAL 04/02/1998 001 1040 513.40 -05 MILEAGE FOR FEB MAR VENDOR TOTAL 04/08/1998 290 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 3,180.38 3,180.38 48.00 48.00 69.00 69.00 VENDOR TOTAL 36.00 250.00 250.00 59.00 59.00 172.00 172.00 69.00 69.00 30.24 30.24 54.00 54.00 PREPARED 04/09/1998, 1027,03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 14 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF 04/10/1998 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 0000382 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4/8/98 003712 04/08/1998 001-0000-210.20-01 P/R TAX DEPOSIT 4/9/98 2,606.33 VENDOR TOTAL 2,606.33 0000005 STEPHAN, DOROTHY 1273 003641 04/08/1998 290-6005-445.03-00 CLASS REFUND 12.00 VENDOR TOTAL 12.00 0000384 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC. 73443 003659 04/08/1998 150-3020-532.40-10 TRUCKING OF FILL SAND 357.80 VENDOR TOTAL 357.80 0000005 STOFFERS, ROBIN 599 003637 04/08/1998 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 38.00 VENDOR TOTAL 38.00 0000005 SWAN POOLS 65781 003532 04/01/1998 001-1040-413.05-00 contractor paid twice 45.00 VENDOR TOTAL 45.00 0000005 TAAFE, LEIGH 1244 003638 04/08/1998 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 19.00 VENDOR TOTAL 19.00 0000798 THE LIPMAN COMPANY (TLC) 5386 003645 04/08/1998 001-0000-210.20-01 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES 4/98 175.00 VENDOR TOTAL 175.00 0000398 TLC 032698 003709 04/08/1998 001-0000-210.20-01 SECTION 125 REIMBURSEMENT CHECK 74601 VENDOR TOTAL .00 0000399 TOM'S PLUMBING 31843 003542 04/01/1998 001-3030-532.40-14 emergency sewer repair 939.24 VENDOR TOTAL 939.24 0000405 TRACTOR EQUIPMENT SALE COMPANY 112236-00 003657 04/08/1998 001-1035-512.40-14 BATTERY 110.96 0000409 TUCKER, BEVERLY VENDOR TOTAL 110.96 103.15 103.15 <at PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 15 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 04/10/1998 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 0000409 TUCKER, BEVERLY 003651 18411 04/08/1998 602012891 003653 04/08/1998 0001393 VENNEMEYER, LISA 86 0000005 VRS MARKING 0000428 79923 95725740 96992718 16583180 17057956 17124788 001 1045 513.40 -01 REIMBURSEMENT -CONF EXP 001 1045 513.40 -01 RENTAL CAR FOR SELF AND VENDOR TOTAL 92.00 78.63 170.63 003606 04/08/1998 290 6005 564.40 -10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 500.00 VENDOR TOTAL 500.00 21103 003527 04/01/1998 250- 4015 542.40 -41 name plates -bldg. dept 69.85 0001152 WALLACE COMPUTER SERVICES H59834010 003655 18389 04/08/1998 001- 1050 513.40 -41 FORMS FOR BUSINESS LIC. WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY 003696 04/08/1998 003697 04/08/1998 003698 04/08/1998 003699 '04/08/1998 003700 04/08/1998 003701 04/08/1998 VENDOR TOTAL 001 1030 511.30 -31 STATE CODES PUBLICATIONS 001 1030 511.30 -31 STATE CODES PUBLICATIONS 001 1030 511.30 -31 STATE CODES PUBLICATIONS 001- 1030 511.30 -31 STATE CODES PUBLICATIONS 001- 1030 511.30 -31 STATE CODES PUBLICATIONS 001- 1030 511.30 -31 STATE CODES PUBLICATIONS VENDOR TOTAL 69.85 VENDOR TOTAL 3,031.46 3,031.46 31.39 74.69 74.69 84.44 23.27 161.83 450.31 0000429 WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRCIT CL9808 003543 04/01/1998 001 3030 532.40 -14 emergency sewer repair 432.84 VENDOR TOTAL 432.84 0000005 WILLIAM CRAIG 003528 04/01/1998 250- 4010 444.01 -00 partial refund /design rev 1,100.00 VENDOR TOTAL 1,100.00 0000436 WILLIAMS, JANICE FEB /MAR 003567 04/01/1998 001 1040 513.40 -05 mileage 15.12 3 -19 -98 003566 04/01/1998 001- 1050 513.30 -01 office supplies 15.11 FEB /MAR 003568 04/01/1998 001 1050 513.20 -01 o/t meal allowance 60.00 VENDOR TOTAL 90.23 0000438 WOLFE, DONALD 4/98 003541 04/01/1998 001- 1005 511.20 -01 april expense allowance 250.00 PREPARED 04/09/1998, 10:27:03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 16 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF 04/10/1998 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 0000438 WOLFE, DONALD 0001390 WRIGHT, OLIVER L. 003687 0000440 XEROX CORPORATION 061547507 003595 600122020 003596 0000443 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 66454373 003694 0000005 ZOLTON, BARBARA 003574 04/08/1998 001 1040 513.40 -10 INTERIM FIN. DIR. 3/98 VENDOR TOTAL 04/02/1998 001 1055 513.40 -30 BASE CHRG MAIN XEROX -FEB 04/02/1998 001 1055 513.40 -30 MONTHLY CHRG 4 SATELLITE VENDOR TOTAL 04/08/1998 001 1050 513.30 -01 REPLENISH 1ST AID SUPPLY VENDOR TOTAL 04/02/1998 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 250.00 VENDOR TOTAL TOTAL EXPENDITURES GRAND TOTAL 8,294.00 8,294.00 1,927.50 773.60 2,701.10 22.62 22.62 79.00 79.00 358,664.41 3,923.15 362,587.56 Printed on recycled paper. April 9, 1998 John West California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region 2101 Webster Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Dear Mr. West: onow 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 C'ODUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. Wolfe Subject: Quarterly Report City of Saratoga Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Your File No. 2223.08 (AKM) Transmitted herewith is the eighteenth report on the City of Saratoga's Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program for the quarter ending March 1998. The report is organized into 'four sections corresponding to those items listed in the July 21, 1995 letter from Steven Ritchie, former Executive Officer of the Board, to me. Each section provides a brief description of the City's activities and accomplishments relative to the four items in Mr. Ritchie's letter. 1. Reported incidents in Saratoga Creek, including a clear follow -up of who responded, what action was taken, and any sampling results. During the quarter, there were two discharge incidents within the Saratoga Creek watershed area of the City to which City crews responded. A copy of the incident reports are attached (Attachment 1). The incidents are summarized as follows: 1. March 7 There was a report of dumping of cement into the gutter line on Calle Tacuba. City crew responded to the call. The landscaping contractor involved removed most of the cement residue with water and vacuum. According to City crew, no cement residue entered into the storm drain system. 2. March 19 Paint residue was found in Saratoga Creek by Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. Saratoga Fire District notified City crew, Sheriff's Office, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Santa Clara County Fire District's Hazardous Material Unit. City crew and Santa Clara Valley Water District's personnel released hydrant water into the storm drain system to dilute and disperse the paint residue. The responsible party of this incident was not identified. 2. Results on water quality monitoring in creeks and source identification, if required. The joint creek water sampling and testing program with the West Valley College Microbiology class continues after a two semester hiatus due to low student enrollment. Dr. Berlani's Spring microbiology class will take 5 sample tests from Calabazas Creek and possibly Vasona Creek. Test results will be available Summer 1998. 3. Actions taken to inform the public of and encourage participation in nonpoint source pollution control activities. 1. The West Valley Clean Water Program continues its public information campaign in February 1998 by placing monthly advertisement in the Los Gatos Weekly and the Saratoga News (Attachment 2). The combined mediums reach a large segment of the West Valley Cities population. The goal of the public information campaign is to distribute stormwater pollution prevention information to the general public which may result in minimizing storm drain pollution. 2. On January 23, the West Valley Clean Water Program conducted an 'Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) review and Performance Evaluation information session with representatives from all four West Valley Cities (Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga), Saratoga Fire District, Santa Clara County Fire District, West Valley Sanitation District, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Program, CLEAN South Bay, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health. Discussion topics included an overview of each city, illicit connection and illegal discharge, inspection and enforcement of commercial sources, storm drain operations and maintenance, corporation yards, staff training, community outreach, long -term planning policies and implementation, review of site design, reduction of impervious surfaces, incorporation of infiltration/treatment, policies for grading and erosion and sediment control, and construction phase pollution prevention (Attachment 3). 3. On February 25, City Community Development Staff attended a training on Residential Site Planning and Design for Protection of Stormwater Quality based on Start at the Source manual by Tom Richman Associates. Discussed at the training included reference to individual agency's NPDES Permit, Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) and performance standards for planning procedures and construction inspection. Start at the Source r1 Residential Site Planning and Design Guidance Manual was used for stormwater quality protection training (Attachment 4). 4. On March 27, City staff member Jennie Hwang Loft attended the second State of the South Bay Symposium held by the Silicon Valley Pollution Prevention Center, a non -profit organization. At this symposium, Ms. Loft saw a larger picture of the South San Francisco Bay Watershed. Presentations included the Watershed Management Initiative (WMI), CalFed Q &A, reducing automobile's impact on water quality in the South Bay, and treatment plants update (Attachment 5). 4. Actions taken to implement public agency Nonpoint Source pollution control measures. 1. The City continued its weekly arterial and monthly residential street sweeping program. A copy of the street sweeping summary report for the months of January, February, and March and a copy of the Green Valley Disposal newsletter listed a street sweeping schedule for Saratoga residents. (Attachment 6). 2. The City continued implementation of its policy renewing business licenses for restaurants only after receipt of a NPS Certification of Adherence to Best Management Practices for Restaurants and Food Service Establishments which confirms that the owners/managers shared with their employees proper disposal methods for garbage and good cleaning practices. Those who did not return their NPS adherence from received repeated reminder calls and were subject to the City's code enforcement if they did not submit their NPS adherence forms (Attachment 7). 3. The City, Saratoga Fire District, Water Pollution Control Department of the West Valley Sanitation District, and the Santa Clara County Health Department worked diligently with one restaurant in Saratoga which was out of compliance with a few NPS BMP requirements. The restaurant was instructed to have a grease trap /interceptor installed, grease vents cleaned, and a grease -free roof (Attachment 8). The restaurant did install a grease trap the week of March 2 and had passed the County Health Department's inspections (including cleaned grease vents). Their roof is in the process of being cleaned. 4. The StreamKeeper Program Report was distributed at the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program management meeting on January 9, 1998. This report summarized the StreamKeeper Program activities on San Francisquito, Alamitos, Coyote Creeks and the Permanente Watershed for the period of July 1 to December 31, 1997 (Attachment 9). This completes the report on the City's activities and accomplishments for the first quarter of 1998. If you have any questions or comments about anything in the report, please direct them to me. The report will be reviewed by the City Council on April 15. If there are any corrections or changes directed by the Council, an amended report will be transmitted to you on April 16. Otherwise, I will send you my next report on the second quarter activities for 1998 by July 31, 1998. Thank you for your and the Board's continuing interest and assistance. I certify that the information submitted in the foregoing report was prepared either directly by me, or under my direction or supervision, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information is true, accurate and complete. Sincerely, Larry I. Perlin City Manager Attachments: 1. Incident Reports 2. Samples of Public Information Campaign 3. January 23 Meeting Evaluation Report 4. February 25 Training Summary and Evaluation 5. Agenda from State of the South Bay Sumposium 6. Street Sweeping Report and copy of newsletter 7. NPS Certification of Adherence to Best Management Practices for Restaurants and Food Service Establishments 8. Restaurant Compliance Paper Trail 9. StreamKeeper Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 15, 1998 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution setting Fidelity Bond Amounts for City Manager and City Treasurer Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution. Report Summary: City Code Sections 2 30.010(a) and (d) state that fidelity bond amounts for the City Manager and City Treasurer shall be set by resolution, but such a resolution has never been passed. Even without passing a resolution, the ABAG fidelity bond provides $1,000,000 worth of coverage for City officials. However, as a housekeeping matter, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution setting the bond amounts, consistent with the City Code. The City Manager and City Attorney both feel that a bond of $100,000 is sufficient for both positions. Fiscal Impacts: Nothing additional. Follow Up Actions: None. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Attachments: 1. Resolution setting bond amounts. 2. City Code Section 2 30.010 3. Copy of ABAG Fidelity Bond AGENDA ITEM S �o The resolution would not be adopted and the City Code requirements for establishing bond amounts will not be met. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA SETTING BOND AMOUNTS FOR THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY TREASURER WHEREAS, City Code Section 2- 30.010 (a) provides in part that the City Manager shall furnish a corporate surety bond in such amount as determined by resolution of the City Council, and WHEREAS, City Code Section 2- 30.010 (d) provides in part that the City Treasurer shall be covered by a blanket primary commercial fidelity bond in the sum of $25,000 or such other amount as determined by resolution of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the bond amount for the City Manager and for the City Treasurer shall be set at $100,000, respectively. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the 15th day of April, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. Mayor 2- 25.010 Sections: 2- 25.010 2- 25.020 2- 25.030 2- 25.040 (Saratoga 4-96) Article 2 -25 FINANCE DIRECTOR Creation of office; appointment. Duties and responsibilities. Transfer of financial and accounting duties of City Clerk. Deposit and investment of City funds. 2- 25.010 Creation of office; appointment. The office of Finance Director is created and estab- lished pursuant to Sections 40805.5 and 37209 of the Government Code. The Finance Director shall be appointed by the City Manager and shall serve at the pleasure of the City Manager. 2- 25.020 Duties and responsibilities. The Finance Director shall have the following duties and responsibilities: (a) Maintain and operate the general accounting system of the City and each of the respective divisions and ser- vices of the City. (b) Maintain, or prescribe and require the maintaining of inventory records of City properties necessary to comply with current municipal accounting practices. (c) Perform the functions and duties relating to the administration and collection of taxes, assessments, fees and other charges levied by or payable to the City. (d) Perform the duties relating to preparing, auditing, presenting and disbursing claims and demands against the City, including payrolls. (e) Assist in the purchase of supplies, goods, merchan- dise, equipment and materials required by the City. (f) Assist in the preparation of the annual budget and in the administration of the budget. (g) Cooperate with the City Manager and other officials of the City in establishing and maintaining sufficient and satisfactory procedures and controls over revenues and expenditures in all departments, divisions and services of the City, in accordance with current municipal account- ing practice. (h) Prepare or cause to be prepared and present to the City Council in sufficient detail to show the exact financial condition of the City, the following reports: (1) A quarterly, or more frequently as requested, state- ment of all receipts, disbursements and balance of City funds. (2) An annual statement of the financial condition of the City. 18 (3) Such other financial reports as the City Council or the City Manager may request. (i) Perform such other additional duties and functions as may be directed by the City Council or the City Manag- er. 2-25.030 Transfer of financial and accounting duties of City Clerk. Pursuant to Sections 40805.5 and 37209 of the Govern- ment Code, the duties imposed upon the City Clerk under Sections 37201 through 37208 of the Government Code, and the financial and accounting duties imposed upon the City Clerk under Sections 40802 through 40805 of the Government Code are transferred to the Finance Director. 2- 25.040 Deposit and investment of City funds. All funds belonging to the City shall be kept by the Finance Director in such banks or depositories or in such investments as the City Council may direct or approve. Sections: 2- 30.010 2- 30.020 Article 2-30 OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES Fidelity bonds. Payroll. 6730.010 Fidelity bonds. (a) The City Manager and acting City Manager shall furnish a corporate surety bond in such amount as deter- mined by resolution of the City Council, such bond to be conditioned upon the faithful performance of the duties imposed upon the City Manager and acting City Manager. (b) Pursuant to Section 36518 of the Government Code, the corporate surety bond of the City Clerk is fixed at the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, and the corporate surety bond of the City Treasurer is fixed at the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, or such other amount as determined by resolution of the City Council. (c) Pursuant to Section 37209 of the Government Code, the corporate surety bond of the Finance Director is fixed at the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, or such other ;amount as determined by resolution of the City Council. (d) The Mayor, the Mayor pro tempore, the deputies of the City Manager, City Clerk and City Treasurer and all department heads and their deputies, exclusive of the City Clerk and the City Treasurer, and all City employees shall be covered by a blanket primary commercial fidelity bond in the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars, or such other amount as determined by resolution of the City Council. (e) The form and content of each bond referred to in this Section shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney and any premium for such bonds shall be a proper charge against the City. 2- 30.020 Payroll. (a) Salary and Wage Fund. There is hereby created a special revolving fund under the supervision of the Finance Director to be known as the Salary and Wage Fund. Payment of salaries and wages to City officers and employees shall be made by check drawn against this fund and signed by the City Clerk and the Finance Direc- tor. (b) Issuance of payroll checks. The Finance Director is authorized to prepare a bi- weekly payroll and to issue checks against the Salary and Wage Fund for the payment of all salaries and wages to the officers and employees of the City as such salaries and wages are authorized by a duly approved City budget or otherwise by the City Council. (c) Date of payment; certification of payroll. Payment of the payroll of City officers and employees shall be made every other Thursday, after certification as set forth in this Section. The head of each City department shall certify and approve the respective departmental payroll or attendance record for employees of the respective departments prior to the designated dates for the issuance of the payroll and shall present the same to the Finance Director, who shall thereupon certify and approve such payrolls and issue checks in payment thereof against the Salary and Wage Fund. (d) Change in time and method of payment. The time and method of paying salaries and wages of officers and employees may be modified or changed by resolution of the City Council without amendment of the provisions contained in this Section. (e) Payroll checks. Payroll checks need not be audited by the City Council prior to payment. Each payroll shall be presented to the City Council for ratification and approval at the first regular meeting after delivery of the payroll checks. 19 SPECIAL GAS TAX STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND Sections: 2- 35.010 2- 35.020 2- 35.030 2- 35.010 Creation of fund. Pursuant to Section 2113 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State, a special fund is hereby created in the City treasury to be known as the Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund. 2- 35.020 Payments into fund. All money received by the City from the State under the provisions of the State Streets and Highways Code for the acquisition of real property or interest therein or for the construction, maintenance or improvement of streets or highways other than State highways, shall be paid into the Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund. 2- 35.030 Expenditures. All money in the special fund under this Article shall be expended exclusively for the purposes authorized by and subject to, the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code of the State. Sections: 2- 40.010 2- 40.020 2- 40.030 2- 40.040 2- 40.050 2- 40.060 2- 40.070 2- 40.080 2- 40.090 2- 40.100 2- 40.110 2- 40.120 2- 40.130 Article 2 -35 Creation of fund. Payments into fund. Expenditures. Article 2-40 PERSONNEL SYSTEM 2- 35.030 Purpose of Article. Definitions. Administration. Application of Article. Adoption of personnel rules. Appointments. Probationary period. Status of present employees. Demotion, dismissal, reduction in pay, suspension, reprimand. Right of appeal. Lay -off. Political activity. Contracts for special services. ASSOCIATE NAMED INSURED: INSURANCE COMPANY: POLICY TERM: POLICY NUMBER COVERAGES: H: \U\W WIWOADIABAG\97BONDSUM.DOC ROBERT F. DRIVER ASSOCIATES a Division of Robert F. Driver Co., Inc. BLANKET PUBLIC EMPLOYEE BOND SUMMARY Association of Bay Area Governments Plan Corporation (See Attached List of Members) National Union Fire Insurance Company (American International Group) July 1, 1997 to July 1, 1998 485 -78 -22 Coverage "0" Public Employee Dishonesty Coverage provides coverage for employee dishonesty and failure of any employee to faithfully perform their duties as prescribed by law. Coverage "B" Forgery or Alteration coverage covers loss to checks, drafts, promissory notes or similar written promises, order or directions to pay money that are made or drawn upon your accounts by someone acting as your agent Coverage "C" Theft, Disappearance and Destruction coverage covers loss of money and securities (inside and outside premises) covers loss while the property is within your premises or banking premises, or while your money and securities are outside your premises in the possession of a messenger. 1 U06/97 4041 MACARTHUR BLVD., SUITE 300, P.O. BOX 6450, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658 -6450 (714) 756 -0271 FAX (714).756 -2713 LIC. 0084379 Blanket Public Employee Bond Bond Summary November 6, 1997 Page Two LIMITS: DEDUCTIBLES: PREMIUM: $11,473.00 Coverage "0" 1,000,000 Coverage "B" 1,000,000 Coverage "C" 1,000,000 Coverage "0" 5,000 Per Occurrence Coverage "B" 5,000 Per Occurrence Coverage "C" 5,000 Per Occurrence BROKER: ROBERT F. DRIVER ASSOCIATES Newport Beach, California Sharon Nash, Executive Vice President Wendy Wiens, Account Administrator NOTE: PLEASE REFER TO POLICY FORM FOR COMPLETE CONDITIONS AND EXCLUSIONS. H: \U\W W\WORD\ABAO\97BOHDSUM.DOC 11/06/97 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: APRIL 15, 1998 ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER REPORT SUMMARY: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: 4,U.1 DEPT. HEAD: RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City. SUBJECT: License Agreement between City and Primary Plus, Inc. relating to property adjacent to El Quito Park The City has recently been notified by the Moreland School District that it intends to sell its surplus property on Bucknall Road (the former El Quito School site) to the current tenants, Primary Plus, Inc., who plan to continue operating their pre school and day care center on the property. Escrow is scheduled to close at the end of the month. In conducting the ALTA Title Survey for the transaction, Primary Plus discovered that a strip of the land they will be purchasing is currently being used by the City as a part of El Quito Park. In order to satisfy the concerns of the Title Company which will be issuing the policy of title insurance to Primary Plus, the City is being asked to sign a License Agreement (attached) with Primary Plus which will document the existence of the park's encroachment on Primary Plus' property. Primary Plus has indicated that they are satisfied with the agreement, as has the City Attorney. The agreement will essentially preserve the status quo for as long as Primary Plus continues to own the property. It further provides for 120 days notice to the City should Primary Plus wish to cancel the agreement in the future. The City Attorney believes this is a sufficient amount of time for the City to respond to any such notice of cancellation, and to consider whatever options might be available to preserve the land in question as a part of the park. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The agreement would not be approved which would likely delay the close of escrow for Primary Plus. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The agreement will be signed by the Mayor and returned to the Moreland School District. ATTACHMENTS: License Agreement. Letter from Moreland School District Superintendent dated April 8. APR 09 '98 12 :57PM STEINBERG GROUP LICENSE AGREEMENT r./( This This License Agreement "Agreement is made as of the day of 1998 by and between Primary Plus, Inc., a California nonprofit public benefit Corporation "Primary"), and City of Saratoga "City RECITALS A. Primary is the owner of certain real property which borders on lands owned by City and used as a public park; B. City has requested, and Primary has agreed to allow City a shared, non- exclusive license for use of a certain strip of land "Property which borders the City lands owned by Primary, shown at Exhibit A. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE the parties agree as follows: I. All Parties Bound. As specifically provided in this Agreement, the benefits and burdens of this Agreement benefit and bind both Primary and the City, 2. License. Primary hereby grants a license to City for use of the Property described in Exhibit A. 3. Conditions. Primary transfers the license for the use of Property to City on the following terms and conditions: (a) The City shall use the Property solely as a public park; (b) The license will revert to Primary upon the termination of City's use for the purposes stated in this Agreement. The license shall otherwise be held in perpetuity unless and until Primary terminates it as set forth below. (c) City shall not be obligated to pay Primary for the license. (d) City shall be responsible for one hundred percent (100 of the cost of maintenance of the Property. LICENSE AGREEMENT Page 1 APR 09 '98 12.58PM STEINBERG GROUP 4. Termination. Primary may terminate this license at anytime upon one hundred twenty (120) days' written notice to the City. 5. Indemnification. City indemnifies and hold Primary harmless from and against any and all costs, injury, losses, claims, liability, expenses or damages to Primary, (including attorneys' fees, court costs, costs of investigating any matter, expert witness or consultants fees, and costs of enforcing indemnification) arising out of or resulting directly from Primary's grant of permission to utilize the Property and the City's use of the Property including but not limited to any claims or causes of action pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, section 21,000 et seq. 6. Liens. City shall not cause any mechanic's Liens, claims, or stop notices arising out of any furnishing of materials, performance of work on the driveway, or cloud on title to be imposed on the Property. 7. Notices. Any notice, request, demand, consent, approval, or other communication required or permitted hereunder or by law shall be considered validly given or made only if in writing and delivered either in person or by United States mail to an officer or duly authorized representative of the other party. If delivered in person, service shall be effective upon receipt; if delivered by mail, service shall be effective upon deposit in the mail or service shall be effective seventy -two (72) hours after deposit in the United States mail, if mailed duly certified or registered (return receipt requested), postage prepaid, addressed to the party for whom it is intended, addressed as follows: If to City: If to Primary: LICENSE AGREEMENT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Primary Plus, Inc. 18720 Bucknall Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn.: Carol Freitas Any party may from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a different address, which shall be substituted for that specified above. r. r 8. Applicable Law. The laws of the State of California shall in all respects govern this Agreement. The parties further agree that all actions or proceedings arising in connection with this Agreement shall be litigated exclusively in the state courts located in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, which courts have personal jurisdiction over the parties hereto. Page 2 APR 09 '98 12 :58PM STEINBERG GROUP Page 3 P.5 /7 9. Severability. No term, condition, or provision of this Agreement shall be misrepresented or construed to require the performance of any act, duty, or obligation that is contrary to law. If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement is determined tare illegal, unenforceable, or invalid in whole or in part for any reason, such provision shall be stricken from this Agreement to the extent necessary to bring this Agreement within th requirements of the law, and this Agreement to the fullest extent practical shall otherwise be deemed legal and valid and shall continue in full force and effect. 10. Further Assurances. Each of the parties hereto shall execute and deliver any and all additional papers, documents, and other assurances, and shall do any and all acts and things reasonably necessary in connection with the performance of their respective obligations hereunder and to carry out the intent of the parties hereto. 11. Successor and Assigns. All of the terms and provisions contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. 12. endment. No amendment, change, or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless such document is in writing. 13. Attorneys' Fees. In the event any action of any type, including, but not limited to, suit, collection, counterclaim, appeal, arbitration, mediation, and/or alternative dispute resolution as provided herein, is instituted or brought by a party to enforce any of the terms and provisions hereto and/or to obtain a declaratory judgment with respect to the status of his, her, or its rights hereunder (collectively an "Action" herein), the losing party shall pay the prevailing party all costs, expenses, and fees whatsoever incurred by the prevailing party with respect to bringing and prosecuting such Action and enforcing any judgment, order, ruling, or award granted thereunder, including reasonable attorneys' fees, accounting fees, and court costs as the Court may award. 14. Ca tions. The captions appearing at the commencement of the paragraphs hereof are descriptive only and for convenience. Should there be any conflict between any such caption and the paragraph at the head of which it appears, the paragraph and not the caption shall control and govern in the construction of this Agreement. 15. Incorporation of Exhibits. All exhibits attached hereto and referred to herein are incorporated in this Agreement as though fully set forth in the body hereof. 16. Waiver. No consent to any action, waiver of any provision, or waiver of any breach of any duty or obligation hereunder shall constitute a waiver of any other provision or consent to any other action or subsequent breach, whether or not similar. No waiver or consent shall constitute a continuing waiver or consent or commit a party to provide a LICENSE AGREEMENT HF'K 17y 1e 5y 1-T1 5 I t1NEILK6 GROUP waiver in the future except to the extent specifically set forth in writing. Any waiver given by a party shall be null and void if the party requesting such waiver has not provided to the waiving party a full and complete disclosure of all material facts relevant to the waiver requested. 17. Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement, and every provision herein, is made exclusively for the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to confer any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement on any persons other than the parties to it and their respective successors and permitted assigns; provided, however, nothing in this Agreement is intended to relieve or discharge the obligation or liability of any third person to any part of this Agreement. 18. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to the performance of all the duties and obligations set forth in this Agreement. 19. Certain Terms. The terms "shall" and will" are used interchangeably and have the same mandatory meaning. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this License Agreement has been executed and delivered as of the day and year first above written. PRIMARY PLUS, INC. CITY OF SARATOGA BY: BY: Carole Freitas E: \Wp \Clients1507011000 \primary- agr98.401.wpd LICENSE AGREEMENT Page 4 jp 44 6.. 1 &a *a Iwo %I A .C. PAVING O nimmommum Property line X X Chain link fence 1 .4 Ike -VP 11$1 1Czs 1-6 'air Stke 't^7 Kn.. 1: 4J: 0 ot1Sat I 14C 4 sitk t t r. 0- /V C.3 45 OF si" OF R A 0 GA .4 1":',A1 3.9G 02;') 2 r n� c.r u-1� •�•1 98 12: 56PM STE INBERG GROUP •'r•. n •�r1�4sr�'o'!:t'r!i� I`r rye';;^ l April 8, 1998 Larry Perlin City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitv4lc Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: El Quito Park License Agreement Dear Larry; MORELA scxouL Dili. I regret that I was ill and unable to attend the meeting with you and Tom Shannon last Thursday regarding the park boundary line between El Quito Park and our school district's site. Tom Shannon related that the meeting went well. 1 appreciate your help in this matter. As background, the Moreland School District has sold the remainder of the El Quito Park Se,hool site to Primary Plus, Inc, the current tenant on the site. We had previously sold the playing fields adjacent to the school site to the City in the early 1980's. Primary Plus plans to continue to remain on the property and operate the preschool and day care center. Based upon input at our community meetings, the neighbors are very pleased that the site will continue to be used as a. school. In anticipation of the close of escrow for the sale, I have enclosed for your review a license agreement which relates to a strip of land currently being used by the City at El Quito Park, but actually owned by the District. This "encroachment" was discovered by Primary Plus' civil engineer in doing an ALTA survey. The title company handling the escrow has requested that we resolve the "encroachment" through the attached license agreement. Primary Plus, Inc. is in agreement with using the license agreement, and this will allow the City to continue to use the "encroached" upon property in its current configuration. The school distiet along with Primary Plus requests the City Council's approval of this agreement at its April 15, 1998 meeting. Please call Tom Shannon, our property consultant, at 408 29S 9880 if you need any additional information. Thank you again for your help. S• cerel izn Ritchie, Ed.D. Superintendent P.2/7 ljuub J. City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 9O Please return to: City/Town Clerk, (addreu) t COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ADDING ADDITIONAL SHEET AS NECESSARY. 1. cLADAANrs NAME (Print): /OKA- be (-2 IJk 'fl 2. CLAIMANTS ADDRESS: )11C i,1% I ()1‘'N. l?:rUC tk ‘1", ct(7:62:( (Street or P.O. Box Number City &ale Zip Code) 3. AMOUNT OF CLAIM S 6:2 6 `4-fri4 HOME pHoNE (Attach Copies of bills/estimates) j T) 1 4 7 t_") 0-t/S 7A-q WORK PHONE: t .A 0(...t.) ■i't- he.u,t lib /eactiNloeiVU rJ fireL IF AMOUNT CLAIMED IS MORE THAT S10,000 INDICATE WHERE JURISDICTION RESTS: Municipal Court Superior 4. ADDRESS ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT, IF DIFFERENT FROM LINES 1 AND 2 (PRINT): (City- State Zip Code 5. DATE OF INCIDENT: ;-7/e. TIME OF INCIDENT: LOCATION OF INCIDENe 09(4 1 'C 0,Ca yarif 6. DESCRIBE THE INCIDENT OR ACCIDENT INCLUDING YOUR REASON FOR BELIEVING MAT THE CITY IS LIABLE FOR YOUR DAMAGES: 4-003 gaw /7) c he ;i Sc ti .2 IY5/ e5 kt.,1 CU- 17 4. !_k j, 7. DESCRIBE ALL DAMAGES WHICH YOU B ViY L ak i. 4g 0//etx 0 r '1 er_ '.1.z .o Ni os• :71. Actr f -4-,,,c 1,3 2 r j, rj 4 r ni_ bi,.., _L-- AS( ULT 0 THE IN CDEllr: -i4..y val Lc I ti-U-S ki (")e)J- ate -7( tl- 7 /a_J-L7t 44> cif' .3.- --/t_L 6 /e_ii .rrtA- fl,. i .1;:. (.-t ox, 'itpqe co r,VV /1 ».9L g-it-P-L- NAMES(S) ofpfrain ic -661 .oliitekaiNC Ttii'D;Qdiiibi J` Aiii 1 ‘iiiia: 1- (i'1!-- c" C- e_, c" ,k Is --y Signature of aaimant 'Date CLAIM AGAINST (NAME OF CITY OR TOWN) (Name) (Street or P.O. Box Number) Any person who, with intent to defraud, presents any false or fraudulent daim may be punished by imprisonment or line or both. Note: Claims must be Med within 180 days of inddent. See Government Cod{ Section 900 t sea, 11/91 ABAG PLAN Corp. CMI-1 NAVE i h•e �e JL� �D Jen 1 YEAR MAKE L MOO yL v //e /1 7? /I( •DOoE55Jn' LICENSE VIN NO PROD. PATE NO mu.EACE 1 r1 3 !��•j gym a��" n1 (y�� c T. WI4/.Ty( (_L. STATE ZIP V ..-,0.,E /te /70 w PHONE BODY CODE PAINT `P,u L. /r«u( cBDRESS DATE INS c^ r')' OF LOSS CL AIM NO .t •CJuSTER PHONE LID NO FILE NO D C LINE', F E• RE DETAILS OF REPAIR N0. PAIR �PUCEI R Repair S Straighten R'C Recycle/Rechrome/Recore core PARTS INDEX A Altermarket N New U Used R Rebuilt PI LABOR HOURS PARTS SUBLET rM SC PAINT FRAME MECH 1 f 6-0 f1. BODY 10 •0 3 c 4 R P"-- 5 Y 6 i I 1 7 8 t 0 1 i 12 I 13 14 i5 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 221 23 24 25 26 27 OLD PARTS wILL BE DISCARDED UNLESS OTHERWISE INSTRUCTED I TOTALS n g, 01 SOMETIMES AFTER THE WORK HAS BEEN STARTED. ADDITIONALLY DAMAGED OR WORN PARTS ARE DISCOVERED WHICH WERE NOT EVIDENT ON FIRST INSPECTION. THIS DAMAGE REPORT DOES NOT COVER OR INCLUDE ANY AODI. TIONAL PARTS OR LABOR WHICH MAY BE REOUIREO. ALL PARTS PRICES ARE SUBJECT TO INVOICE. L A 0 R PARTS SUBLET Paint Body Towing EPArWasle O SW BODY 3' 1 hrs b t gc E:.Itilr�i -3 q h rs -I C -92 J C I hereby authorize the above work and acknowledge receipt of copy. Signed X Date FRAME MECH hrs hrs C ampbell Auto Restoration and High Performance Center ,i� Complete Mechanical and Body Restoration Service High Performance Engine Chassis Enhancements Collision repair on Select Automobiles 260 Cristich Lane, Unit A -1 (408) 371 -5522 Campbell, CA 95008 FAX (408) 371 -5552 Prices /MISyE Supplie0t4Ors Supplies_ /Storage subjecrtornvorce F�NEOUS his IR 3t 0 7 8 9G Disposal Charge SUB TOTAL TA p on r n's1L TOTAL 3C IS r/ SS 73 r Printed on recycled paper. Grace E. Cory e4 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 April 10, 98 To: City Council From: Deputy City Clerk Subject: Vessing Road Assessment District Protest Hearing COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. Wolfe As you recall, the initial protest hearing was held on January 21, 1998. In response to a petition signed by a majority of the property owners, the Council continued that hearing to April 15. On March 23 the property owners submitted another petition requesting continuation of the April 15 hearing for three months. Therefore staff recommends continuing the hearing to the date certain of July 15, 1998. PETITION TO DELAY VOTE ON VESSING RD. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR 90 DAYS We the undersigned residents of the district petition the Council of the City of Saratoga to delay the April 15 vote on the Vessing Rd. Assessment District for 3 months. The current litigation with Lester Hinz causes many complications and adds additional cost to the assessment district. If the case is resolved in our favor, it will remove much of the cost currently associated with the assessment district. We would like to have this issue resolved before we vote on the assessment district. Thank you. Name �i t (d- I51c tid 1,14 titi� "01mA,- k Coley /1 3/0 /9i 397- c c 76 -.1: 7Z, ,•z.. r, iL; 3 Z 397- 3 9 7 L 4 /71141 ‘ii./<„, t. a W 397- C; ii L_ 1 Vr 397- C' S e 7 397- C.) c' n.. c y 397- 0 c% jut r 397- -(2.5h) ifis 14,E 54 397 0'3 c::3./ Wit, I 1-_., 3 7-(9174? 397- C�te� o Y L. A l ez.cticL_ `Z 4 397 .;G, 5 a/1,V 9Y- 397- 06 /6 4 397 397- 397- 397- 397- 397- 397- L LL's6�tC<'_ /f-11 Date 3�l (2;W 397 c5 C- 2`1 397- O(L' c�s7 1 Tx• ;�31_ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 15,1998 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Communi Development CITY MANAGER: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Deny the appeal and reaffirm the Planning Commission's decision. REPORT SUMMARY: Background: AGENDA ITEM l0 5 DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Appeal of DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, Persson, 21194 Haymeadow Drive Appeal of Planning Commission grant of Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new 4,047 square foot house, 25 feet in height, on a vacant 43,638 square foot lot in the R -1- 40,000 Zoning District. During its February 25 regular public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the application of Jonas and Jennifer Persson for Design Review and Variance approval to build a new 4,047 square foot, two -story residence at 25 feet in height. Applicants requested two Design Review exceptions, one for an exception to the maximum understory clearance and another for an exception to the floor area reduction formula for structures in excess of 18 feet in height. The applicants also requested Variance approval to adhere to a standard front yard setback for that zoning district (30 feet) instead of 62 feet, a setback based on a percentage of the lot's depth, as is now prescribed for vacant lots. The Planning Commission visited the property, reviewed the planning staff's analyses and recommendations and heard testimony from neighbors present at the public hearing. Staff recommended that the Commission could make all of the required Design Review findings required in City Code Section 15 -45.80 as well as all of the required Variance findings enumerated in Section 15- 70.060. The Commission then voted 3 -1 (Martlage opposed) to approve the Design Review and Variance requests by adopting the prepared Resolutions with added conditions restricting allowable hours of construction and minimizing_c onstruction vehicles on or near the site. Richard and Abby Weiser filed an appeal application on March 11 The appellants request that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's granting of Design Review approval and associated exceptions as well as the Variance approval. Issues: As the attached letter of April 9 from the appellants' attorney indicates, one of their key complaints is that privacy impacts were not adequately discussed in the staff report nor adequately addressed by the Planning Commission. They assert that the proposed development creates "unreasonable interference" with the views and privacy of the appellants and thus argue that the Planning Commission could not make all of the Design Review findings required in City Code Section 15- 45.080. Planning Commissioners visited the site on February 24 and examined the potential impact to views from within the appellants' residence. Planning Commissioners also heard testimony and examined exhibits presented them by the appellants during the February 25t hearing. As the minutes of the hearing indicate, at least one Planning Commissioner stated that the partial loss of the view across this currently vacant lot is "regrettable but unavoidable." Staff finds that although the ordinance is intended to restrict "unreasonable interference" it was not necessarily intended to forever protect the complete view through something akin to the appellants' east facing glass wall, which is by their own admission oriented to a vacant, legal lot of record. The only alternative the appellants propose is that the applicants move the house further down the hill. As the Variance analysis of the staff report and other submitted documents indicate, the southern portion of the property is underlain by unstable soils, has a very steep slope which would create an unreasonably steep ingress /egress gradient, would require the removal of ordinance protected trees, and would increase the amount of grading and impervious area coverage to unreasonable amounts. Staff also supports the applicants' assertion (see Exhibit "A that the appellants views to the south and east would in fact be worsened if the house were relocated to the (less stable) lower portion of the lot. Finally, staff wishes to respond to the appellants' assertion that the applicants are attempting to capture for themselves the views to the east the appellants currently enjoy. Staff finds that the east facing portion of the applicants' proposed home will be obscured by numerous-tall oak trees and is at a lower elevation than the appellants' home such that the relative easterly views from the existing and proposed structures are simply not comparable. In sum, staff finds that the Planning Commission appropriately concluded that the proposal did not create "unreasonable interference" with appellants' views and privacy. Councilmembers interested in arranging a group visit to the site and the appellants' property should contact Community Development Director Walgren. In the attached letter of April 9, appellants' attorney encourages Councilmembers to see the site from within the Weiser home. Staff encourages Councilmembers to visit the site and the appellants' property so as io =best compare the appellants' submitted photomontage with the posted height poles and site plans. (N.B.: Staff finds an apparent discrepancy between the submitted photomontage and the placement of height poles as posted and mapped by the applicants.) Based on the determination that it could make all required Design Review findings, the Planning Commission also approved the requests for floor area reduction exception and exceedance of maximum underfloor clearance per the requirements of City Code Sections 15 -45.50 and 15- 45.030(0. Similarly, the Planning Commission found sufficient site specific special circumstances as required by City Code Section 15- 07.060(a) to grant the requested Variance approval. As noted, these circumstances include the lot's topography, the location and number of ordinance- protected trees and the proposed building's location with regard to potentially unstable underlying soils. In further response to the appellants' attorney's charge that there are insufficient grounds to grant a Variance in that other homes in the vicinity are subject to reasonably similar site specific special circumstances, staff will note that percentage -based setbacks were not adopted until 1992. Therefore, homes built prior to 1992 were subject to the same standard setbacks for whose utilization the applicant is now seeking Variance approval. So in addition to all of the necessary findings staff asserts can be made to support the Variance request, approval of the Variance request will subject the proposed home to the same setback regulations as were applied to the preponderance of existing homes in the neighborhood (those approved before January 1992). Prior to the application's review by the Planning Commission, staff heard verbally from appellants regarding their concerns about the design; staff communicated said concerns to applicants. The attached February 10` letter from H. Russel Dotter (included in the original staff report) is a partial response to this exchange of communication. Staff notes that prior to the application's review before the Planning Commission, the applicants removed a significant portion of the second story of the proposed residence in response to the appellants' concerns. This is illustrated on the last two pages of Exhibit "A Other correspondence received in this matter is attached to this report. 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 April 1, 1998. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): If the City Council reverses the Planning Commisssion's decision and approve' the_appeal, the Council will need to direct the applicant to reduce the project's impacts by specified levels. 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 February 25, 1998 2. Staff Report dated February 25, 1998 (includes Resolutions DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011 and correspondence submitted prior to the public hearing) 3. Appeal Correspondence 4. Exhibit "A plans 5. Exhibit `B photomontage Planning Commission Action Minutes Page 4 February 25, 1998 TO BE PROVIDED; APPROVED 4/0. 5. DR -97 -058 (APN 397 -18 -065) CARTER, 14810 Farwell Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single story house, 4,517 square feet.in size, 23 feet in height, on a 1.002 acre lot in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district, currently occupied by a single story 3,256 square foot house, 17 feet in height and a 562 square foot guest house /carport, 10 feet in height. Walgren presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened at 9:01 p.m. There were no comments from the applicant or the public on the application. The public hearing was closed at 9:02 p.m. Commissioner Pierce liked the size of the home and felt it was not overwhelming. Commissioner Murakami liked the design. Commissioner Martlage felt it would be better if the column at the rear of the house were straight, not curved, and she did not like the fact that the garage faces the street. Chair Patrick did not like the design and felt there was too much lot coverage. PIERCE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE DR -97 -058; APPROVED 3/1 (PATRICK OPPOSED). 6. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011 (APN 503- 55 -53) PERSSON, 21194 Haymeadow Drive; Request for Building Site approval, Design Review approval, and Variance approval to construct a new 4,047 square foot house, 25 feet in height, on a vacant 1.002 acre lot in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Applicant requests Variance approval in order to adhere to that zoning district's standard front yard setback, rather than the percentage based setbacks prescribed for all vacant lots. Applicant also requests Design Review exception to permit construction of garage with 7 foot, 6 inch underfloor clearance, in exceedance of city limitation of 5 feet, and Floor Area exception to waive required floor area reduction for houses in excess of 18 feet in height. Walgren presented the staff report and addressed additional information documented by staff following a site visit. The public hearing was opened at 9:10 p.m. Russ Dotter, applicant's architect, explained their efforts to maintain existing oak trees and to work with the site. Richard Weiser, 21216 Haymeadow Drive, commented that this is a difficult site on which to build, and Planning Commission Action Minutes Page 5 February 25, 1998 was concerned with the project's conformance with City codes, the fact that his view would be obscured, the large number of windows in the home, tree preservation and diverting water off the property. Philip Liu, 21197 Haymeadow Drive, said the roof line appears to be over the neighbor's property, and was concerned about traffic problems, as the cul -de -sac is shared by five neighbors and no additional parking spaces are available. The public hearing was closed at 9:35 p.m. Commissioner Murakami requested that staff comment on Mr. Weiser's concerns about the code. He visited the site as well as the Weiser home, and felt the design is good and the home is stepped down nicely. He would be able to support the application. Commissioner Pierce agreed that parking would be limited and suggested the contractor bring people up to the site in a group if it becomes a problem. He also visited the site and the Weiser home and understands the neighbors' concerns, as they will lose their view. Pierce likes the design and can support the application. Commissioner Martlage was troubled by the exception to the floor area and felt the home is too large. She cannot support the application. Chair Patrick felt the step -down design of the home adapts well to the hillside and that the home is a good addition to the neighborhood; she would be able to approve the application. The loss of the neighbors' view is regrettable but unavoidable. PIERCE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE DR -97 -053 AND V -97 -011 WITH A CONSTRAINT ON CONSTRUCTION HOURS AND THAT CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES AT THE SITE BE MINIMIZED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. DIRECTOR ITEMS 1. Walgren stated that he had distributed to each Commissioner for their information, a process manual for Code Enforcement. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes dated February 4 and February 10, 1998 Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of March 11, 1998 ADJOURNMENT 10:00 p.m. to Wednesday, March 11,-1998, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA ITEM 6 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant No./Location: DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive Applicant /Owner: PERSSON Staff Planner: John Cook, Assistant Planner Date: February 25, 1998 503 -55 -053 APN: Division Head: File No. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive CASE HISTORY Application filed: 9/4/97 Application complete: 1/27/98 Notice published: 2/11/98 Mailing completed: 2/12/98 Posting completed: 2/5/98 PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new 4,047 square foot house, 25 feet in height, on a vacant 43,638 square foot lot in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Applicant requests Variance approval in order to adhere to standard front yard setback for the Zoning District, rather than the percentage based setback prescribed for vacant lots. Applicant requests Design Review exception to permit construction of garage with 7 foot, 6 inch underfloor clearance, in exceedance of city limitation of 5 feet. Applicant also requests floor area exception to waive the floor area reduction for buildings over 18 feet in height. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application by adopting Resolution DR -97 -053. Approve the Variance request by adopting Resolution V -97 -011. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolutions DR -97 -053 V -97 -011 3. Aborist's Report, dated October 1, 1997 4. Two -story structure map 5. Correspondence 6. Plans, Exhibit "A" Page 1 s. File No. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive Zoning: General Plan Designation: Measure G: Parcel Size: Average Site Slope: Grading Required: Materials and Colors Proposed: Roofing: mottled brown clay tiles. Walls: cement plaster walls in washed yellow tone, with light sage green accent trim. Sills: natural redwood. Height /Coverage /Setback Requirements: Lot Coverage: Height: Size of Structure: Setbacks: Page 2 Proposal 12% (5,236 sq. ft.) 25 ft. STAFF ANALYSIS R -1- 40,000 Residential: Very Low Density Not applicable 43,638 sq. ft. (42,838 sq. ft. net of driveway easement) 32 28% at building site Cut: 10 ft. (500 cu. yd.) Fill: 5 ft. (400 cu. yd.) 1st floor: 2,248 sq. ft. 2nd floor: 1,799 sq. ft. total: 4,047 sq. ft. (basement: 970 sq. ft.) Front: 30 ft. West Side: 20 -ft. East Side: 62 ft. Rear: 124 ft. Code Requirement/ Allowance 30% (13,091 sq. ft.) 26 ft. 3,834 sq. ft. with floor area reduction. 62 ft. (percentage based) 20 ft. (standard) 20 ft. (standard) 77.5 ft. (percentage based) Applicant requests floor area exception; if granted, allowable floor area would be 4,284 sq. ft. File No. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to build a new two story residence on a vacant lot. The lot is located at the end of the cul -de -sac of Haymeadow Drive and it steeply slopes down to Bank Mill Road. The average slope of the site is 32 the slope at the building site is 28 The parcel contains numerous healthy oak trees. DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS The proposed 4,047 square foot residence is designed in a Tuscan villa style. The structure's well articulated facades and rooflines reduce the perception of its bulk and massing. The combination of its low pitched rooflines, its strong horizontal orientation, and its stepping down with the slope all reduce the structure's appearance of verticality as well as minimize the need for grading by following natural contours. The minimal amount of grading, the preservation of significant trees on the site, and the use of natural materials and colors well integrate the proposed structure with the environment; the design is also reasonably compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. The proposal includes a 970 square foot basement, none of which daylights two feet or more above grade and is therefore excluded from the floor area calculation. Staff feels that this proposal meets all of the Design Review fmdings of Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code as well as conforms to the design policies and techniques of the Residential Design Handbook. Design Review Exception The applicant requests a Design Review exception to allow an underfloor area of 7 feet, 6 inches maximum height beneath the proposed garage. The City Code allows the Planning Commission to make exceptions to the 5 foot underfloor maximum if it can make all other Design Review findings enumerated in Section 15- 45.080. Staff feels that the request is reasonable in that cutting into the slope to reduce the height of the building /underfloor clearance would necessitate grading potentially detrimental to the very large valley oak tree, under whose canopy will rest some of the garage. Indeed, the city arborist recommends a pier and on -grade beam design to protect the tree instead of cutting into the slope; this design technique is intended to minimize tree root damage. Staff feels that the garage is located in the most logical place on the site, close to the existing driveway easement and as such, in need of relatively little fill to build up a driveway. Page 3 �4' File No. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive As discussed above, the proposed house meets all of the required Design Review findings and conforms to the policies and techniques of the Design Review Handbook. Staff therefore recommends granting the exception to the underfloor clearance limit. Floor Area Exception The applicant requests an exception to the floor area reduction for buildings over 18 feet in height. The proposed design is 25 feet in height; the floor area reduction formula would reduce the allowable floor area from 4,284 square feet to 3,834 square feet. The proposed design is 4,047 square feet, excluding the basement. The Planning Commission may grant an exception to permit additional floor area up to the maximum after easement and slope deductions have been made as long as there is a predominance of two story homes in the neighborhood and that all other Design Review findings can be made. The attached map of the neighborhood shows that there is a predominance of two story homes in the vicinity. Since all other Design Review findings can be made, staff recommends granting the exception to the floor area reduction. Modification of Slope Easement There is an existing slope easement encompassing approximately the northernmost thirty feet of the property (the Haymeadow Drive frontage). The applicant requested modification of this easement in order to construct part of the garage, a walkway and part of the driveway. According to the map for Tract 3946, this slope easement was secured "for the purpose of extending any cut or fill or other structures necessary to construct and maintain the adjacent streets thereto." As the street is clearly well established, the engineering department is not concerned about needing the slope easement for the purposes of street construction or maintenance. As such, the city engineer suggests that the easement be reduced such that the proposed improvements are outside its boundary. The applicant has paid the appropriate engineering department fee to effect this Tract Map Modification. This has been incorporated into the attached Design Review resolution as a condition of approval. GRADING The grading proposed for the site will involve 500 cubic yards of cut and 400 cubic yards of fill. Most of the cut is needed to construct the proposed basement; most of it will be used as fill to construct the required driveway. Page 4 File No. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW The subject property has undergone geotechnical field testing by the applicants' geologist. These tests have been reviewed and analyzed by the city's geotechnical consultant, who has concluded that the property can be safely developed. Appropriate recommendations from the geotechnical consultant have been incorporated into the attached Design Review resolution. TREES The city arborist has identified 12 trees on site that will be impacted by the proposed project. One of these, tree 5, is a 36 in. DBH live oak, under whose canopy some construction will occur. Tree protective fencing is required to protect trees 1 -3, 5, 6, and 8. The applicant wishes to remove trees 4, 7, and 9, which the arborist has valued at $5,269, roughly equivalent to one 48 in. box tree, two 15 gallon trees, and one 5 -gallon tree. The arborist suggests a 30% bond for tree 5, and a 25% bond for all other retained trees; a total of $8,281. All other tree protective measures have been included as conditions of approval in the attached Design Review resolution. VARIANCE ANALYSIS The applicant seeks Variance approval to adhere to a standard front yard setback rather than a percentage -based front yard setback, as would be required for a vacant lot such as this. The City Code allows the Planning Commission to grant Variances when it can make the findings that 1) the site has some special circumstances that, if specified regulations were strictly enforced, would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; 2) the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege; and 3) that the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Staff believes it can make all of the necessary findings to support the Variance. First, the slope at the building site is 28 other potential sites on the lot either exceed 30% slope (construction on which would require Variance approval) or are densely covered with trees. Strict adherence to the percentage based setbacks would push the property at least 62 feet down the slope, thereby increasing the amounts of 1) grading necessary to construct any house and 2) impervious area coverage. Staff feels these constraints constitute significant special circumstances. Because of these special circumstances, approval of the Variance request will not constitute a grant of special privilege. Finally, approval of the Variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor would it be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Page 5 File No. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive LANDSCAPE PLAN Not required CORRESPONDENCE Attached is correspondence the city has received from both the architect and adjacent property owners. CONCLUSION Staff feels that the slope and dense foliage of this property constitute significant hardship findings with regard to the request for Variance approval. This variance finding carries with it no grant of special privilege to the applicant and is not forseeably detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff feels that the design is well suited to the site and is in conformity with each of the policies set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. RECOMMENDATION Approve the application by adopting Resolutions DR 97 -053 and V -97 -011. Page 6 RESOLUTION NO DR -97 -053 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Persson, 21194 Haymeadow Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,047 square foot two -story residence with a maximum height of 25 feet on a 1.002 acre parcel; and WHEREAS, as part of this application, the applicant has also requested 1)Variance approval to adhere to a standard front yard setback instead of one based on a percentage of the lot's depth: 2) a request for a Design Review Exception to allow a 7 foot, 6 inch underfloor clearance beneath the proposed garage, 3) a Floor Area Exception to request exemption for the floor area reduction for structures exceeding 18 feet in height, and 4) modification of a slope easement in the northernmost section of the property; 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 location of the proposed residence meets or exceeds minimum setback requirements with the exception of the front yard setback as approved by Resolution V -97 -011. -The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures 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 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 the structure's design incorporates elements which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment by articulation of the facades and rooflines. -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 File No. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive 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 impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy, in that the height of the- residence is compatible with surrounding residences in the neighborhood. -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. 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 Persson 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 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 1 -3, 5, 6 and 8. The fences are to remain in place for the duration of the project. They may be relocated only for the installation of an energy dissipator. 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. b. Four (4) separate sets of engineered grading and drainage plans, also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page. c. The applicant shall cause the existing slope easement, as shown on lot 44 of Tract 3946, to be amended by a licensed Land Surveyor for purposes of absolving any encroachments into the easement caused by the improvements proposed. 4. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls, etc.) to ensure the consultant's File No. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall ensure that the recommended fill buttress, details of driveway construction, and basement excavations are adequately depicted on the Final Grading and Drainage Plan. The results of the plan review shall be summarized in letters by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading and building permits. 5. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed) and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of structural improvements. 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. 6. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the owner (applicant) shall enter into an agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure, or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 7. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the city geotechnical consultant's review of the project. 8. No new fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. 9. Fences and walls shall comply with the R -1 district fencing requirements contained in Article 15- 29.010 of the City Code. 10. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance, applicant shall submit a plan to the planning staff for its approval that, to the maximum feasible extent, limits the number of construction and construction- related vehicles associated with this project from being on or near the site. 11. Construction activity shall be restricted to Mondays through Fridays, 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Construction activity shall not be permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays on which the city offices are closed in observation thereof. 12. No ordinance protected tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit, with the exception of trees 4,.7,'and 9, for.which.the city arborist has determined a replacement value of $5,269; replacement trees equalling this value must be planted on site prior to Final Occupancy approval. 13. All requirements of the city arborist's report dated December 30, 1997, shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to: File No. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive 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. It will be necessary to remove lower branches of tree 5 in order to permit driveway and garage access. Pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist. No more than one -third of the total canopy may be removed, and the essential symmetry of the tree shall be maintained. Applicant shall survey the driveway, deck, and comer of the structure to determine if pruning can be done within the one -third limitation and if the tree's basic symmetry can be retained while implementing this design. No grading shall occur within 25 feet of the trunk of tree 5. The garage shall be constructed by pier and on -grade beam design. Adjacent pathways or landings must be installed on top of the existing grade without a soil cut or excavation. The 6 inch PVC energy dissipator shall be located such that the discharge does not put water into the root zone of adjacent trees. Downspout drainage shall be designed to direct the discharge a minimum of 15 feet away from the root collar of any tree. The root zones of trees 10, 11, and 12 must be protected from fill soil intrusion by excavation up -slope from these trees. As a prophylactic measure, silt fencing must be installed and maintained in a vertical condition. 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 $8,281 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: Tree protective fencing shall be reinspected by planning staff. c. Prior to Final Occupancy approval: Assuming the removal of trees 4, 7, and 9, native replacement trees equal to $5,269 (equivalent to one 48 inch box, two 15 gallon, and File No. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive one 5 gallon trees) shall be planted on site. Planning staff shall inspect these trees prior to approval. 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. 14. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built -up roofing. 15. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. 16. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 17. Automatic sprinlders shall be installed in newly constructed attached garages (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. 18. 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. 19. All driveways shall have a minimum 14 foot width plus 1 foot shoulders. Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. File No. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive 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 25th day of February 1998 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO V -97 -011 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Persson, 21194 Haymeadow Drive WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to allow adherence to a standard front yard setback rather than one based on a percentage of lot depth; 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: 1. The slope at the building site is 28 other potential sites on the lot have either steeper slopes and/or are densely covered with trees. Strict adherence to the percentage based setbacks would push the property at least 62 feet down the slope, increasing the amount of grading necessary to construct any house, and would result in significantly increased impervious area coverage. Staff feels these constraints constitute special circumstances. 2. That because of these special circumstances (the lot's shape, topography, and trees), strict enforcement of the specified setback regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. 3. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that any property owner would be given the same consideration based on the special circumstances. 4. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 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, DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, the application of Persson for Variance approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: File No. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A incorporated by reference. 2. All conditions of Resolution DR -97 -053 shall apply. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 he date of adoption. File No. DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011, 21194 Haymeadow Drive PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 25th day of February 1998 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission BARRIE D. COI and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -1052 Fax 408 354 -3767 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Prepared at the Request of: Carol Deming City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael Bench October 1, 1997 Received: 9/16/97 Due: 10/13/97 Job #09 -97 -292 A TREE SURVEY AND PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PERSSON PROPERTY AT 21194 HAYMEADOW DRIVE SARATOGA 22 l: :i BARRIE D. COQ and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 353 -1052 Fax 408 -354 -3767 23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 A TREE SURVEY AND PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PERSSON PROPERTY AT 21194 HAYMEADOW DRIVE SARATOGA Assignment At the request of Carol Deming, Assistant Planner, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to construct a new home 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 can be minimized. The plan reviewed for this report is the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, Lot 44, Tract 3946, Haymeadow Drive, Saratoga, prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. Saratoga, Job No. 97029, Sheet C1, dated 8/30/97. Summary Of the 20 trees observed at this site, only 12 would be affected by construction. One of these is located on adjacent property but will be affected by planned construction. It appears that all trees will be retained, but mitigation of damage will be essential. It is not possible to accurately assess the impact of this design on the largest tree #5) on site without additional information. The value of all trees is $41,375. A 30% bond of $7,053 is suggest for the protection of tree #5, and a 25% bond of $4,465 is suggested for all other retained trees. Observations This site is a hillside property on a fairly steep slope facing southeast. The footprint of the new home is located on a sloping knoll that is the only clear area on site. There are approximately 20 trees on this site, but it appears that only 12 trees would be affected by construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number, which is referenced throughout this report. The data sheets following this text provide a• health and structure rating for each tree. 1 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Arborist October 1, 1997 a A TREE SURVEY AND PkOTECTIC ;COMMENDATIONS FOR THE PERSSON PROPERTY AT 21194 HAYMEADOW DRIVE SARATOGA The 12 trees are classified as follows: 6 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 2 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) 2 Tasmanian Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus) 1 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) 1 Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) Specific Trees Tree #1 is a 14 -inch DBH deodara cedar located on the adjacent property to the southeast. This tree has excellent health and structure. Trees #2 and 3 are Monterey pine trees in fairly good condition. However, the larger of the two (tree #3) has an infestation of western rust gall resulting in branch tip dieback on the eastern side. To prevent this fungus disease from spreading, I suggest eradicative pruning be performed, but this has nothing to do with proposed construction. Tree #4 is a 12 -inch DBH coast live oak living under the canopy of tree #5. This coast live oak is in good health but has only fair structure. If this tree is retained, it will be essential that no excavation cuts occur within 5 feet of the trunk. Tree #5 is a 37 -inch DBH valley oak with excellent health and good structure. The root collar of this tree has been covered, as a result of discing on the uphill side for weed management. It will be essential to perform root collar excavation of this tree if it is expected to live a long and healthy life. Tree #6 is a 9 -inch DBH (10 inches at 2 feet above grade) coast live oak, also living under the canopy of tree #5. This small coast live oak has excellent health but only fair structure as a result of competition for sunlight. Tree #7 is a multi -trunk coast live oak that has excellent health and good structure. This tree is in conflict with proposed grading and would be removed by_this design. However, this tree could be retained by the installation of a retaining wall designed of pier and on- grade beam design between the trunk of this tree and the new driveway. Tree #8 is a multi -trunk Tasmanian blue gum that has excellent health but poor structure. This tree has been topped at approximately 2 feet above grade and the existing tree is Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Arborist October 1, 1997 A TREE SURVEY AND PROTECTIG :COMMENDATIONS FOR THE PERSSON PROPERTY AT 21194 HAYMEADOW DRIVE SARATOGA composed completely of water sprout growth, which is highly prone to failure. It will be essential to prune this tree frequently to prevent large sprout failures. Tree #9 is a multi -trunk Tasmanian blue gum that has also been topped at about 2 feet above grade. The four main leaders are the result of water sprout growth and are highly prone to failure. Regular pruning will also be needed to decrease the potential for sprout failures. Tree #10 is a 19 -inch DBH coast live oak with excellent health and structure. Tree #11 is a multi -trunk coast live oak with a diameter of 21 inches at 2 feet above grade. This tree also has excellent health and structure. It appears unlikely that tree #11 will be affected by construction. Tree #12 is a 9 -inch DBH (10 inches at 2 feet above grade) coast live oak that has excellent health and good structure. These trees are all down -slope from the proposed construction, along with at least 8 additional healthy coast live oaks that are not large enough to be regulated by City Ordinance. Those eight additional coast live oak trees will not likely be affected. There is a healthy layer of leaf litter under the canopy of this grove that is part of their life cycle needed for their health and survival. Although the leaf litter may be removed and the trees would survive, this species does stay healthier if the leaf litter is allowed to remain. I suggest this natural condition be allowed to remain after construction and subsequent landscaping. However, this has nothing to do with proposed construction and therefore is not a protection requirement for this project. Recommendations To protect retained trees from damaging, if not devastating, effects that will result from proposed construction, I suggest the following mitigation actions be taken to preserve the health of these trees. 1. I suggest the grading plan be changed in order to preserve tree #7, and a retaining wall be added adjacent to the driveway. This retaining wall must be by pier and on -grade beam design; 2. It will be necessary to remove lower branches of tree #5 in order to permit driveway and garage access. I suggest that no more than one -third of the total canopy be removed and that the essential symmetry of this tree be maintained. This pruning must be done by an ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) Certified Arborist. It is conceivable that design changes may be requested in order to retain this trees essential symmetry. I suggest the driveway, the deck, and the corner of the building be surveyed in order to determine Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Arborist October 1, 1997 z. A TREE SURVEY AND PRUTECTIC ;COMMENDATIONS FOR THE PERSSON PROPERTY AT 21194 HAYMEADOW DRIVE SARATOGA whether or not pruning can be done within the one -third limitation and whether or not the basic symmetry can be retained while implementing this design. 3. It will be essential that no grading whatsoever occur within 25 feet of the trunk of tree #5. I suggest the garage be constructed by pier and on -grade beam design. Adjacent pathways or landings must be installed on top of the existing grade without a grading soil cut or excavation. 4. If &ee f retained, it will be essential to provide supplemental watering to tree #7 and to trees #4, 5 and 6 (if tree #4 is retained) during the course of construction. These trees will need 10 gallons of water for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks during the dry seagon. A hose is excellent for this purpose. 5. The root collars of oak trees are highly susceptible to serious fungus diseases when moisture is present during the warmer months. Therefore, I suggest the 6 -inch PVC energy dissipater be relocated so the discharge does not put water into the root zone of adjacent trees. 6. I suggest that the downspout drainage be designed to direct the discharge a minimum of 15 feet away from the root collar of any tree. 7. The root zones of trees #10, 11 and 12 must be protected from fill soil intrusion by excavation for construction up -slope from these trees. Silt fencing must be installed and maintained in a vertical condition as needed to prevent this. 8. Retained trees be protected by a temporary chainlink fence mounted on steel posts drive 2 feet into the ground. It is essential that this fencing be installed prior to the arrival of any equipment to the site and that the fencing remaining in place throughout construction, including cleanup operations. Relocate this fence only for the installation of the retaining w ee a installation of the energy dissipater. Value Assessment If tree #4 is not retained, its value is $1098 which is equivalent to two 24 -inch box and two 15- gallon native trees. However, I presume this tree will be retained. The value of tree #5 is $23,510. I suggest a 30% bond to protect this tree. Since it appears that tree #11 will not likely be affected construction, I suggest that no bond be held for its protection at this time. However, should this prove inaccurate, I suggest a bond be reassessed for the protection of this tree at that time. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Arborist October 1, 1997 A TREE SURVEY AND PROTEC a tC :COMMENDATIONS FOR THE PERSSON PROPERTY AT 21194 HAYMEADOW DRIVE SARATOGA The combined value of all other retained trees is $41,375. A 30% bond of $7,053 is suggested for tree #5 and a 25% bond of $4,465 for the protection of all other trees. Enclosures: Map Evaluation Charts Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Arborist Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Associate e strt 4 Barrie D. Coate, Principal October 1, 1997 5 BARRIE D. COATE ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 0 (408) 353-1052 I D BH (inches) J I MULTI -STEM 1 1 (ea ySul)H9aI 1 (so 4 1-18 CI I I DI AM ET 2'ABOVE ER GRADE I HEIGHT 1 I alJddSI I HEALTH (1 -5) 1 1 STRUCTURE (1 -5) I I NEEDS THINNING 1 I REMOVE END-WEIGHT 1 ROOT CO L LAR COVERED (1 -5) ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1 -5) I TRUNK DECAY I 'INSECTS (1 -S) I TREE CROWN DISEASES(1 -5) 1 D EAD WOOD 1-5) I D AMAG PAVING E (1 TO 5) !CABLES NEEDED 1 INEEDS FERTILIZER 1 I NEEDS WATER I RECOMMEND I REMOVAL I REMOVAL PRIORITY 1 I PRUNING PRIORITY 1 5 -gal $36.00 15 -gal $120 24 "box $420 36 "box $1,320 48 "box $5,000 52 "box $7,000 72 "box $15,000 Key #I Plant Name COMMENTS 2 Monterey Pine 3 5 6 Deodara Cedar Cedars deodara sq. in 154 Monterey Pine Pinus radiata sq. in 133 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia sg_in 113 Valley Oak Quercus agrifolia sq. in 1075 Coast Live Oak sq. in 64 JOB TITLE: Persson /21194 Haymeadow JOB #09 -97 -292 DATE: 1071/97 14 X $27 /sq. in $4,158 12 1 X $27 /sq. in $3,051 37 I I X $27 /sq. in $29,025 9 X $27 /sq. in $1,728 r 16 50 H 25 1 1 13 I I 1 4 4 0 1 2 0 I 2 1 3 3 I I 1 i I I i i i I 1 i i i I X $27 /sq. in $3,591 X sp. class (30 $1,077 16 I4 15 8 22 4 0 30;2 14 1 sg. in 315 X $27 /s q. in $8,505 X sp. class (30 $2,551 X sp. class (70 $2,911 X cond. (100 $2,911 20 2 3 j X sp. class (100 $3,051 X cond. (60 $1,831 38 I 45 65 1 2 X sp. class (100 $29,025 11 25 1 15 1 3 I I X sp. class (100 $1,728 X cond. (60 $646 I I I I i I I X cond. (45 $1,148 I 1 I X cond. (90 $26,122 X cond. (75 $1,296 Page 1 of 2 1 best. 5 worst X Ioc. (90 $2,620 Final Value X Ioc. (70 $452 Final Value X Ioc. (80 $919 Final Value X Ioc. (60 $1,098 Final Value X Ioc. (90 $2 Final Value X Ioc. (50 $648 Final Value BARRIE D. COATE ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants PRUNING PRIORITY l 5 -gal $36.00 15 -gal $120 24 "box $420 353 36 "box $1,320 (408) 3) M 3) 3) aR� —5) 1E( NN ND LA (1— LA 1 -5 :A' —5 JtiM 1— )D D 5) _E[ 31'11 TEI VD PRI 48 "box $5,000 52 "box $7,000 72 "box $15,000 Key Plant Name COMMENTS 7 8 9 10 Coast Live Oak sq. in 181 X $27 /sq. in $4,887 Tasmanian Blue Gum 13 d 12 8/5 26 i 35 30 1 4 Eucalyptus globulus sq. in 225 X $27 /sq. in $6,075 X sp. class (10 $607 X cond. (60 $364 Tasmanian Blue Gum 11 I 11 sq. in 175 X $27 /sq. in $4,725 Coast Live Oak sq. in Coast Live Oak 11 sq. in Coast Live Oak 12 sq. in JOB TITLE: Persson /21194 Haymeadow JOB #09 -97 -292 DATE: 10/1/97 19 X $27 /sq. in $7668 18 X $27 /sq. in $7,938 9 X $27 /sq. in $1,728 6/2 20 i 30 25 1 2 X sp. class (100 $4,887 X cond. (90 $4,398 22 55 I 40 I 1 2 i X sp. class (10 $472 11 30 15 i 1 2 j X sp. class (100 $7,668 X sp. class (100 $7,938 1. X cond. (60 $283 X cond. (100 $7,668 X cond. (100 $7,938 X sp. class (100 $1,728 X cond. (90 $1,555 Page 2 of 2 1 best, 5 worst X Ioc. (90 $3,958 Final Value X loc. (75 $273 Final Value L X Ioc. (75 $213 X Ioc. (85 $6,518 Final Value Final Value X Ioc. (75 $5,954 Final Value X Ioc. (75 $1,166 Final Value BARRIED.COATE AND ASSOCIATES Los Gatos, CA 95030 ell 23535 Summit Road 1408) 353 -1052 Horticultural Consultants Consulting Arborists Tree Survey and Protection Persson Property 21194 Haymeadow Drive Prepared for: City of Saratoga Job 109 -97 -292 Date: 10/1/97 Scale: C t ria.e. I\ SCALE 1' ■20' 1 rill a,.e 703 72 7 ro1ne Retaining Wall 661.03 I/i/ /1/ iii! Re Fence 1 i I «I.V Vi e Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree loc ations are aoo roximate A 543.74 r■ LT' Wirw 1 L•STorrf 4rai4GTur”.91 FROM SOLFJELD *DOTTER Abby Richard Weiser 21216 Haymeadow Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. and Mrs Weiser PHONE NO. 415 +2855385 Feb. 19 1998 03:44PM P3 DOTTER SOLFJELD ARCHITECTURE 6018 Monroe Avenue Oakland, California 94618 Phone /Fax (510) 601 5207 February 101998 I'm the Architect of the new house being built next to yours by Jonas and Jennifer Persson. As you may remember Mrs. Weiser, we met some time ago, when 1 was visiting the site and we had a chat about the project. You were expressing a number of concerns about the design of the house, which I related back to the owners and together we made a number of revisions responding to your concerns which I think you will find satisfactory. The changes we made were the following: 1. The two story element on the south was pushed back as far as possible, keeping within the city imposed set back requirements in the back of the house in order to allow maximum view for you down the valley. 2. In an effort to respect your need for privacy, we are installing translucent (frosted) glass in the office windows at the second floor that are most directly facing your house. 3. The other windows facing your house are kept very small clerestory type windows: that is windows high up On the wall above eye level. These windows are for light supply and design impact rather than for view. 4. The covered porch at the front of the house will be outfitted with a tightly woven wooden latice screen which will be planted with vines to ensure privacy for you as well as our clients. FROM 50LFJLLD *DOTTR 1-"HUN t NO. r eb. 17 1770 ei. 'ri'i rw It's been an effort to acchieve these changes, with the site already being quite challenging to build on, but both we the architects and the owners:are satisfied with the results. It would be a pleasure for us all to meet with you and sit down and look at the drawings and answer your questions at a time that is convenient for you. The corners of the house will be staked at the property some time next week. This should help you visualize exactly where the walls will be. Also, I would like to inform you that project is scheduled to be heard by The Saratoga Planning Department on February 25 1998. You should be receiving notice about this directly from the Planning Department. Please call any time with any questions you may have and to set up a meeting. We look forward to meeting with you. S' ncerely, H. Russel Dotter cc. Saratoga Planning Commisioners Jonas Jennifer Persson FROM SOLFJELD *DOTTER DOTTER SOLFJELD ARCHITECTURE 6018 Monroe Avenue Oakland, CA 94618 Phone /Fux (510) 601 -5207 FAX TRANSMITTAL _rtyl.. 8.6 E 12 0 FROM: '[moo 2 P--5 P' C.Z TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE: Pts DATE SENT: 14 -11 L 1`j PHONE NO. 415 +2855385 Feb. 15 1556 0J:43rri rl COMMENTS: \nom CA■it L_ .0 c m2 e---r -6_11__ Lt 4 ktko is -r, U14 azmlautk®, `(O► "ritiatAtak. 1,.t rag l?- M _GS r2.3 4 t,? 'CO U t --+t- 1 c 5T c t-4 S I 02 t'#'ES'T1' r &DS FROM SOLFJELD *DOTTER s s 1 02/17/1998 16: 36 40886i _•1 N PHONE NO. 415 +2855385 �4 4 r WESTFALL ENGINEEr.. Feb. 19 1995 03:44FM F2 •*•_•7cr PAGE 02 1 r, n 11 IP Argi COO I `,CIS".' n r r: In 1 i in e ,.rr ter' N 01 1 A 2� O,1 rR '0 e0 SITE APPROVAL §14- 15.020 Building site approval: requirement and exceptions "No person shall construct any building or structure upon a site, or until tentative and final building site approval have been granted by the advisory agency pursuant to this Chapter however no building site approval under this Chapter shall be required in any of the following cases (a) Where the identical site is shown as a lot on a final approved subdivision map recorded within fifteen years prior to the date of application for a building permit. (b) Where final building site approval for the identical lot or site has previously been obtained from the City within fifteen years prior to the date of application for a building permit, §14 20.060 Public hearing by advisory agency; notice The advisory agency shall conduct a public hearing on the application for tentative subdivision or site approval. §14 20.070 Action by advisory agency; findings (b) The advisory agency shall not approve any tentative map or building site if it makes any of the specific findings: (3) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. §14 05.040 Designation of advisory agency (a) The Planning Commission is hereby designated as the advisory agency for all decisions and determinations under this Chapter. Design Review 15- 45.080 Design review findings. The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations aria placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) 1 community viewsheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures 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. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure 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. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure 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 impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design poles and techniques The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as Squired by Section 1545.055. (Amended by Ord. 71.99 27, 1991) 15 45.010 Purpose It is the policy of the city to review proposed construction or expansion of single family dwellings and.... where such structures might constitute an invasion of privacy, unreasonable interference with views, light, air and create adverse impacts upon the aesthetic character of the neighboring residential structures. L The construction of the proposed Persson two story structure on the lot at 21194 Haymeadow Dr., will unreasonably interfere with the view from the Weiser home on the adjoining lot at 21216 Haymeadow Dr. The Weiser home at 21216 Haymeadow Dr., built in 1966, is one of the original houses in the Tollgate subdivision. It was oriented on its hillside lot in such a way to take advantage of the view to the east of the valley and its lights, from the living room, dining room and master bedroom. The entire eastern wall of the living room is glass from floor to top of the cathedral ceiling, and is the focal point of the house. All of the houses in Tollgate are situated on their lots so that the more westerly located houses are in a position to have the view of the valley over the roof line of the adjacent 2 house. None of the two story houses in Tollgate are built in such a way that a wall or roof line obstructs a primary mountain or valley view of an adjacent or nearby home. No one has built on the lot at 21194 Haymeadow Dr. in the past 33 years because it does not have a good building site. It is unreasonable to allow the proposed continuously 25 foot high structure to be built at the top of this lot, with the consequence of the Weiser's primary view being changed from an inspiring and aesthetically pleasing view of the valley and its lights, to a predominant view of the side of a house and its roof. 2. The proposed construction maintains a 25 foot height entirely down the slope will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. The proposed structure will be higher than the adjacent Weiser home which, in fact, sits on the higher of the two lots. This situation is contrary to the character of the neighborhood where the upslope homes, and more westerly situated homes, are taller or higher on the hillside, and view the valley over the roof lines of the adjacent and nearby houses. All of the nearby homes on the cul -de -sac are one story or less when viewed from the up slope street, the propose structure will be two stories when viewed from the up slope street. Also contrary to the character of the neighborhood, the proposed structure when viewed from the street below will have the visual impact of a 3 story structure. There is no house nearby or in the entire subdivision, that is in fact, or appears to be more than 2 stories. Most importantly, there is no home in Tollgate were the view is that of a wall of the adjacent house directly in front of the primary view windows. 3. The proposed structure will constitute an invasion of the Weiser's privacy The Weiser's bed room east facing wall consists almost entirely of seven foot glass windows and sliding glass doors. The adjacent master bath is also east facing with a wide expanse of windows. Both the bedroom and bath will be "looked down into" from the second floor of the proposed structure. The living room (described above) will have even less privacy because it is several feet lower. The building of the proposed 25 foot high structure will substantially invade the privacy of the existing Weiser home. All of the 3 of theses issues can be resolved by building at the bottom of the lot, or by building a single story structure lower on the lot. Either would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and its aesthetics, protect the Weiser's privacy, and cause the least interference with the views from the Weiser Home. 3 VARIANCES 15- 06.0340 Height. "Height" means the vertical distance from the highest point of a structure to the immediately adjacent natural grade not created by a fill; provided, however, that far the purposes of measuring height, chimneys, flagpoles and radio and television aerials shall not be considered a part of the structure 15 45.030 Available Floor area. Under subsections (c) and (d) the standard allowable floor area is calculated to be 4241.1 sq.ft. §(f) Floor area reduction for certain districts. the maximum allowable floor area for all structures shall be reduced by 1.5 percent for each foot of maximum building height in excess of eighteen feet in height." 4241. 1- (12 %of 4241.1) =3 732.16sq.ft. "The Planning Commission may grant an exception to permit additional floor area up to the maximum prescribed in subsections (d) and (e) of this Section, provided that all of the following findings are made: (1) There is a predominance of two -story structures in the neighborhood; and (2) All the findings in section 15- 45.080(a)through (f) are present. 15 06.655 Story; multistory "Story means that portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the floor next above, or if there is no floor above, then the space between the floor and the ceiling next above. Basements are excluded from being considered a story. 15 06.090 Basement "Basement means that portion of a structure located entirely below grade, except for the top of such basement which may extend for a vertical distance not exceeding two feet from the grade to the ceiling of the basement. As used herein, the term "grade shall mean either the natural grade or finished grade adjacent to the exterior walls of the structure, whichever is lower. The proposed structure is a three story building occupying 5018 soft. of living area. See appropriate code section limiting all single family R -1 dwellings to two stories 4 Housing Goals, Policies and Objectives, H.3.3 General Plan, City of Saratoga "Any development in areas subject to natural hazards shall be designed to protect the environment, inhabitants and general public. In areas where personal injury, property damage, or damage to shall be prohibited, unless potential hazards can be mitigated, or avoided through engineering or construction techniques." The building of the proposed large structure high on the lot and close to the Weiser home, may seriously interfere with storm water drainage and thus cause extensive property damage to the Weiser home. The topography of the lot at 21194 Haymeadow Dr. makes it the natural drain for the entire hillside in that part of Tollgate. Whenever the storm sewer capacity is exceeded by heavy rainfall (which is often) the water flows over the curb and runs through the proposed building site. If the structure is built high on the lot, the diverted water will naturally flow to the next lowest point which is the Weiser home. This will result in extensive property damage to the home. The overflow has been even more apparent this winter with the heavy rainfall, yet, there appears to be no recognition, to date, of the existence of this condition or of a remedy for it. 5 Printed on recycled paper. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070- (408) 868 -1200 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: James Walgren, Community Development Manager DATE: February 25, 1998 SUBJECT: Design Review 98 -053, 21194 Haymeadow Drive The staff report for this proposed project omitted some information from the geotechnical report that helps support the request for Variance approval to construct the house with a standard 30 foot setback instead of a required percentage -based setback of 62 feet. The city's 1980 Ground Movement Potential map indicated that the northern third of the property was underlain by relatively stable ground, the southern two- thirds by potentially unstable ground. Milstone Geotechnical, the project geotechnical consultant, tested the site and concluded that the 1980 map needs updating. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. Wolfe Figure 1, following, is the current Ground Movement Potential map. As one can see, a significant portion of the proposed residence is located within the "Ps" or potentially unstable zone. The consultant performed significant geotechnical field testing of the site; his conclusions and report were approved by the city engineer. Based on this field testing, the consultant recommends that the Ground Movement Potential map be updated as depicted in Figure 2. As this updated map indicates, the area of potentially unstable ground was greatly expanded, excluding only the northeastern corner of the property and the proposed building pad. Enforcement of the percentage -based setback of 62 feet would place the house almost entirely within the area underlain by potentially unstable ground. The staff report indicated that the increased slope further down the site, along with the associated need for additional grading and impervious area coverage, were fmdings sufficient to support the request for Variance approval. Information regarding the potential for ground movement was unintentionally omitted from the staff report. Staff feels this information should be taken into consideration as an important finding towards approving the request for Variance approval. t EXPLANATION Sbr Relatively stable ground; shallow bedrock Ps Potentially unstable ground, soil, colluvium landslide debris generally less than 10 feet thick Pd Relatively unstable landslide debris generally greater than 10 feet thick Ms Moving shallow landslide commonly less than 10 feet thick Modified from William Cotton and Associates, 1980 MILSTONE 4/ GEOTECHNICAL FIGURE 1 CURRENT GROUND MOVEMENT POTENTIAL MAP PROPOSED PERSSON RESIDENCE Lot 44, Haymeadow Drive Saratoga, California Date: December 1997 Scale: 1 inch 200 feet EnginJGeologist: JC SUBJECT PROPERTY PROPOSED `IMPROVEMENTS EXPLANATION Sbr Relatively stable ground; shallow bedrock Ps Potentially unstable ground, soil, colluvium landslide debris generally less than 10 feet thick Pd Relatively unstable landslide debris generally greater than 10 feet thick Ms Moving shallow landslide commonly Tess than 10 feet thick Modified from William Cotton and Associates, 1980 MILSTONE At",•\ GEOTECHNICAL FIGURE 2 Date: December 1997 PROPOSED CHANGE TO GROUND MOVEMENT POTENTIAL MAP PROPOSED PERSSON RESIDENCE Lot 44, Haymeadow Drive Saratoga, California Scale: 1 inch 200 feet EnginJGeologist: JC 9 LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD MARC G. HYNES The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Saratoga City Council Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Councilmembers: A. Loss of View ATKINSON FARASYN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 TELEPHONE (650) 967 -6941 FACSIMILE (650) 967 -1395 April9, 1998 Re: Appeal by Dr. and Mrs. Richard Weiser DR -97 -053 and V -97 -011 21194 Haymeadow Drive J.M. ATKU $ON (1892 -1982) L.M..FARASYN (1915-1979) On February 25, 1998, three members of the Saratoga Planning Commission granted design review approval, variance approval, and a variety of exceptions to allow construction of a new single family residence on the vacant lot at 21194 Haymeadow Drive. Dr. and Mrs. Weiser appeared at the hearing and presented both verbal and written testimony showing that the proposed development would destroy their entire valley view and substantially invade their privacy. The legitimacy of these concerns was clearly acknowledged by the Commission and then ignored. The Commission then proceeded to ignore the findings and the factual support required by law for the various approvals and granted the application for the design as originally submitted. For the reasons discussed in more detail below, this action was contrary to the City's ordinances and should be reversed by the City Council. There is simply no debate over the fact that the proposed residence will unreasonably interfere with the valley view presently enjoyed by the Weisers. The impact goes beyond mere interference. The view will be totally obstructed. It is hoped that the Councilmembers will take the time to visit the Weiser home before rendering a decision on this appeal. The house is oriented to take full advantage of the eastern view to the valley floor, with glass along the entire wall in the living room from the floor to the top of the cathedral ceiling. Similar views are enjoyed from the master bedroom and exterior deck areas. This view orientation is the central focal point of the entire residence. It constitutes the line of sight to the valley floor that will be fully occupied by the proposed development. Saratoga City Council April 9, 1998 Page 2 Yet not one word appears in the staff report concerning the issue of impairment of views. The resolution adopted by the Planning Commission (DR -97 -053) is similarly lacking in discussion of this impact, except for the single statement that the finding can be made because the proposed residence meets or exceeds minimum setback requirements, except for the front yard. How this statement supports the finding is difficult to understand. It is the placement of the home at the top of the lot which creates the view impairment. Thus, the exception to allow a reduced front yard setback has aggravated the impact and the apparent reliance on setbacks as a justification for the finding is nullified by the exception. Whether a proposed structure does or does not comply with setbacks has no necessary relevance to the determination of view (and privacy) impacts. It such was the case, there would be no need for the Design Review Ordinance. On the contrary, the ordinance was originally adopted precisely for the reason that new homes, build in full compliance with the setback requirements, nevertheless created unreasonable impacts on views and privacy. These impacts are to be measured by visual observation at the site, not by a ruler on the site plan. Aside from the passing (and irrelevant) reference to setbacks, the balance of the "finding" is a bare recital of the statutory language. We assume the Council is aware of the established rule that such boilerplate findings are legally insufficient. The minutes of the Planning Commission clearly show that the Commission considered the loss of the Weiser view as "regrettable but unavoidable." Other statements, not recorded in the minutes, were made to the effect that the Weisers have enjoyed the view for many years and should have expected something like this to happen. We must respectfully disagree with this logic. The Design Review Ordinance was intended to protect existing residences against the impact of future development. There is no language in the Ordinance to suggest that views and privacy are subject to forfeit over time. There is no language in the Ordinance to authorize the blatant expropriation of the view enjoyed by one property by giving it to another and then telling the injured property owner: "Sorry, but you should have expected this." Despite the fact that no one has seen fit to attempt development of this lot for over 33 years, it is perhaps true that the Weisers should have expected that eventually something will occur on the adjacent property. However, it is reasonable for them to expect that such development will resemble the design and site placement of other homes in the area. All of the homes in Tollgate, including the two residences, are stepped down the hill in such manner to preserve the valley view from neighboring properties. They are built down from street level, not up from finish grade. No home in Tollgate has been forced to look at the solid wall of an adjacent structure directly in front of its primary view windows. If the proposed residence had followed this existing pattern of development, such as by the construction of a single story structure with two story elements extending down the hill, or if the house was sited at the lower end of the lot, the view impacts could easily have been Saratoga City Council April 9, 1998 Page 3 avoided. Instead, the multi -story design has been placed at the highest point of the lot (for which a variance is required). The reason for this design and site plan is obvious. The applicants are seeking to obtain for themselves the viewshed presently belonging to the Weisers. That viewshed is protected by the Design Review Ordinance. If the Weisers should have any expectancy at all with regard to development of the adjacent lot, it is the expectancy that the Ordinance will be properly .enforced by the City for the benefit of the homeowners it was intended to protect. B. Loss of Privacy Although the elevation of the Weiser lot is actually higher than the subject property, the Weiser home will be "looked down into" from the proposed structure. The east facing wall of the Weiser master bedroom consists almost entirely of seven foot glass windows and sliding glass doors. The adjacent master bath is also east facing with an expanse of windows. There will be a direct line of sight into these areas from the second floor windows of the proposed structure. The impact will be even greater in the case of the Weiser living room with its floor to ceiling east facing glass wall. Neither the staff report nor the Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission contains any analysis of the privacy impacts on the Weiser property. The purported "finding" on this issue consists of the same sentence mentioned above concerning compliance with setbacks (which is equally irrelevant for the assessment of privacy impacts), followed by a bare recital of the boilerplate statutory findings. The privacy impacts can easily be avoided through the construction of a single story structure or placement of the home at a lower point on the lot. Instead of exploring these alternatives, as suggested by the Weisers, the Commission apparently regarded the privacy impacts as another "regrettable" consequence of the proposed development. C. Variance Approvals The Commission granted a variance to allow a reduced front yard setback, thereby allowing the home to be placed at the highest possible position on the lot. The slope and vegetation of the lot were cited as the "special circumstances" to support the variance. However, such features are common for hillside lots in this area. The percentage rule for measurement of setbacks on vacant lots was specifically made applicable to the R- 1- 40,000 district. This district includes areas like Tollgate -which are characterized by relatively steep and heavily vegetated lots. The need for additional grading, removal of vegetation, and increased impervious coverage to comply with the larger setback will arise in virtually every case. There is nothing exceptional or special to distinguish this application from any other hillside lot. Saratoga City Council April9, 1998 Page 4 With regard to the second finding that the granting of the variance would not constitute the grant of a special privilege, the justification offered in both the staff report and Resolution No. V -97 -011 is the existence of special circumstances applicable to the site. In other words, the second finding can be made because the first finding can be made. This analysis totally ignores the clear statutory language which requires two separate findings, each of which must be supported by substantial factual evidence. The ordinance does not authorize the bootstrapping of the first finding as the sole justification for the second finding. D. Design Review Exceptions In addition to the granting of the front yard setback variance, the Planning Commission also granted an exception to allow a higher underfloor clearance beneath the garage and an exception to allow additional floor area for a structure exceeding 18 feet in height. Both of these exceptions are dependent upon the ability to make all of the findings required for the granting of design review approval. However, as discussed above, such findings cannot be made because of the obstruction of views and invasion of privacy caused by the proposed development. The exceptions cannot even be considered unless these issues are first resolved. The exception to allow additional floor area also requires a finding that there is a predominance of two -story structures in the neighborhood. While the ordinance does not define the terms "predominance" or "neighborhood" it seems clear that the special finding is intended to address factors such as compatibility and visual impact. Consequently, the "neighborhood" should be confined to those properties within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. This perspective was not adopted in the map prepared by staff, which purports to show the location of other two -story homes. The boundary lines have been drawn to include residences far beyond the visual scope of the proposed development. The map also is factually incorrect. Some of the residences shown as two -story actually were constructed as single story dwellings with the downhill underfloor area later being converted to living space. As such, they display a clear single -story profile. Even homes originally constructed as a multi -story structure display the same single -story profile, as illustrated by the photographs of the adjacent properties submitted with this letter. To consider these homes as two story for the purpose of allowing increased square footage for an above -grade structure certainly violates both the spirit and intent of the regulation. Saratoga City Council April 9, 1998 Page 5 E. Failure to grant building site approval The notice of the pubic hearing sent to the Weisers listed the granting of building site approval for Lot 44 as one of the development applications to be considered. Such approval is mandated by the City's Subdivision Ordinance since the lot has remained undeveloped for a period in excess of 15 years. However, the staff report and the resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission are totally silent on this subject. We are aware of no provision in either the Subdivision or the Zoning Ordinance which states that the granting of design review approval for a structure by implication constitutes the granting of building site approval for a lot. The findings for each approval are significantly different. In the absence of a valid building site approval, no development can be permitted on Lot 44. Conclusion For the reasons explained above, the decision by the Planning Commission should be reversed. Legally sufficient findings were not made, adverse impacts conceded to exist were ignored, and all of the required development approvals were not granted. We appreciate your consideration of this letter and would reiterate the invitation to visit the Weiser residence prior to the public hearing. cc: Dr. Mrs. Richard Weiser Harold S. Toppel SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 714 MEETING DATE: April 15, 1998 CITY MANAGER: r ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Review of Modified Village Valet Parking Plan RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): bo Move to approve ^the modified valet parking plan for Saratoga Village with the deletion of the Saratoga Dry Cleaners valet parking location. 2. Move to authorize staff to change valet loading zone at Saratoga Dry Cleaners to 15 minute parking zones and install corresponding signage. 3. Move to direct City staff to draft an ordin ce for valet irking se ice permits f for using the City's public right -of -way. "u 2 4.0. REPORT SUMMARY: A modified Village valet parking plan was proposed at the November 19, 1997 City Council meeting. The goal of this plan was to allow diners and other customers of Village businesses to use any valet parking zone in the Village and have his /her car parked regardless of which restaurant or business the client intends to patronize. Council authorized City staff to order and install signs, install necessary markings for three valet loading zones, and monitor and report back to Council at the end of the 120 day experimental period. The plan was implemented on November 28, 1997. Per Council's instructions, the Public Safety Commission reviewed the results of the modified Village valet parking plan at their April 9 meeting and had no negative comments. Criteria for valet parking locations included traffic safety, easy access to available parking, and equitable distribution amongst the Village restaurants and businesses. The three experimental valet loading zones (see Attachment 1) are located 1) in front of Viaggio's on 4 Street, 2) in front of the Plumed Horse on Big Basin Way, and 3) in front of the Saratoga Dry Cleaners on Big Basin Way. Valet parking hours are from Monday through Saturday 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Parking statistics for a three month period are as follows: Month Viaggio's Plumed Horse Dry Cleaners December 668 901* 0 January 349 572 6 February 363 616 6 Valet parking locations in front of Viaggio Restaurant and the Plumed Horse continue to do well as in the past (with a 23 percent increase in December from the previous year for the Plumed Horse), but the new location in front of the Dry Cleaners did not do as well (Attachment 2). The valet parking location in front of the Dry Cleaners had many challenges during the experimental period including a delay in the installation of "No Parking" signage and no consistent valet personnel. The Plumed Horse continues to park cars in a private condo garage behind the Plumed Horse and in Parking District #1. Corinthian Parking, the other valet operator, continues to park in the private parking lot behind Viaggio's, parts of Saratoga Elementary School parking lot, parts of Parking District #3, and at the Bank of America parking lot. Feedback from Oak Street residents has been more positive than in November 1997 when the experimental valet parking plan was proposed. Prior to the modified plan implementation, there were complaints of cars parked on Oak St. (taking up residential parking) and a hazard driving up 4 St. due to the valet zone. To help resolve some of these problems, two additional red zones were created on 4 Street and the middle divider line on 4 Street was moved towards Chef Chau's to create more space for cars to maneuver around the valet loading zone. Further, Corinthian Parking has not parked cars on Oak Street with the exception of parking in the white zone by Saratoga Elementary School. Other traffic related issues include unfinished signage and changes to parking zones. In a January 21 memo (Attachment 3), Sheriffs Deputy Tarabetz recommended that all 15 minute zones in the Village be consistent (from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and additional signage be placed on both sides of street poles in the newly created 15 minute zones. More recently, she has recommended that the daytime commercial loading zones double as passenger loading zones in the evening to assist with traffic flow when patrons pull into the valet loading zone. She has contacted the City to perform a Village walk -about to explore these recommendations. A City ordinance is necessary to allow valet parking service operators to utilize the City's public right -of -way. This proposed ordinance would be similar to a current City ordinance permitting taxi operators to utilize the City's public right -of -way. The average per week is 225 cars in November/December. Since one weekly number includes both November and December, 225 was deducted from the monthly total of 1126 cars. Overall, the Village valet parking plan during the 120 experimental period has worked for Viaggio's and the Plumed Horse locations, but not the Saratoga Dry Cleaners location. It appears that there does not need to be a third valet parking location; two valet parking locations apparently suffice for the Village. The Village valet parking plan is a unique and comprehensive plan to enhance the limited supply of parking available in the Village during busy periods. It provides a convenient and safe parking alternative for the public and complements the Village's image as a visitor friendly destination. Finally, this plan demonstrates a public private partnership between the Village restaurant owners and retail businesses, valet parking operators, and the City. FISCAL IMPACTS: None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Residents who have previously expressed interest or concerns about valet parking in the Village have been contacted. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Depends on Council's actions. The modified plan would not be approved with the deletion of one valet parking zone. The Council could decide to alter the modified plan even further by adjusting it in some other way, or eliminate valet parking all together. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: 1. If the Village valet parking plan is approved, City staff will provide Council with an ordinance for valet permits for using the City's public right -of -way. 2. Remove the valet loading zone at Saratoga Dry Cleaners and remove corresponding street signs. 3. Change deleted valet loading zone to 15 minute parking zones. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Map of Valet Parking Locations 2. Parking Statistics from the Plumed Horse and Corinthian Parking 3. Memo from Sheriff Deputy Tarabetz dated January 21, 1998 5th Street 4 Street 3 Street Map not to scale Big Basin Way Chef Chau Masu Florentine La Fondue Dolce Vita Rendezvous B of A 1) In front of the Plumed Horse 2) In front of the Dry Cleaners 3) In front of Viaggio's Hair Salon Mandarin Chef Le Mouton Noir Los Rancho Viaggio's Highway 9 /Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. Attachment 1- Sent Sovi Plumed Horse Bella Saratoga Cleaners La Mere Michele SARATOGA VILLAGE VALET PARKING ZONE OPTION 2: Three Valet Parking Zones 1 JAN 06 '90 12:21 THE_PLUMEDJ-IORSE_RST die [umed'.9..iti l s e--) 14LET ?ffI2K'l .'J c gA)Fc) lqqt (1 -14- To 11 21 8 at ,s 11- lit To 12 S 11 Olar 1:2 6 TO 1x to 5 °(ar 12 -11 To /7 e ot41' 12 q To i2 21 Lf ola-r 12 -Z2 To 12 31 3 alas P.2 14555 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070 Phone (408) 867 -4711 1 Fax (408) 867-6919 Attachment 2- 22. ,cam 11 0 Z cam I q q 4a4,3 16 8 .cam JQe iebr brc /Yh;,,L4( G QA-e -eesi .o( 6-yt Swptdcz 7:fedkagzenA,D wet& oy),. -y.th 6.40 e doled 7ec 26, 27 z Caitil a /Lked crr" 7/a. Sou lei 9 7 A 23 ,Q xe l o- o0( 1 q 1C paJ a,U e CiaAfert o 2> Jan 16 98 12:00a C. I P. S. January 11, 1997 Jennie Loft City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Jennie, Date: Vehides: 11/28/97 23 11/29 25 12/2 20 12/3 13 12/4 24 12/5 31 12/6 38 12/9 17 12/10 27 12/11 30 12/12 52 12/13 51 12/14 24 12/15 3 12/16 44 12/17 42 12/18 33 12/19 47 12/20 43 12/21 14 12/23 24 12/24 33 12/26 8 12/27 11 12/30 3 12/31 36 Si erely, Once again I would like to wish you a Happy New Yearl 1 hope all went well for you this holiday season. Below you will find the numbers you requested in regards to the valet parking holiday season. 408 370 7262 p.2 I hope you were as impressed with this year's success as we were, and it could not have been done without the diligent effective Saratoga Planning Dept. Thank you for having C.I.P. S. play on your team in "97" and here is to another successful year in "98 19925 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 126 Cupertino, CA 95014 800- 500 -CIPS 408 867 -PARK FAX 408 370 -7262 MAR 18 '98 11:05 THE-PLUMED_HORSE_RST 1-2 To I -L 1 a 1 2C2 ti _L 2 q it 2- tit (I 2ZI -2? 4 A__1? 3 2 II 3 3iL 1-3 ti 12 ecro....4,3 umcp Pogse V4tE 1 g 5 pAys q 6 6 6 6 6 tf 11 1 1 11 11 4 i 1 11 TLAJ. VALEArrtia- ,5 P4Y IKE 26.57)44-6,'AAJT IS CL0S62, o ,-5:40>DA Y ALL CA-As ARE 9ARKG-> FxCt-trit/64.-ii THE CruuDo Gil-R,A-E OR PA-R.‘,LN DtSigicr MR. 33 e s L5 11 133 j■ P#S 1' ZS 132 Ji go ;I 6 3 ji P.2 .1•••••••••••••••• MM1•01•••••••••■■•••• March 18, 1998 Jenny Hwang Loft City of Saratoga Dew Jenny. 1 hope all is well In your polkical endeavors, everything Is Just greet here at C.I.P.S. As you requested here are the following numbers you requested in regards to the valet perldng at the Saratoga Village. Viagglo Cleaners Date: >Y Cars 12 cars total 1/2/98 16 1/3/98 24 1/6198 5 1/7/98 14 1/8188 9 1/9/98 19 1/10/98 31 1/13/98 11 1/1498 8 1/15/98 9 1/16/88 20 1/17/98 26 1/20/98 11 1/21/96 9 1/22/98 16 1/23/98 23 1/24/98 23 1/27/98 5 1/28/98 12 1/29198 4 1/30/98 28 1/31/98 26 2/4/98 14 2/5/98 15 2/8/98 23 2/7/98 19 2/11/98 8 2/12/9813 2/13/98 38 2/14/98 54 2/17/9811 2/18/98 12 2/19/98 14 2/20/9819 2121/98 23 2/25/98 24 228/98 21 2/27/98 35 2128/98 20 Sincerely. Mickel Petteruti CIPS4' 19925 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 126 Cupertino, CA 95014 800 500 -CIPS 408- 867 -PARK FAX 408 370 -7262 Jan -21 -98 14:24 west side patrol 408 867 -3245 MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF CHARLES P GILLINGHAM To: Jeannie Loft, City of Saratoga From: Deputy K. Tarabetz #1588 Date: January 21, 1998 Subject: Valet Parking over the Holidays Attachment 3- During the week of December 16 through 19, (Tue -Fri) I noted the following situations With the valet parking in Saratoga. Fourth St Valet had 2 employees on during the entire week. Big Basin Wy Valet had 4 employees and increased to 5 on Wednesday. Tuesday 12/16 was extremely heavy for the valet service and restaurants in Saratoga. Traffic was very heavy and there were few places for parking available. The Saratoga Elementary School had a function, so there was limited parking on top. I noticed on more than one occasion, the 4th St. Valet was using the valet zone for parking vehicles that they were unable to move out of the zone. They couldn't move vehicles fast enough with only 2 employees. Because of this, 1 noticed customers parking in the roadway and the exchange with the valet taking place outside of the zone. Traffic backed up onto Big Basin WY. I took the time on several occasions to walk over and see how the valet was doing. Twice, I noticed customer pick ups taking place in the red zone, on the opposite curb on 4th St., where the center lines have recently been adjusted. On Friday, 12/19, there was no Valet service at the zone in front of the Saratoga Dry Cleaners. I spoke with Sasha, who indicated he had a problem with this because, he had advertised that valet service was available across from his location. On Saturday, the zone was used, but only for a short period of time. Since I was not on shift that day, I can only relay this small amount of information which came from the conversation with Sasha. The following week, service was moderate on Tuesday, 12/23. Forth St. Valet still had only 2 employees and Big Basin had it's 4 employees. The following week, New Years, things were also moderate and from the business owners explained to me, the valet zone in front of the dry cleaners was not used. Jan -21 -98 14:24 west side patrol 408 867 -324b 2 I believe the number of vehicles parked for each of those zones and days should be collected and analyzed. This would be important for future talks regarding the need and amount of valet zones in Saratoga. I would suggest that the Valet zone in front of dry cleaner be a 15 min. zone or less during the day (3 stalls). It would remain a valet zone by night should the parking company wish to remain as the vendor for that zone. The newly established 15 minute zones have been very effective and have a constant flow of traffic. I would like to request that these signs be posted on both sides of the pole. Currently there is only one sign and when you approach or after you park, you are unable to read the sign. In addition, the commercial zone in front of the plaza should be moved back to correspond with the Big Basin Wy Valet zone. This will allow truck traffic making deliveries to the various businesses. The two 15 min. zone stalls on that same curb should be moved up to the last two stalls before the 5th Street crosswalk. Traffic needing to use these types of limited use parking would be able to access in and out more effectively. All 15 minute zones in the downtown area should have the same hours of operation. Currently there are zones that run from 9am to 5 pm and others that run from 9am to 10pm. The 9am -10pm is the most effective for the parking lots as well as the Big Basin Wy parking areas. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I am currently working 1330 hrs to 2330 hrs, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays or training days. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: APRIL 15, 1998 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR: DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1; Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report and Adoption of Resolution of Intention for FY 98 -99 Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to adopt the Resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report for FY 98' -99, 2. Move to adopt the Resolution of Intention. Report Summary: Attached are the next two Resolutions the Council must adopt to continue the process for renewing the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 for FY 98 -99. Briefly, the two Resolutions are: 1. A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 1998 -1999 This is the Resolution required under Streets Highways Code Section 22623 which grants preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report for the renewal of the District for FY 98 -99. Note: Due to difficulties reconciling revenues and expenditures for each zone for the first three months of the current fiscal year, the Engineer's Report and preliminary assessment schedule will be provided to you next week. 2. A Resolution of Intention to order the levy and collection of assessments Fiscal Year 1998- 1999 This is the Resolution required under S &H 22624 which, among other things, fixes the date and time for the Public (Protest) Hearing on June 3. Both Resolutions must be adopted by separate vote at your meeting to continue the process of renewing the District for another year on a schedule consistent with the preparation and adoption of the FY 98 -99 budget. Fiscal Impacts: There are no direct fiscal impacts on the City's General Fund from the Landscaping Lighting Assessment District. All of the costs associated with the District are recovered via the_assessments. A summary of the proposed funding of the District for FY 98 -99 will be presented to you at your meeting as part of the Engineer's Report. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional at this time. After your meeting, the Resolution of Intention will be published and mailed, along with a separate notice to those property owners whose properties are subject to an increased assessment, informing them of the Public Hearing, and which will also include the ballot required under Proposition 218 along with ballot instructions. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Resolutions would not be adopted and the process for renewing the District would not continue. Follow Up Actions: The Resolution of Intention will be published and mailed with the required notices and Proposition 218 ballots to certain property owners. Attachments: 1. Resolutions (2). APR -10 -98 FR 1 13:49 MEYERS, NAVE, R I BACK &S I LV. FAX NO, 510 351 4451 r, uci uo RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, on the 18th day of March, 1998, said Council did adopt its Resolution No. 98 -05, "A Resolution Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report For Fiscal Year 1998- 1999," for the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District. IJA -1 in said City and did refer the proposed improvements to'the Engineer of the City and did therein direct said City Engineer to prepare and file with the City Clerk of said City a report, in writing, all as therein more particularly described: WHEREAS, said City Engineer prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report in writing as called for in said Resolution No. 98 -05 and under and pursuant to said Act, which report has been presented to this Council for consideration; WHEREAS, said Council has duly considered said report and each and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient, and that neither said report, nor any part thereof should be modified in any respect; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and the proposed new improvements to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof, contained in said report, be, and they are hereby preliminarily approved. 2. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report, be, and each of them are hereby preliminarily approved. 3. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution No. 98 -05 and also the Ht'K 1U y6 hK1 13:0 hHX NU. bill .ib1 44tli r, u3iuo bouIldaries of any Luncs therein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said district as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which the report applies, each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it hereby is preliminarily approved. 4. That the proposed assessment of the total amount of the estimated costs and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said assessment district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements including the maintenance or servicing or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto, as contained in said report, be, and they are hereby preliminarily approved. 5. That said report shall stand as the Engineer's Report for the purpose of all subsequent proceedings to be had pursuant to said Resolution No. 98 -05. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 15th day of April, 1998 by the following vote of the members thereof: ATTEST: City Clerk AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: April 10, 1998 J: \W PD\MNRS W\2 73\RES98TREAPP98. W 61 2 Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 98 -05, "A Resolution Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1998- 1999," for City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1, adopted on March 18, 1998, by the City Council of said City, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the Engineer of said City has prepared and filed with the Clerk of this City the written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 98 -05, which said report has been submitted and preliminarily approved by this Council in accordance with said Act; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1. In its opinion the public interest and convenience require and it is the intention of this Council to order the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 1998 -1999 pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by reference incorporated herein. 2. The cost and 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 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 3rd 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 ry Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, at a meeting thereof held on the 15th of April, 1998, by the following vote of the members thereof: Attest: City Clerk AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MSR:dsp April 6, 1998 J: \WPD\MNRSW\2 73\RES98 \ORDLLA.98 Mayor MSR:dsp Much 28, 1997 J: \WPD\MNRSW\273\RES971EXA L1A97 Exhibit A DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS The design, construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities, and public lighting facilities for the lighting of any public places, including traffic signals, ornamental standards, luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances, including.the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements; and the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. Supplement to Exhibit A City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 Benefits Provided Within Each Zone Zone 1 (Manor Drive Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance of the Manor Drive medians and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road frontage along Tract 3822. Zone 2 (Fredericksburg Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance along the Cox Avenue frontage of Tracts 3777, 4041, and 4042. Zone 3 (Greenbriar Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance of the Seagull Way entrance to Tract 4628, 4725 and 4726, and of the common areas along Goleta Avenue and Guava Court. Zone 4 (Quito Lighting District) Provides for streetlighting and landscape maintenance in the El Quito Park residential neighborhoods; Tracts 669, 708, 748, 6785, 7833, and 8700. Zone 5 Azule Lighting District) Provides for streetlighting in the Azule Crossing residential neighborhoods: Tracts 184, 485, 787, 1111 and 1800. Zone 6 Sarahills Lighting District) Provides for streetlighting in the Sarahills residential neighborhood; Tracts 3392 and 3439. Zone 7 (Village Residential Lighting District) Provides for streetlighting in four separate residential neighborhoods surrounding Saratoga Village. Includes all or a portion of Cunningham Acres, La Paloma Terrace, Mary Springer #1 and #2, McCartysville, Saratoga Park, Williams and Tracts 270, 336, 416, 2399, 2502, 4477, 5350, 5377, 5503, 5676, 6419 and 6731. Zone 9 (McCartysville Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tract 5944. Zone 10 (Tricia Woods Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tracts 6199, 7495 and 7928. Shared with Zones 14 and 18. 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 14 (Cunningham Place Landscape District) See Zone 10. 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 18 (Glasgow Court Landscape District) See Zone 10. 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 (Kerwin Ranch Landscape District) Provides for landscape maintenance along the Fruitvale and Saratoga Aves. Frontages of Tracts 8559 and 8560. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: April 15,1998 ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: DEPT. HEAD: g 13 SUBJECT: Proposition 224 known as "Government Cost Savings and Taxpayers Protection Amendment" Statement of Opposition RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to adopt a position opposing Proposition 224 REPORT SUMMARY: Proposition 224 is a proposed constitutional amendment sponsored by a state engineers' group, Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG), that would require all state, local and private entities to follow a new process prior to awarding a contract for construction related services including engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, surveying, environmental studies and geological studies for projects in which the State would financially or otherwise participate. The new process would require all construction- related services costing more than $50,000 to use competitive bids to select the lowest bidder unless the contract would have an adverse impact on public health or safety due to a project delay. The proposed amendment would have the State Controller analyze each proposed contract, comparing the costs of contracting with a private firm versus the cost of utilizing state employees instead. Costs incurred by the State, such as salaries, benefits, utilities, and indirect costs would not be included in any State bid while outside contractors would be required to reflect these costs. If the State Controller's analysis concluded that state employees could perform the work at a lower cost than the private vendor, the job would be required to be done by the state. State agencies would be required to use this new process for any construction- related services. Local Governments and Private Entities would also be required to use this process if there was any State funding being used for any part of a construction- related service. Local Governments would also be required to follow these procedures if there was any State ownership, liability or responsibility for the project. Attached are various pieces of correspondence from individuals, cities and organizations urging the City to oppose Proposition 224. They stress that this initiative would cause major delays in project implementation due to the "bottleneck" of tens of thousands of local projects that would need to be reviewed by the State Controller. Local Governments would have no say in the process nor in contract conditions, such as delivering a project on schedule and within budget thus eliminating local control over local projects. FISCAL IMPACTS: None as a result of taking a position. If Proposition 224 passes, there could be significant fiscal implications caused by delays in project implementation. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The City would take no position on Proposition 224. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The City's opposition would be communicated to opponents of Proposition 224. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Text of Proposition 224 2) Correspondence from League of California Cities 3) Letter from John Heindel dated October 10, 1997 4) Letter from Taxpayers Fed Up With More State Bureaucracy dated September 12, 1997 with attachments 5) Letter from Santa Clara County Cities Association dated June 5, 1997. GOVERNMENT COST SAVINGS AND TAXPAYERS PROTECTION AMENDMENT SECTION 1. TITLE This measure shall be known and may be cited as the Government Cost Savings and Taxpayer Protection Amendment. SECTION 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT It is the intent of the people of the State of Califomia in enacting this measure that engineering, architectural, and similar services provided by the state and certain other entities be furnished at the lowest cost to taxpayers, consistent with quality, health, safety, and the public interest; that contracts for such services be awarded through a competitive bidding process, free of undue political influence; and that contractors be held fully responsible for the performance of their contracts. THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTS FOR ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURAL AND SIMILAR SERVICES Article VII, section 12 is hereby added to the California Constitution to read: (a) This section shall apply to contracts for engineering, architectural, landscape architectural, surveying, environmental, or engineering geology services awarded by the state of California or by any state agency to any public or private entity. As used in this section, "state agency" means every state office, officer, agency, department, division, bureau, board, and commission but does not include the University of California, the California State University and Colleges, and local public entities. "State agency" also includes a state agency acting jointly with another state agency or with a local public entity. As used in this section, "local public entity" means any city, county, city and county, including a chartered city or county, public or municipal corporation, school district, special district, authority, or other public entity formed for the local performance of governmental and proprietary functions within limited boundaries. "Local public entity" also includes two or more local public entities acting jointly. (b) This section shall also apply to contracts for services specified in subsection (a) awarded by private entities or local public entities when the contract awarded by the public or private entity involves expenditure of state funds or involves a program, project, facility, or public work for which the state or any state agency has or will have ownership, liability, or responsibility for construction, operation, or maintenance. As used in this section, "state funds" means all money appropriated by the Legislature for expenditure by the state or a state agency and all money included in special funds that the state or a state agency controls. (c) Prior to the award of any contract covered by this section, the Controller shall prepare and verify an analysis of the cost of performing the work using state civil service employees and the cost of the contract. In comparing costs, the cost of performing the work using state civil service employees shall include only the additional direct costs to the state to provide the same services as the contractor, and the cost of the contract shall include all anticipated contract costs and all costs to be incurred by the state, state agencies, and the contracting entity for the bidding, evaluation, and contract award process and for inspecting, supervising, verifying, monitoring, and overseeing the contract. (d) The contract shall not be awarded if either of the following conditions is met: (1) the Controller's analysis concludes that state civil service employees can perform the work at Tess cost than the cost of the contract, unless the services are such an urgent nature that public interest, health, or safety requires award of the contract; or (2) the Controller or the contracting entity concludes that the contract would not be in the public interest, would have an adverse impact on public health or safety, or would result in lower quality work than if state civil service employees performed the services. (e) Except for contracts for which a delay resulting from the competitive bidding process would endanger public health or safety, every contract, including amendments,.covered by this section that exceeds fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), adjusted annually to reflect changes in the appropriate consumer price index as determined by the Controller, shall be awarded through a publicized competitive bidding process involving sealed bids. Each contract shall be awarded to the lowest qualified bidder. If the contract cost based on the lowest qualified bid exceeds the anticipated contract costs the Controller estimated pursuant to subsection (c), the Controller shall prepare and verify a revised analysis using the contract bid cost, and that revised analysis shall be used in applying subsection (d). (f) For every contract covered by this section, the contractor shall assume full responsibility and liability for its performance of the contract and shall defend, indemnify, and hold the state, the contracting entity, and their agents and employees harmless from any legal action resulting from the performance of the contract. (g) This section shall not be applied in a manner that will result in the loss of federal funding to the contracting entity for contracts for services. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Amendment or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Amendment which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Amendment are severable. SECTION 5. APPLICABILITY OF CURRENT LAW Nothing in this Amendment shall expand or restrict the state's constitutional authority, as determined by decisions of the Califomia Supreme Court and California Courts of Appeal in effect on the effective date of this Amendment, to enter into contracts with private or public entities. SECTION 6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER MEASURES To the extent that any other measure on the same subject shall be on the ballot at the same election, it is the intent of the voters that this measure be deemed, to the maximum extent possible, not to be in conflict with such other measure, but rather that this measure should be harmonized with the other measure. 03/30/98 23:17:16 408 868 1280 Saratoga MAR. 30. 1998 3:49PM LEAGUE OF CAL CITIES NO, 3258 P. 3 Administrative Costs. Activities involving central school district management --such as general district administration and central data collection. Direct Services. Services that directly serve students, school site employees, and school facilities —such as salaries of classroom teachers. The measure also requires each school district, beginning in 1998 -99, to link its annual budget to specific outcome objectives related to improving student performance. The measure does not detail how this performance budgeting would work in school districts. Districts would be required to obtain an independent evaluation of the impact of performance budgeting every five years beginning in 2004 -05. Any school district that fails to comply with the administrative expenditure limit or performance budgeting requirements would be find by the State Board of Education. Based on the provisions in the measure, the penalty would be about $175 per student. Proposition 224 Design and Engineering Services, State Funded League Position: OPPOSE This proposition, a constitutional amendment, requires public entities to use a new process prior to awarding a contract for the following construction related services: engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, surveying, environmental studies, and geologic studies. (The proposition would not affect contracting out for other types of services.) The new process would apply to: 1. All state agencies, except the University of California and the California State University. 2. Any local governments and private entities. Under the process established by the proposition, the State Controller would be required to prepare an analysis for each proposed contract and compare the following: 1. The cost of contracting with a private firm for the services. This would include the anticipated amount a private fun would charge to provide the services plus the cost to bid, award, administer, and monitor the contract. 2. The "additional direct costs" if state employees provide the same services. Generally, the 'service could be contracted out if the Controller's analysis indicated that the contract was less costly than using state employees. On the other hand, the work would have to be done by state employees if the analysis showed they could do it at lower cost. This proposition requires that public entities contracting for construction related services costing more than $50,000 use competitive bids to select the lowest qualified bidder. Competitive Page 003 83/38/98 23:17:58 488 868 1288 Saratoga Page 8d4 MAR. 30, 1998 3:49PM LEAGUE OF CAL CITIES NO, 3258 P. 4 bidding would not have to be used if it would delay a project and the delay would endanger public health or safety. Direct Contracting by the State. State agencies would have to use this new process if they wanted to contract for construction related services. In recent years, state agencies have averaged about $150 million annually in spending on these types of contracts. This amount varies annually depending on the state's level of construction activity. Contracts Awarded by Local Governments and Private Entities. Local governments and private entities would also have to use this new process in the following situations: 1. State Funding of Services for Local Government or Private Projects. Historically, the state has provided significant funding to local governments for various types of facilities --K -12 schools, local roads, community colleges, jails, and parks. Under the proposition, a local government would have to use the new process if it uses state funds to pay a private firm for any part of a construction related service. 2. State Ownership, Liability, or Responsibility for a Project. In many cases, the state assumes ownership, liability, or responsibility for construction, operation, or maintenance of a local project. This is the case, for example, with regard to the building of K -12 and community college buildings and many locally funded highway projects. Proposition 225 Congressional Term Limits. Candidate Dedaration on Term Limits League Position: OPPOSE This proposition declares that it is the official position of the People of California that its elected officials should vote to amend the United States Constitution to limit a person to no more than two terms (or a total of 12 years) as a senator and no more than three terms (or six years) as a representative. The measure instructs the California Legislature to ask Congress to enact such an amendment. If an amendment is proposed by Congress, the measure instructs the Members of the Legislature to vote to ratify it. The measure requires that voters be informed if a candidate for Congress or the State Senate or Assembly has failed to support the congressional term limit amendment. Specifically, all election ballots for a candidate for Congress or the State Legislature shall include the statement "Disregarded Voters' Instruction on Term Limits" if the candidate, as an officeholder in Congress or the California Legislature, voted against or failed to support the request for the constitutional amendment or failed to vote for the amendment if it is sent to the states to be ratified. Thus, the proposition essentially requires that the votes of a Member of Congress or the Legislature, including procedural votes taken during hearings, be evaluated to determine whether the Member supported the term limits proposed in this measure. A person who is a candidate seeking election to Congress or the State Senate or Assembly who is not an incumbent would be allowed to sign a "Term Limits Pledge" to support the proposed A A Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: Mr. Larry I. Perlin Interim City Manager Honorable Mayor and Council Members: JOHN H. HEINDEL CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER c October 10, 1997 An initiative to amend the California Constitution has qualified for next spring's statewide ballot which, if approved, would be disastrous for California. This initiative would "stack the deck" against private firms and local government by virtually insuring that all design work for projects using any state money or with any other state involvement would be performed by state employees. I urge you to review the enclosed information, especially the sheet which contains the text of the initiative, and to adopt a resolution opposing this self- serving proposition. Please note that the Santa Clara County Cities Association and the League of California Cities are among the growing list of organiz- ations which have gone on record in opposition to this measure. Although the agencies and organizations opposing this proposition far out -weigh its supporters, both in numbers and in prestige, there is a very real danger that its deceptive title will result in enough "yes" votes to make it a part of the California Consti- tution. The only way to insure that this will not happen is to educate the public as to the initiative's true goals. Your reso- lution of opposition will be extremely beneficial to that end. Please contact me if I can provide you with any further informa- tion. I thank you for your assistance. Encl. Very respectfully, AvIce-LkQK hn H. Heindel P. O. BOX 3452 SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 741 -0159 FAX (408) 741 -5547 California Chamber of Commerce Califomia Taxpayers' Association Califomia School Boards Association Coalition forAdequate School Housing Califomia Healthcare Association League of Califomia Cities Associated General Contractors of Califomia Association of Califomia Water Agencies Califomia Building Industry Association Califomia Transit Association Califomia Manufacturers Association Califomia Highway Users Conference Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of Califomia American Institute of Architects, Califomia Council Latin Business Association California Business Properties Association California Association of Sanitation Agencies Califomia Contract Cities Association Association for Califomia Tort Reform Alliance of Califomia Taxpayers and Involved Voters Minority and Women inesses Coalition mla American Architects Engineers Association American Planning Association, Califomia Chapter American Society of Civil Engineers Califomia Land Surveyors Association Responsible Voters for Lower Taxes Structural Engineers Association of Califomia American Consulting Engineers Council Painting Decorating Contractors of California Printing Industries of Califomia Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Riverside County Transportation Commission San Jose City Council San Juan Unified School District Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Santa Clara County Cities Association City and County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Contra Costa Transportation Authority Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group 410 County Business Council Chambers of Commerce West San Bemardino County Water District partial list TAXPAYERS FEd Up WITIi MORE STATE BUREAUCRACY September 12, 1997 Dear City Manager: C CITY !MA.. Please join the League of California Cities, California Contract Cities, cities of San Jose, Fresno, Pleasanton, Eureka, Santa Barbara, Poway, Encinitas, Lancaster, Fontana, Santa Paula and Sunnyvale in opposing a measure on the June, 1998 ballot that would adversely impact your city. We need your city council's immediate opposition to this proposition, that if passed, would eliminate your council's control over local infrastructure projects and would cause years of delays in building vitally needed key projects. Any park, public works, road or jail project is captured by this initiative if any state funding is involved including bond funding or if the state has any ownership, liability or responsibility for construction, operation or maintenance. The core issue of the initiative, sponsored by a state bureaucrats group known as Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG), is a simple one: Should virtually all design and engineering project development work be done by state employees instead of contractors hired and managed by your city? How would the initiative impact your city? It would eliminate local control over infrastructure projects. It would create a rigged bidding system guaranteeing that most infrastructure projects would be designed only by the State of California, not private contractors who are accountable to the needs of local cities. It would delay important local and infrastructure projects. Building new projects already takes too long. Under this initiative, a whole new layer of bureaucracy to the State Controller's office would be created to review each and every local project be reviewed along with tens of thousands of other state, local and private.building projects. Because the measure specifies no deadline by which this office must act, it would become a project bottleneck further delaying projects that are needed now. Normal contract conditions, such as delivering a project on schedule and within the budget are conspicuously missing from this initiative and, what's more, local city councils would have no say in the process. t.. TAXPAYERS FEd Up WiTIi MORE STATE BUREAUCRACY (Fed Up)! A COALITION Of bUSiNESS, ENGINEERS, ARCIIITECTS ANd TAXPAYERS. 111 ANZA BOUIEVARd, SUITE 406 BURIINgAME, CA 94010 (415)340 -0470 FAX: (415)340 -1740 TAX ID #960380 Who is behind the initiative? A state engineers' group, Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG), which has spent $2.1 million to put this measure on the ballot. This initiative is part of a decade -long strategy by PECG to prevent private sector competition on design and engineering projects. Who is opposed? A large and growing coalition including the League of California Cities, California Contract Cities Association, City and County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, San Gabriel Valley of Governments, Santa Clara County Cities Association, Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers, California School Boards Ass'n, Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH), California Special Districts Association, California Minority and Women Businesses Coalition, Associated General Contractors of California, California Transit Ass'n, California Taxpayers Ass'n, Ass'n of California Water Agencies, California Healthcare Ass'n, Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California, American Institute of Architects, California Council, California Chamber of Commerce, Los Angeles County and many others. I urge your city to adopt a resolution opposing this initiative (a sample resolution is enclosed). If you have questions, please call Dana Rambo at (415) 340 -0470. Thank you for your immediate consideration. Sincerely, '1. i(,','2 David Fogarty Deputy Campaign Director Taxpayerm Fed ZTp With More State Bureaucracy As of 9 /2/97 Statewide Organization Alliance of Califomia Taxpayers and Involved Voters Americans for Tax Reform American Planning Association, Califomia Chapter American Subcontractors Association Associated General Contractors of Califomia Association for Califomia Tort Reform Association of Califomia School Administrators Association of Califomia Water Agencies Califomia Association of Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors National Association `California Association of Catholic Hospitals Califomia Association of Sanitation Agencies Califomia Building Industry Association Califomia Business Properties Association Califomia Chamber of Commerce Califomia Contract Cities Association Califomia Groundwater Association Califomia Healthcare Association Califomia Highway Users Conference Califomia Land Surveyors Association Califomia Manufacturers Association Califomia Municipal Utilities Association Califomia Minority Women Businesses Coalition Califomia Rehabilitation Association Califomia School Boards Association Califomia Special Districts Association Califomia Taxpayers' Association Califomia Transit Association Califomia Trucking Association Coalition for Adequate School Housing Coalition for Project Delivery Engineering Utility Contractors Association Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Latin Business Association League of Califomia Cities National Tax Limitation Committee Painting Decorating Contractors of Califomia Printing Industries of Califomia Professional Services Management Association Responsible Voters for Lower Taxes State Water Contractors Waste Watchers Cities, Counties and Schools *Alameda City Council Alum Rock School District Antioch Unified School District Barstow City Council Belvedere City Council Camarillo City Council City and County Association of Govemments of San Mateo County Clovis Unified School District Cupertino City Council Daly City City Council Duarte City Council East Side Union High School District Encinitas City Council Eureka City Council Exeter City Council Fontana City Council Fortuna City Council Fresno City Council Fresno County Board of Supervisors Garden Grove City Council Gridley City Council *Hanford City Council Hawaiian Gardens City Council Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Indian Wells City Council Jackson City Council Laguna Hills City Council Lancaster City Council Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers Mill Valley City Council Monterey Park City Council National City City Council *Novato City Council Orland City Council *Pasadena Unified School District Pleasanton City Council Poway City Council Rancho Mirage City Council Rolling Hills Estates City Council San Gabriel Valley of Govemments San Jose City Council San Juan Unified School District -2- Cities, Counties and Schools Cont'd San Mateo City Council San Pasqual Union School District San Rafael City Council Santa Barbara City Council Santa Clara County Cities Association Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Santa Paula City Council Sebastopol City Council Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Sunnyvale City Council Taft City Council Temecula City Council Tiburon City Council Ukiah City Council Local Government Agencies Alameda Congestion Management Agency Boron Community Services District Brooktrails Township Community Services District Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board Contra Costa Transportation Authority Forestville Fire Protection District Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District Kings River Conservation District Metropolitan Transportation Commission *Novato Sanitary District Occidental Community Services District Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District Riverside County Transportation Commission Sanitary District No. 1 of Marin County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County South Lake County Fire Protection District Tahoe City Public Utility District Irrigation and Water Districts Apple Valley Heights County Water District Baldy Mesa Water District Berrenda Mesa Water District Broadview Water District Calaveras County Water District Carmichael Water District -3- Irrigation and Water Districts Cont'd Carpinteria Valley Water District Casitas Municipal Water District Castaic Lake Water Agency Central Coast Water Authority Chino Basin Water Conservation District Delhi County Water District Desert Water Agency Diablo Water District Dudley Ridge Water District Eastem Municipal Water District Elk County Water District *Empire West Side Irrigation District Fair Oaks Water District Foothill Municipal Water District Forestville Water District Helix Water District Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Irvine Ranch Water District Los Alisos Water District Mammoth Community Water District Montecito Water District Nevada Irrigation District Oakdale Irrigation District Olivenhain Municipal Water District Pico Water District Placer County Water Agency Quartz Hill Water District Rancho Califomia Water District Rand Communities Water District Redwood Valley County Water District Rio Alto Water District Rowland Water District San Bemardino Valley Water Conservation District San Gabriel Valley Water District San Juan Ridge County Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Soquel Creek Water District South Sutter Water District South Tahoe Public Water District Sweetwater Authority United Water Conservation District Vista Irrigation District West San Bemardino County Water District -4- Regional and Local Organizations American Public Works Association of San Diego American Subcontractors Association, San Diego County Chapter Apple Valley Chamber of Commerce Associated Builders and Contractors, Golden Gate Chapter Associated Builders and Contractors, Los AngelesNentura Chapter Associated Builders and Contractors, San Diego Chapter Associated Builders and Contractors, Southem Califomia Chapter Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce Building Industry Association of Southem Califomia Contra Costa Council Cordova Chamber of Commerce Fullerton Association of Concemed Taxpayers Live Oak District Chamber of Commerce Mechanical Contractors Council of Central Califomia National Association, Northem San Joaquin Valley Chapter Newman Chamber of Commerce North Coast Builders Exchange Orange County Business Council Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce Porterville Chamber of Commerce Sacramento Builders Exchange Salinas Valley Builders Exchange Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce San Diego Chamber of Commerce San Rafael Chamber of Commerce Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce Shasta County Taxpayers Association Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, Northern San Joaquin Valley Chapter Sonoma County Taxpayer's Association Southem Califomia Contractors Association Tulare and Kings Counties Builders Exchange Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce *United Chambers of Commerce Engineering and Architectural Organizations American Consulting Engineers Council American Institute of Architects, Califomia Council American Institute of Architects, Central Coast Chapter American Institute of Architects, Central Valley Chapter American Institute of Architects, Desert Chapter -5- Engineering and Architectural Organizations Cont'd American Institute of Architects, East Bay Chapter American Institute of Architects, Golden Empire Chapter American Institute of Architects, Los Angeles Chapter American Institute of Architects, Orange County Chapter American Institute of Architects, Pasadena/Foothill Chapter American Institute of Architects, Redwood Empire Chapter American Institute of Architects, San Diego Chapter American Institute of Architects, San Francisco Chapter American Institute of Architects, San Joaquin Chapter American Institute of Architects, Santa Clara Valley Chapter American Registered Architects, Northem Califomia Chapter American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Civil Engineers, San Diego Section Asian American Architects and Engineers Association Association of Consulting Electrical Engineers Bay Counties Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors Association Califomia Association of Engineering Geologists Califomia Geotechnical Engineers Association Califomia Legislative (Council of Professional Engineers) Califomia Society of Professional Engineers Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of Califomia Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of Califomia, Kem County Chapter *Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of Califomia, Los Angeles Chapter Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of Califomia, Monterey Bay Chapter Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of Califomia, Napa Solano Chapter Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of Califomia, Orange County Chapter Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of Califomia, Peninsula Chapter Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of Califomia, San Diego Chapter Engineering Contractors Association, Northern Califomia Chapter Engineering General Contractors Association Engineering General Contractors Association of San Diego Interprofessional Council on Environmental Design National Society of Professional Engineers North County Civil Engineers Land Surveyor's Association Society for Environmental Graphic Design Southem Califomia Surveyors Joint Apprenticeship Committee Structural Engineers Association of Califomia Structural Engineers Association of Northem Califomia Structural Engineers Association of San Diego (partial listing) *Indicates new member -6- Stop THE COMPETITION KILLER It Costs Jobs and Hurts Schools, Local Government and Women /Minority -Owned Business Spending nearly $2 million, Professional Engi- neers in California Government (PECG) has paid to p /ace an initiative on the next state- wide ballot they claim helps taxpayers. But what this COMPETITION KILLER Initiative would really do is create a ri •ged bidding system that blocks private sector competi- tion, delays building new schools and hurts minority and women owned businesses. CREATES A RIGGED BIDDING SYSTEM. Buried in the fine print is a provision that rigs the system virtually shutting out competition from private architects and engineers in building bridges, flood con- trol projects, schools, parks, highways and mass transit. Here's how it works: The initiative would allow state costs to appear artificially low by ignoring essential job expenses such as employee compensation, rent, utili- ties, phones and office expenses as well as insurance, health and safety experts, legal and capital costs. Califomia taxpayers would be forced to ante up billions of dollars to add thousands of new engineers to the state payroll. That's a staggering cost to rig the system against fair and honest private sector competition. DELAYS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS. Public education supporters have fought hard for additional funding to improve school buildings and build new classrooms. But the COMPETITION KILLER Initiative would tie these vital projects up in a bureaucratic knot. Eliminates local control over school construction. Virtually every California school has been designed by private firms. But under this initiative, schools ef- fectively would be designed only by state engineers. Normal contract conditions, such as delivering a project on schedule and within the budget are conspicuously missing from this initiative. And local school districts would have say in the process. The initiative also creates a huge new bureaucracy in the State Controllers of- fice that must review tens of thousands of projects. Because the measure specifies no deadline by which this of- fice must act, it would become a project bottleneck further delaying school projects that are needed now. ELIMINATES LOCAL CONTROL Local governments would lose control of vital transportation, flood control, mass transit, jails and other projects they are depending on. Under this initiative, those projects would effectively only be designed by state engineers. The complete lack of any engineering or architectural experience in the state controller's office, coupled with the enor- mous responsibilities of managing the process, would inevitably delay im- portant projects such as replacing the Bay Bridge, construction of the Alameda Rail Corridor in Los Angeles and seismic retrofits throughout the state. The initiative would threaten safety. By elimi- nating private sector experts on important seismic and flood control projects proven experience would be ignored and safety compromised. Thai's why local governments including San Jose and Los Angeles County are opposed to the COMPETITION KILLER Initiative. HURTS MINORITY AND WOMEN OWNED BUSINESSES. DIVERSE COALITION OPPOSES COMPETITION KILLER. UP TO 100,000 BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADE JOBS ARE AT RISK! Engineering and architectural ser- vices are the "gateway' for con- struction jobs. Up to 100,000 build- ing and construction trade jobs could be lost in the first two years alone, as a result of construction delays caused by this initiative. The COMPETITION KILLER Initiative backs away from twenty years of progress in diversifying the ownership of engineering and architectural firms by depriving the design industry of a major portion of the current business. City of San Jose, Los Angeles County, American Institute of Architects, Associ- ated General Contractors of California, California Association of Sanitation Agencies, California Building IndustryAs- sociation, Consulting En- gineers and Land Sur- veyors of California, Cali- fornia Manufacturers As- sociation, California Busi- ness Properties Associa- tion, Asian American Ar- chitects Engineers Asso- ciation, California Minor- ity Women Businesses Coalition, Interprofes- sional Council on Envi- ronmental Design, Paint- ing Decorating Contractors of California, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, California Chamber of Com- merce, California Healthcare Associa- tion, California Highway Users Confer- ence, California Taxpayers' Association, California Transit Association, Coalition for Adequate School Housing, Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group. (Partial List) Californians Fed Up With More State Bureaucracy 111 Anza Blvd. #406 Burlingame, CA 94010 (415) 340 -0470 FAX (415) 340 -1740 4/3/97 FORMULA FOR COUNTING CONTRACT COSTS For Private Firms Includes: For State Bureaucrats includes: Employee Salaries YES NO Employee Benefits YES NO Rent YES NO Business Taxes YES NO License Fees YES NO Utilities: Gas Electric Water Phones YES YES YES NO NO NO Office Costs: Supplies Furniture, copiers, computers Postage Shipping /overnight delivery YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO Insurance: General liability Professional liability Workers Compensation Long -term Disability YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO Pension Contributions YES NO Professional Services: Health Safety Experts Accountant Attorney YES YES YES NO NO NO Capital Costs YES NO The COMPETITION KILLER Initiative Rigged Bidding System Restricts Private Sector Competition By requiring the state controller to use a rigged formula to determine who gets engineering and design projects the COMPETITION KILLER initiative virtually guarantees that every prefect will be awarded to state employed engineers. On the other hand, private firm costs are based on 100% of actual expenses (which is the usual way of doing business). As a consequence, no private firm could ever win a contract. NOTE: The Competition Killer Initiative would add up to 12,000 employees to the state payroll at a cost of $1.5 billion a year. No cost if no one is hired additionally. But if hired, would be a one -time only cost. After first project, these new hires would be factored as zero on future cost comparisons. Taxpayers Fed Up With More State Bureaucracy 111 Anza Blvd: #406 Burlingame, CA 94010 (5/14/97) SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITIES ASSOCIATION June 5, 1997 Campbell Cupertino Gilroy Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Milpitas Monte Sereno Morgan Hill Mountain View Palo A lto San Jose Santa Clara Saratoga 1nyvale Gary Parikh, President CELSOC Parikh Consultants, Inc. 481 Valley Way, Building 1 Milpitas, CA 95035 Dear Mr. Parikh: Sincerely, Marty Clevenger Executive Director for Bob Johnson President Santa Clara County Cities Association PARtKH col :tntuts. uc. The Board of Directors of the Santa Clara County Cities Association is unanimous in its opposition to the Government Cost Savings and Taxpayers Protection Amendment which has qualified for the ballot. The Cities Association represents all fifteen cities in Santa Clara County. The Association is opposed because the initiative would restrict the state's ability to enter into contracts with either private or public entities for engineering, architectural, surveying, environmental or engineering geology services. Cities would have these same restrictions whenever state funds are involved. The initiative also restricts cities if the state will have ownership, liability or responsibility for construction, operation or maintenance of the completed project. Furthermore, additional administrative efforts would be required if the city did contract with private companies. The initiative is unclear as to whether cities could perform the work themselves without the state controller's analysis. Cities are also concerned about the quality of environmental, design and engineering work where third parties have an opportunity to challenge city actions. In Santa Clara County, the Traffic Authority used private firms to build the road projects approved under Measure A and completed the project seven years sooner than predicted by the state. This early completion resulted in enormous savings for the taxpayers. Under the proposed initiative, local governments would have little control over the state bureaucracy. Cities must have the authority to control the costs, design and safety of local public works projects for which they are accountable. 505 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 630, Sunnyvale, California 94086 Tel: (408) 730 -7770 Fax. (408) 736 -2014 The COMPETITION KILLER initiative s all be known and may be cited as the 'Government Cost Savings and Taxpayer Protection Amendment.' N This SECTION 1. TITLE SECTION 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT It is the intent of the people of the State of Califomia in enacting this measure that engineering, architectural, and similar services pro- vided by the state and certain other entities be fumished at the low- est cost to taxpayers, consistent with quality, health, safety, and the public interest; that contracts for such services be awarded through a competitive bidding process, free of undue political influence; and that contractors be held fully responsible for the performance of their contracts. THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTS FOR ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURAL AND SIMILAR SERVICES Article VII, section 12 is hereby added to the California Constitution to read: (a) This section shall apply to contracts for engineering, ar- chitectural, landscape architectural, surveying, environmental, oren- aineering neology services awarded by the state of Califomia or by any state agency to any public or private entity. As used in this section, "state agency means every state office officer, agency, de- partment, division, bureau, board, and commission but does not in- clude the University of Califomia, the Califomia State University and Colleges, and local public entities. 'State agency also includes a state agency acting jointly with another state agency or with a local public entity. As used in this section, "local public entity means any city, county, city and county, including a chartered city or county, public or municipal corporation, school district, special district, authority,.or other public entity formed for the local performance of govemmental and proprietary, functions within limited boundaries. "Local public _entity' also includes two or more local public entities acting jointly. (b) This section shall also apply to contracts for services spe fied in subsection (a) award- ublic_ ties whe ntract awarded by the public or private entity es expenditure of state funds or involves a program, project, fa- cility or public work for which the state or any state agency has or will have ownership, liability, or responsibility for construction, over aintenance. As used in this sectionstate funds' s all money appropna n• iture by the state or a state agency and all money included in special funds that the state or a state agency controls. (c) Prior to the award of any contract covered by this section, the Controller shall prepare and verify an analysis of the cost of per- forming the work using state civil service employees and the cost of the contract. In comparing costs, the cost of performing the work using state civil service employees shall include only the additional direct costs to the state to provide the same services as the contrac- tor, and the cost of the contract shall include all anticipated contract Continued 1 Promoters say their intent is competitive bidding. If that's true why are the California Taxpayers' Association, Califor- nia Chamber of Commerce, California Healthcare Associa- tion, local school groups, cities and counties against it among many others? A bogus and deceptive title dreamed up by initiative promoters to deceive voters. Ask yourself: Would_a state bureaucrats union realty spend $2 million_to help taxpay- ers? This section was written to hide what the measure would really do: create a rigged biddingsystem_to btock_private sector competition from private architects and engineers in building bridges, flood control projects, schools, parks, highways, schools and prisons. This was written specifically by the state bureaucrats to capture all design and engineering work for bridges, high- ways, mass transit, prisons, schools, flood control and other projects. If itbecomes law,_the state would be forced to_hire up to 12,000 new employees at a cost of .$1.5 billion ayear. The initiative would_threatensafety. By eliminating private sector experts on important seismic and flood control projects proven experience would be ignored and safety compromised. Almost every California school and hospital has been designed by private firms. But under this section virtually all schools, hospitals, flood control levees and jails will be designed by state employees. Local control would be lost under thissection because local projects could be held hostage by an unaccountable state bureaucracy. Normal contract conditions such as delivering a project on schedule and within budget are conspicuously missing from this initiative. And local governments would have no say in the process. Th create a_r igged_bidding system virtually shutting out competition from private architects and engineers, Here's where the initiative would allow state bureaucrat costs to appear artificially low by ignoring essential job expenses such as employee compensation, rent, utilities, phones and office expenses as well as insurance, health and safety experts, legal and capital costs. No such breaks for private companies, however, who must include these real world expenses in their bids. costs and all costs to be incurred by the state, state agencies, and the contracting entity for the bidding, evaluation, and contract award process and for inspecting, supervising, verifying, monitoring, and overseeing the contract. (d) The contract shall not be awarded if either of the following conditions is met: (1) the Controller's analysis concludes that state civil service employees can perform the work at less cost than the cost of the contract, unless the services are such an urgent nature that public interest, health, or safety requires award of the contract; or (2) the Controller or the contracting entity concludes that the con- tract would not be in the public interest, would have an adverse im- pact on public health or safety, or would result in lower quality work than if state civil service employees performed the services. (e) Except for contracts for which a delay resulting from the competitive bidding process would endanger public health or safety, every contract, including amendments, covered by this section that exceeds fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), adjusted annually to reflect changes in the appropriate consumer price index as determined by the Controller, shall be awarded through a publicized competitive bidding process involving sealed bids. Each contract shall be awarded to the lowest qualified bidder. If the contract cost based on the lowest qualified bid exceeds the anticipated contract costs the Controller estimated pursuant to subsection (c), the Controller shall prepare and verify a revised analysis using the contract bid cost, and that revised analysis shall be used in applying subsection (d). (f) For every contract covered by this section, the contractor shall assume full responsibility and liability for its performance of the contract and shall defend, indemnify, and hold the state, the con- tracting entity, and their agents and employees harmless from any legal action resulting from the performance of the contract. (g) This section shall not be applied in a manner that will re- sult in the loss of federal funding to the contracting entity for con- tracts for service. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Amendment or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other pro- visions or applications of the Amendment which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provi- sions of this Amendment are severable. SECTION 5. APPLICABILITY OF CURRENT LAW Nothing in this Amendment shall expand or restrict the state's consti- tutional authority, as determined by decisions of the Califomia Su- preme Court and California Courts of Appeal in effect on the effec- tive date of this Amendment, to enter into contracts with private or public entities. SECTION 6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER MEASURES To the extent that any other measure on the same subject shall be on the ballot at the same election, it is the intent of the voters that this measure be deemed, to the maximum extent possible, not to be in conflict with such other measure, but rather that this measure should be harmonized with the other measure. These sections would create a bureaucratic black hole for vital school, transportation, flood control, seismic safety and other projects. The initiative creates a virtual Public Works Czar by giving one politician the state controller enormous power to decide on tens of thousands of projects worth billions of dollars. That's just too much power togive one politician. Because the initiative specifies no deadline by which this Public Works Czar must act, that office would become a project boteck indefinitely delaying vital school, highway, transit, flood control and bridge projects. The complete lack of any engineering or architectural experience in the state controller's office, coupled with the enormous responsibilities of managing the process, would inevitably delay important projects such as replacing the Say Bridge, coogruction of the Alameda. Rail Corridor in LAngeles and seismic retrofits_throughout the state. This bogus section talks about competitive bidding. But because of the rigged cost comparison there won't be any competitive bidding for design and engineering work. Only state bureaucrats will get these jobs, and taxpayers will pay the price. Contractors are already fully responsible for their work and ill can lose their licenses and current and future business if they don't perform. But this section is unfair because it requires design consultants to be responsible for the mistakes of others including the state bureaucrats Engineering and architectural services are the gateway to construction. As the state is denied these private sector services up to 100,000 private construction and related jobs could be lost in the first two years alone, as a result of construction delays caused by this initiative. The initiative would be locked into the California Constitu- tion and would supersede all current procurement statutes. To correct any flaws, another constitutional ballot issue and statewide vote would be required. Even the legislature couldn't correct the serious flaws. Taxpayers Fed Up With More State Bureaucracy 111 Anza Blvd. #406 Burlingame, CA 94010 (415) 340 -0470 ID# 960380 TIME: Wednesday, April 1, 1998 6:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting Special Meeting 6:30 p.m. in Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Closed Session pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(0): CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- POSSIBLE INITIATION OF LITIGATION IN ONE CASE and Government Code 54956.9(a): CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION Name of Case: San Francisco Baykeepers v. Saratoga Mayor's Report on Closed Session. No action. 7:30 Pledge of Allegiance Led by Marilyn Buelteman. 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Bogosian, Jacobs, Moran, Shaw and Mayor Wolfe were present. Also present were City Manager Perlin, Community Development Director Walgren, Public Works Services Manager Enriquez, City Attorney Riback, and Deputy City Clerk Cory. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Proclamation for Asian Americans for Community Involvement MORAN /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION. Passed 5 -G. 3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 27. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL °A F. L. Stutzman, Park Drive, spoke concerning the expansion plans of the Paul Masson Winery and its impacts on the City, although it is under County jurisdiction. He suggested that Pierce Road be open only to residents on concert days. He urged the Council to remain informed and keep the public informed of the matter. B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS None. C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Previously Discussed Items 1) Resolution denying Request for Waiver of Annexation (Osinski) BOGOSIAN /MORAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98 -06. Passed 5 -0. City Manager Perlin removed Item 7 from Consent Calendar B and placed it under New Business. MORAN /SHAW MOVED TO APPROVE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 ON CONSENT CALENDAR B. Passed 5 -0. B. New Items 1) Planning Commission Actions, 3/25 Note and file. 2) Memo Authorising Publicity for Upcoming Hearings Weiser Appeal City Council Minutes 2 April 1, 1998 3) Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion for Villa Oaks Lane Landslide Repair, CIP 9703 (Stevens Creek Quarry) 4) City Financial Reports for February: a) Treasurer's Report Receive and file. b) Investment Report Receive and file. c) Financial Report Receive and file. 5) Approval of First Amendment to Agreement between City of San Jose and City of Saratoga for Maintenance of Traffic Signals under Joint Jurisdiction and Authorization for Mayor to Execute 6) Approval of Check Register 7) Authorization to Purchase Two New City Vehicles and Disposal as Surplus of Currently -Owned City Equipment C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY 1) Claim of Sera concerning automobile accident City Manager Perlin explained that the claims adjuster had found that the City had no liability in this case. SHAW /MORAN MOVED TO REJECT THE CLAIM. Passed 5 -0. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 4. A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications Councilmember Bogosian inquired as to how the Paul Masson Winery project was being monitored. Community Development Director Walgren explained how the staff responded to the Notice of Environmental Impact Report scoping. He expressed the belief that the County would take Saratoga's opinions and concerns seriously in this matter. Staff was directed to provide the staff's response to the County's Notice to both Council and Dr. Stutzman. Councilmember Shaw felt the Council should look at the possibility of protecting Pierce Road so that it could be entered only from Highway 9 by concert patrons. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Request for Fee Waiver for San Jose Symphony Showcase (continued from 3/18) City Manager Perlin introduced Community Development Director Walgren, who reviewed the staff report. He also answered Councilmembers' questions about parking to be provided and any necessary grading. Councilmembers discussed whether the San Jose Symphony Auxiliary, in selecting the site for the Showcase, had relied on a letter from staff dated February 10 which stated a Special Events Permit would not be required, but did not mention that a Temporary Use Permit would be required. Councilmember Jacobs noted that a letter dated February 6 from the secretary of the Auxiliary stated that the site had already been selected, indicating that the Auxiliary had not relied on the February 10 letter. Councilmembers discussed whether the fee should be waived because of the benefits the Symphony provides to the community and because it is a non profit organization. City Council Minutes 8. NEW BUSINESS 3 April 1, 1998 Bonnie Radding, President of the San Jose Symphony Auxiliary, submitted a contract dated February 26 and stated that there had been some doubt that the Showcase would be in Saratoga until that time. She felt the Showcase would have no adverse impacts on Saratoga, and the neighbors did not oppose it. In response to Councilmember Bogosian, she stated that Los Gatos had not charged them a fee. Councilmembers discussed whether possible unclear communication by the staff in the February 10 letter or good faith on the part of the applicant justified waiving the fee. MORAN /SHAW MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST AND DIRECT THE APPLICANTS TO SUBMIT THE $1500 TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FEE. Passed 3 -2 (Bogosian, Wolfe opposed). 7) Authorisation to Purchase Two New City Vehicles and Disposal as Surplus of Currently -Owned City Equipment (moved from Consent Calendar B above) City Manager Perlin reviewed the reports. Public Works Services Manager Enriquez answered Councilmembers' questions. SHAW /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF TWO CHEVROLET 3500 HD CAB AND CHASSIS THROUGH VICTORY CHEVROLET IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,227.56. Passed 5 -0. MORAN /SHAW MOVED TO DECLARE A RUBBER -TIRED LOADER, A BACKHOE AND SKID STEER LOADER AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE THEIR SALE THROUGH FIRST CAPITOL AUCTION. Passed 5 -0. MORAN /SHAW MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF A BACK HOE LOADER WITH EXTENDAHOE THROUGH WESTERN TRACTION CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $74,156.66. Passed 5 -0. MORAN /SHAW MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF A 16 -FOOT ROTARY MOWER FROM WEST STAR DISTRIBUTING IN THE AMOUNT OF $63,867.50. Passed 5 -0. City Manager Perlin stated that the staff would bring to the Council a proposal to replace the skid steer loader, probably in May. 9. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes 3/14; 3/18; 3/20; 3/24; 3/27 SHAW /MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE 3/14 MINUTES. Passed 5 -0. SHAW /JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE THE 3/18 MINUTES. Passed 5 -0. SHAW /MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE 3/20 MINUTES. Passed 5 -0. SHAW /MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE 3/24 MINUTES. Passed 5 -0. SHAW /JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE THE 3/27 MINUTES. Passed 4 -0 (Bogosian abstaining because he had been absent). 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for adjourned regular meeting April 7 Joint Meeting with Finance Commission, Chamber of Commerce, SBDC, TEAM Saratoga Councilmembers and staff discussed the proposed agenda and decided to discuss Measure G as a scheduling item only and to add a request from Saratoga Market Days to readopt a resolution suspending certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance. City Manager Perlin stated that the valet parking issue would be considered on April 15. Councilmember Bogosian noted that notices were City Council Minutes 4 April 1, 1998 to be sent to the neighborhood. B. Other Councilmember Shaw mentioned that the Library is considering using its meeting room for other purposes. He asked if the City could supply a meeting room for the groups that have used the Library Meeting Room in the past. He also asked for a report on the two -week computer evaluation and an update on where we stand on implementation of the HTE system. Councilmember Bogosian brought up the Library Internet Access issue and asked that it be discussed at the joint meeting April 21 with the Library Commission. He also asked whether the Planning Commission was reviewing the temporary use permit process and fees. City Manager Perlin replied that it was more a policy issue for the City Council to decide. Councilmembers Bogosian and Moran asked that it be agendized for a Council meeting and that staff prepare a list of questions for the Council to answer on the issues. Councilmember Moran then asked that information on the proposed telephone area code split be sent to the County Cities Association. Councilmember Shaw stated that cablecasting of meetings lacks consistent quality, although the KSAR staff is doing its best to improve the situation. City Manager Perlin said that there have been problems with a camera. The staff is working on the lights with a lighting engineer. 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT New Planner Christina Ratcliffe has been hired as a new Assistant Planner. Recreation Announced various upcoming events sponsored by the Recreation Department. Council Furniture Councilmember Moran, Planning Commissioner Martlage, and Deputy City Clerk Cory met with Mr. Larue to further discuss how he might build replacement furniture for the Council Chambers. Birthday Announced the second birthday of Leah Perlin! 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. to the next meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, at Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Respectfully submitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk 1. Roll Call MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, April 7, 1998 PLACE: Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting /Meeting with Finance Commission, Chamber of Commerce, Saratoga Business Development Council /TEAM Saratoga The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. Councilmembers Bogosian, Jacobs, Moran, Shaw and Mayor Wolfe were present. Also present were City Manager Perlin, Administrative Analyst Gonda, 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 April 3. The notice of adjournment from the April 1 Council meeting was properly posted on April 2. 3. Oral Communications from the Public on Non-Agendized Items Jim Ousley, Seaton Avenue, stated that the median landscaping on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road near Verde Vista was in poor condition. (Clerk's Note: See City Manager's comments under Item 11.) 4. Joint Meeting with Finance Commission Finance Commissioners present were Ching Li Chang, Charlene Low, Allen Roten, and Chair Jim Ousley. A. Presentation on Indirect Cost Allocation Methodo1'gj Commissioner Chang presented overhead transparencies, explained the methodology, and answered Councilmembers' questions. She noted that the cost of Financial Management, about $345,000, had been omitted from the indirect cost allocation, but it would be included in the future. She concluded that the methodology in general was satisfactory. B. Presentation of Recreation Employee Salary Survey Results Administrative Analyst Gonda presented the survey results and answered Councilmembers' questions. Councilmember Jacobs stated that bus trips, adult sports, and "all other" camps did not recover even their direct costs; he favored increasing fees in those areas. Councilmember Shaw suggested obtaining more job descriptions. He felt it was important to make sure the Recreation Director's salary was fair first, then consider increasing fees if necessary. There was consensus to direct staff to obtain job descriptions from San Carlos and Atherton. Administrative Analyst Jacobs suggested that staff be directed to request additional information about job descriptions to ensure that the jobs would be comparable. Councilmember Moran stated the community is prepared for fee increases, and if the survey shows that Saratoga's Recreation Director is underpaid, her salary should be raised. C. Continuing Discussion of Recreation Program Cost Recovery Options 5. Joint Meeting with Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, SBDC, TEAM Saratoga City Council Minutes 2 April 7, 1998 Chamber of Commerce members present were Fran Andreson, Pat Andreson, Bill Cooper, Kristin Davis, Ray Froess, Jean Orr, and Dick Wood. Executive Director Sheila Arthur was also present. A. Annual Report from Chamber of Commerce on Activities, Accomplishments, Goals President Davis presented the annual report and answered Councilmembers' questions. B. Request for Continued City Support for Celebrate Saratoga There was consensus to provide support for Celebrate Saratoga at the same level that had been provided last year. C. Request by Saratoga Market Days Committee to Readopt Res. No. 96 -19 There was consensus to readopt the resolution with provisions for periodic review. D. Report from TEAM Saratoga Mr. Wood reported that Mr. and Mrs. Adrian Stanga were to be the grand marshals for the Saratoga parade. He reported on accomplishments of TEAM Saratoga. TEAM will continue to exist under the confines of the SBDC. E. Welcome Village Committee Bill Cooper reported on activities and concerns of the Committee. Mayor Wolfe suggested that volunteers be obtained to study downtown development and make recommendations to improve the Village's financial base while retaining its character. He felt it was important to develop the right mix of businesses. Mr. Cooper reported on further activities, including possible establishment of a theater, the valet parking situation, and possible busing of people to the Paul Masson Winery, and Villa Montalvo, with stops in the Village. Councilmembers then discussed the Winery expansion and its possible beneficial effect on Village businesses. Mayor Wolfe, Councilmember Shaw, and City Manager Perlin reported on a meeting with Ravi Kumra, the owner, and other representatives of the Winery. Mr. Wood brought up improvements needed and other concerns at the Saratoga Village Center shopping center. City Manager Perlin pointed out that Saratoga has an ordinance requiring proper upkeep of commercial property. There was consensus to direct him to determine whether the ordinance is applicable to this situation. Erna Jackman, Oak St., stated that she has been bothered at home by noise and smells from the shopping center. 6. Budget Issues City Manager Perlin announced that Deborah Larson would not return to her employment as Interim Assistant City Manager because of illness. There was consensus for him to prepare a letter of appreciation and good wishes for the Mayor to sign. A. Revenue Forecasts for FY 97 -98, 98 -99, 6 99 -00 B. Major Budget Adjustments for FY 97 -98 C. Major Budget Adjustments for FY 98 -99 City Manager Perlin stated his belief that the City would meet revenue expectations. Revenues will be discussed further at the April 21 quarterly review meeting. A complete budget and budget adjustments will be presented to the Council on May 12. City Council Minutes 3 April 7, 1998 7. Scheduling of Discussion Of Possible Changes to Measure G Implementation Policy Councilmember Bogosian brought up the need for cablecasting the Measure G discussion. City Manager Perlin stated that the Adult Care Center should be ready for cablecasting in June. There was consensus to schedule the discussion at the adjourned regular meeting of July 7. 8. Confirmation /Cancellation of May 2 Town Hall Meeting There was consensus to cancel the Town Hall meeting and to discuss the leafblower issue at a regular meeting. Staff was directed to inform the League of Women Voters that the City would make a Community Center room available if they wished to have a forum for Sheriff's candidates. 9. Self- Evaluation of Previous Meeting April 1 There was general agreement that the meeting had gone well. 10. Agency Assignment Reports Councilmembers reported on meetings they had attended and upcoming meetings. Concerning the proposed split in telephone area codes, Mayor Wolfe stated that the County Cities' Association should lobby to prevent any city under a certain size from being split. City Manager Perlin stated he would attempt to find a contact person with the agency reviewing the area codes. Councilmember Jacobs expressed the hope that some Saratoga resident may have influence with the appropriate agency. 11. Other Concerning the median landscaping on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, City Manager Perlin reported that the contractor was at fault and that the project was being re -bid. He also reported that he was working with representatives from the Sanitation District, from the Paul Masson Winery and from TCI Cablevision to make presentations at Council meetings. Mayor Wolfe brought up the quarry on the Winery property. Councilmembers and City Manager Perlin discussed concerns about the quarry runoff and further development on the property. Councilmember Jacobs then brought up the possibility of Saratoga's exercising its right to annex the Paul Masson property. The City Manager was directed to ask the City Attorney whether the annexation "trigger" has been met and at what point the City could initiate some action. Mayor Wolfe noted that a letter had been received from a neighbor of Mr. Radding, who had reported drainage problems at the March 18 Council meeting. The letter confirmed flooding problems and provided further details. City Manager Perlin reported that Representative Tom Campbell would hold a town meeting in Los Gatos tomorrow. Councilmember Shaw agreed to attend to represent Saratoga. 12. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk