Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-1992 City Council Agenda packetPrinted on recycled paper. UTVW 04 0 °'aN o c� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: Planning Staff DATE: February 19, 1992 SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 15- 80.080(d)(3) SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAE PROPOSAL: DISCUSSION: zAvg z i COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman In order to define and restrict the location of satellite dish antennae to be consistent with the residential design standards of the City, it is proposed to add language to the Zoning Regulations which further defines "Satellite Dish Antennae and sets specific locational criteria for the structures. It is also proposed that the height limit for satellite dish antennae be set at twelve (12) feet, to be consistent with similar height requirements for accessory structures in residential zones, and with the functional requirements of such antennae. The proposed language is consistent with similar provisions within the Zoning Regulations for structures in rear yards. (See Section 15- 80.030(d) ENCLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES). It is also proposed to amend Section 15- 06.670(b) ACCESSORY STRUCTURE to read "...means a detached structure, the use of which is subordinate and incidental to, and customarily associated with, the main structure or the principal use of the site, and which is located on the same site as the main structure or principal use. =The term includes, but is not limited to, detached garages or carports, cabanas, gazebos, arbors, sheds, SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAE, and buildings: connected to a main structure by a breezeway." This proposal is the result of increasing concern about the visual impact of satellite dish antennae within the City. The technology advances in the past ten years has created an opportunity for greater communication access than ever before. The technology has also created a potential for visual intrusion onto neighboring properties. In preparing the proposed regulations, staff has been concerned with both the need to regulate for the benefit of the City, and the needs associated with the technology itself. Federal law precludes local jurisdiction from creating regulations that would, in fact, restrict the use of satellite dish antennae to the point that they could not be used. ALTERNATIVE: Make no change in the Zoning Regulations. FISCAL IMPACT: None. CONCURRENCE: This proposal has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Re fully Omitted, AN EISNER Interim Planning Director SE:cw MICHAEL R. NAVE STEVEN R. MEYERS NATALIE E. WEST ELIZABETH H. SILVER MICHAEL S. RIBACK MOLLY T. TAMI MICHAEL F. RODRIOUEZ KATHLEEN FAUBION FREDERICK S. ETHERIDGE WENDY A. ROBERTS DAVID W. SKINNER OF COUNSEL ANDREA J. SALTZMAN TO: MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK WEST A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION GATEWAY PLAZA 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300 FACSIMILE: (510) 351 -4481 MEMORANDUM Stan Eisner DATE: December 18, 1991 Acting Planning Director FROM: Michael S. Riback City Attorney RE: Amendments to Satellite Dish Antenna Ordinance MSR:dsp Attachment 273 \mem0 \eisner2.msr Michael S. Riback City Attorney PENINSULA OFFICE 1220 HOWARD AVE., SUITE 250 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TELEPHONE: (415) 348 -7130 FACSIMILE: (415) 342 -0886 MARIN OFFICE 1202 GRANT AVE., SUITE E NOVATO, CA 94945 TELEPHONE (415) 892 -8878 REPLY TO: San Leandro I have reviewed your proposed amendments to Section 15- 80.080(e)(3) of the Satellite Dish Antenna Ordinance and I concur in those changes, with the deletion of the language in the last two lines after the word "feet". I also have included in the draft ordinance in an amendment to Section 15- 80.080(e)(2) language that clarifies that roof mounted antennas will only be allowed upon the granting of a variance by the Planning Commission after making the special findings set forth in paragraph (i). Please let me know if the draft ordinance is satisfactory and if so, I will forward a final copy to you for placement on the Planning Commission's upcoming agenda. DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 91 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 15- 06.670(b), AMENDING SECTION 15- 80.080(e) (3) REPEALING SECTION 15- 80.080(e) (2) AND RENUMBERING SECTION 15- 80.080(e) (3) OF SARATOGA CITY CODE PERTAINING TO SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ORDAINS as follows: Section 1: Section 15- 06.670(b) of Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Accessory structure means a detached structure, the use of which is subordinate and incidental to, and customarily associated with, the main structure or the principal use of the site, and which is located on the same site as the main structure or principal use. The term includes, but is not limited to, detached garages or carports, cabanas, gazebos, arbors, sheds, SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAE, and buildings connected to a main structure by a breezeway." Section 2: Section 15- 80.080(d) (3) of Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "No satellite dish antenna shall be located in any required yard of any lot, except that subject to the approval of the Planning Director and the provisions of paragraph (d) (1) of this section, a satellite dish antenna may be located no closer than six (6) feet from the rear property line and shall not exceed six (6) feet in height, plus one (1) additional foot in height for each additional foot of set back from the rear property line in excess of six (6) feet, up to a maximum height of twelve (12)." Section 3: Section 15- 80.080(e) (2) of Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (d) (3) of this section, the placement of a roof mounted satellite dish antenna shall only be allowed upon the granting of a variance by the Planning Commission pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section." Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1992, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR RES -NO Saratoga NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amending Section 15- 06.670(b), Section 15- 80.080(e)(3), repealing Section 15- 80.080(e)(2) and renumbering Section 15- 80.080(e)(3) of Saratoga City Code pertaining to Satellite Dish Antennas. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 The amendment to the ordinance will regulate the location of satellite dishes to minimize impact on adjacent properties. The new regulations will result in no significant environmental impacts. Executed at Saratoga, California this 19th day of February, 1991. DIREC ,•R OF PLANNING DIRECTO M'THORIZED STAFF MEMBER A. e. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 114 AGENDA ITEM 5 2 1 MEETING DATE: February 19 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Letter from Joanne Cornbleet, 12105 Saraglen Drive, regarding Rodeo Creek construction Recommendation: Receive as information at this time. Discussion: Mrs. Cornbleet has requested that the City Council agendize her January 20 letter to Will Kempton (Attachment 1) for discussion. The letter primarily concerns the removal of additional trees along Rodeo Creek, beyond what was originally contemplated, due to construction associated with Route 85. At issue is not so much the removal of the additional trees as is securing a commitment from the Traffic Authority to restore the creek area, including the planting of replacement trees, after completion of the work. Thus far, the Traffic Authority has conveyed mixed signals about their intentions for restoration. On the one hand, the Traffic Authority seems to recognize an obligation to mitigate for the construction impacts, (see Attachment 2), while on the other hand, the Authority suggests that this is an issue about habitat replacement and that such replacement will occur at a remote location, presumably the Guadalupe River mitigation site, in San Jose (Attachment 3). Perhaps the Authority's position on this will be clarified when Mr. Kempton responds to either Mrs. Cornbleet's letter, as Mr. Kotowski indicates, or my letter (Attachment 4). In my opinion, the Traffic Authority has an obligation to restore the area along Rodeo Creek, including planting replacement trees, as a part of this project and to a level that at the very least is consistent with how the Santa Clara Valley Water District restores riparian areas upon completion of similar projects. I have seen the effectiveness of some of the Water District's recent revegetation projects and the results are impressive. Neither the Saraglen Drive property owners nor the City deserve anything less. The drainage project along Rodeo Creek was designed to minimize the impact on the trees growing along the creek. In fact a survey waS performed prior to the design of the project in which every tree growing along the creek was identified and located. The construction plans show most of these trees as "To Remain" however during the course of the construction many of the trees were systematically removed for one reason or another. I should point out that at the onset of this project, the City issued a Tree Removal Permit (Attachment 5) to the Traffic Authority, CALTRANS and the Water District. The permit was issued to allow for the removal of only four ordinance sized trees that were tagged for removal with the condition that they be replaced with nine trees of specified sizes. As stated at the beginning of this memo, the issue here is not so much the removal of additional trees but rather, securing a commitment from the Traffic Authority to revegetate the creek area including planting replacement trees. And while I recognize that the Water District requires an access road along the east bank of the creek, I also believe that sufficient space still remains in which to replant as the Water District has demonstrated they can do elsewhere. If the Traffic Authority opts not to bear any responsibility for replanting, then one option the Council has is to assume this responsibility for them and shift discretionary landscaping funds away from the freeway and to the area along Rodeo Creek. Fiscal Impacts: Unknown at this time, although there should be no direct costs to the City regardless of what the Traffic Authority decides to do. Attachments; 1. Letter from Mrs. Cornbleet to Mr. Kempton dated Jan. 20, 1992. 2. Letter from Mr. Kotowski to Mrs. Cornbleet dated Feb. 3, 1992. 3. Letter from Mr. Kempton to me dated Dec. 11, 1991. 4. My letter to Mr. Kempton dated Feb. 5, 1992. 5. Tree Removal Permit dated April 15, 1991. 6. My letter to Mr. Kempton dated Nov. 13, 1991. 7. Letter from Mrs. Cornbleet to me dated Nov. 11, 1991. Motion Vote: City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City Clerk: I would appreciate if copies of the following letter to the traffic authority were given to each of the Saratoga City Council members and if the issue of the excessive destruction of Rodeo Creek habitat is placed as an agenda item for a city council meeting. I would appreciate knowing when this item will be discussed. If I cannot be in attendence at this council meeting, I would like to know the action, if any, taken by the council. You may reach me by leaving a message on my home- answering machine, -at 255- 6572, -or by mail. Sincerely yours, Joanne Cornbleet Joanne Cornbleet 12105 Saraglen Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 JAN 2 2 1992 1/20/92 Mr. William Kempton Executive Director Santa Clara County Traffic Authority 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 224 San Jose, CA 95110 Joanne Cornbleet 12105 Saraglen Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 ATTACNME .17 JAN 2 2 1992 January 20, 1992 Dear Mr. Kempton: I am very upset and angry about the unanticipated destruction of foliage adjacent to Rodeo Creek in Saratoga. The results are a far cry from the sketches presented to our neighborhood by the Traffic Authority before the project commenced. Specifically, I wish to address the following points: 1) Removal of many additional trees was due to damage and negligence during the construction process, 2) In contrast to negotiations with homeowners for replacement of additional trees removed from the west side of the creek, residents on the opposite side of the creek received no communication from the Traffic Authority or the contractor about the more extensive destruction that took place on the east side of Rodeo Creek, 3) Destruction of foliage together with an echoing soundwall has resulted in audible traffic noise within our houses, and 4) The "penney- wise" but "pound- foolish" approach of the Traffic Authority in spending many tens of thousands of dollars to preserve riparian habitat by constructing gabion linings, but refusing to spend the small amount of extra money for re- foliation -as a result, we have a very expensive ditch behind our houses. 1) REMOVAL OF ADDITIONAL TREES Initially, the Traffic Authority presented us with drawings showing only 5 trees to be removed from the east bank of Rodeo Creek. Replacement was to be made at a ratio of approximately 2:1 at Rodeo Creek, with funds for additional wet land mitigation at another site. The final appearance of the creek today is a far cry from the lovely drawings shown to us at this meeting. In fact, only one tree remains alongside the east bank, and even this cedar is badly deformed and damaged. A poll of each individual homeowner alongside the east bank of Rodeo Creek shows a total of 22 trees removed (see attached tally). Of the 17 additional trees at least 8 were lost due to damage during construction, including bark scraping and branch severing by the construction equipment or cutting of the roots. I personally observed large pieces of construction equipment making U -turns behind my house, rather than taking the time to drive 1/2 block to the freeway right -of -way, a reckless maneuver that led to damage to my fence as well as to all of the creekside trees behind my house. Of note was the loss of the 4 Monterrey pines, whose roots were cut during the laying of the gabions. A considerable amount of money was invested to channelize the creek around this cluster of pines, and it is preposterous that more_care and supervision was not given_toward their preservation! 2) LACK OF NOTIFICATION OF HOMEOWNERS ABOUT ADDITIONAL TREE REMOVAL It is my understanding that when 9 additional pine trees were removed from the west side of the creek, negotiations occurred with the homeowner's association for restitution. As a result, 9 new trees have already been replanted on the west bank of Rodeo Creek. I do not understand why the homeowners on the east side of Rodeo Creek deserve less consideration. We have never been notified about the removal of these additional 17 trees nor given the opportunity to participate in planning their replacement. 3) INCREASED AUDIBLE TRAFFIC NOISE As the foliage beside the creek has diminished, the traffic noise from Prospect Avenue has become audible within my house. Amazingly, the direction of the noise is from the freeway soundwalls south of my home, rather than Prospect Avenue, north of my home! I believe that the traffic noise is funneling down the creekbed from Prospect and bouncing off these new soundwalls. In addition, I believe that the trees and shrubs removed from behind our house had a direct effect in the past in ameliorating the noise. Mature foliage along the creek will be needed more than ever to abate the additional traffic noise that will come from the newly constructed freeway. Sincerely yours, et Joanne Cornbleet cc: Mr. Larry Perelin, City of Saratoga Saratoga City Council Ilene Goodwin, Traffic Authority Maurice Hage, CalTrans Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors 2 ArracHt-- lE►u 1 4) FOOLISH EXPENDITURE OF TAX PAYERS MONIES, WITH FAILURE TO ACCOMPLISH STATED GOAL Considerable taxpayer money was spent to preserve the riparian habitat along Rodeo Creek, including the placement of gabion rather than cement linings and the diversion of the channel lowering around a cluster of pine trees (which had to be removed anyway due to accidental root severance). Thus the origin proposal assumed that a creek would remain, with growth of riparian vegetation within the creek channel. In previous years, Rodeo Creek has been home to squirrels, frogs, wild ducks, and numerous species of birds. However, it is unlikely that this habitat can be restored without planting of creekside vegetation and trees. The cost of creekside re- landscaping is minuscule compared to the additional expense for the gabions. Without the landscaping, all that remains of Rodeo Creek is a very expensive gabion -lined ditch. Page 21 of the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Route 85 Transportation Corridor Project states: A portion of the mitigation required to offset these impacts along Rodeo Creek may be located onsite if feasible locations acceptable to the California Department of Fish Game and the Santa Clara VAlley Water District can be found." Some concern has been expressed that the Water District will require an access path along the east bank of the creek, However, my discussions with Bill Carlson, prior head of maintenance for the Water District, indicated no opposition to re- vegetation or tree planting alongside the east bank of the creek, as long as the size of the trees did not obstruct the required clearance. Therefore, I see no impediment to spending mitigation funds to restore the damage done to Rodeo Creek to accommodate the Route 85 design changes. It is my understanding that projects of this nature undertaken by the Santa Clara Valley Water District include substantial re- landscaping at completion. The habitat restoration includes flowering shrubs both along the creek walls and banks, as well as trees. Since the intent of the Traffic Authority is to preserve this engineered channel as a creek (indicated in the environmental impact addendum, in the oral presentation to the neighboring homeowners, and by the expenditure for gabion linings), I do not understand why the re- vegetation standards should be any less than those of the Water District. IN SUMMARY, the destruction of mature trees and vegetation along the east bank of Rodeo Creek has been much more extensive than originally projected to the neighboring residents. I believe that some of this destruction could have been avoided if greater care had been taken during the construction process. The loss of this vegetation has a significant visual and auditory impact on the quality of life of our neighborhood and will likely devalue our houses by many thousands of dollars. Mr. Kempton, I think it is time that you meet with the residents adjacent to the east bank of Rodeo Creek and work with us in planning restitution for this loss. The degree of destruction is so large that I feel a comprehensive plan is needed for area as a whole. It is not satisfactory to provide more funds for mitigation at another site. Nor is it satisfactory for us to wait for a portion of the funds given to the City of Saratoga for landscaping at the completion of the freeway project in 1994. It takes only minutes to cut down a mature tree, but many, many years of growth to establish a riparian habitat. We need to begin planning immediately for planting to ensue before the end of the current rainy season, so that we can ameliorate the severe, unanticipated impact this project has had on the residents of the east bank of Rodeo Creek. 12090 Saraglen Drive 4 trees 12105 Saraglen Drive 6 trees 12121 Saraglen Drive 8 trees, 6 bushes 12151 Saraglen Drive 2 trees 12165 Saraglen Drive 2 trees A Tr c. I N4 a kJ r TREES REMOVED FROM EAST BANK OF RODEO CREEK 1 1 large acatia, 2 large formosas, 1 large oak 2 medium redwoods, 4 large Monterrey pines, extensive damage to 1 cedar 1 large oak, 1 medium oak, 1 small oak, 1 large black walnut, 1 small black walnut, 1 medium English walnut, 1 wisteria, 1 ornamental plum tree, 6 privet bushes 1 large oak, 1 large cypress 1 large walnut, 1 small walnut Thus the total count to date is 22 trees and 6 bushes, making a 2 -fold replacement of 44 trees and 12 bushes. If you have any questions about this count, you may call Joanne Cornbleet, 12105 Saraglen Drive, at 255 -6572, or Mr. Art Grafe, 12121 Saraglen Drive at 257 -4143. SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY Jim Beall Barbara Tryon Chairperson Vice Chairperson Will Kempton, Executive Director Ms. Joanne Cornbleet 12105 Saraglen Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Cornbleet: The City of Saratoga has provided me with a copy of your recent letter to Will Kempton, Executive Director of the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority. I understand and share your concern regarding the removal of any additional vegetation in Rodeo Creek beyond what is necessary to accomplish the creek enlargement. I have taken the opportunity to speak with Mr. Kempton about this issue, and he has assured me that although the work in Rodeo Creek has resulted in the loss of more trees than originally anticipated, the Traffic Authority has no intention of disregarding the concerns of the neighbors in your area. However, it is my understanding that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has an access road along the east side of the creek and that the access road is the cause for the removal of additional vegetation and the difficulty in providing replacement vegetation. I am confident that the Traffic Authority will do everything possible to help alleviate some of the vegetation loss in the creek until the natural habitat can replenish. itself. Mr. Kempton has informed me that he is writing a more detailed response to your concerns. You should be receiving that response shortly. Once again, thank you very much for your concern regarding this Measure A project. WK /EOG /LP cc: Saratoga City Council Susan Hammer ATT CHmEM FEB 5 1992 February 3, 1992 Michael F. Kotowski Zoe Lofgren MICHAEL KOTOWSKI South -Zone Representative 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 224, San Jose, Califomia 95110 (408) 453 -3777 Printed on recycled paper SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC AUTHORITY Jim Beall Chairperson Will Kempton, Executive Director Mr. Larry Perlin City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Perlin: Barbara Tryon Vice Chairperson ATTAcNrME JT 3 Susan Hammer Michael E Kotowski December 11, 1991 Thank you for forwarding a copy of Ms. Joanne Cornbleet's letter to my office. I can understand Ms. Cornbleet's concerns with the replacement of trees and vegetation near her home in the vicinity of the Traffic Authority's Rodeo Creek project. As you know, the number of acres disturbed by our construction at the Rodeo Creek project is being replaced at a ratio of 2:1. It should be noted that the permits provided by the City allow such replacement to take place at a specified mitigation site which may not be in the original creek bed. This is often necessary due to the limited planting space remaining after major creek bed improvements. Nonetheless, we are sensitive to Ms. Cornbleet's concerns with certain trees and are committed to planting 11 trees on -site to replace the seven Monterey Pines that were specified on the plans to be saved, and then were later removed. In addition, the contractor will hydro -seed the creek bed area to promote habitat and vegetation re- establishment, consistent with Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements. Unfortunately, the Traffic Authority is not able to provide any additional planting in this creek because of space limitations resulting from the creek bed widening, reinforcement, and Water District access road construction. Typically, the number and types of trees and vegetation are not usually specified on the construction plans. In this case, only the ones that were specified to be preserved can be replaced. In fact, additional work was undertaken to redesign the gabions to replace these specified trees in their original location. I understand and share the neighbors' concerns over the specific plants that were lost. However, for the reasons noted, we are unable to replant to the same extent in the new creek bed. Please be assured that we are making every attempt to preserve the environment along the Route 85 corridor as much as possible during this project. In keeping with this commitment, we are currently looking at a parcel of land near the junction of San Thomas Acquino and Wildcat Creek as a potential site for additional mitigation in Saratoga. Again, thank you for bringing this concern to our attention. If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to contact my office. WK /MS /LP /sl Sincerely, WILL KEMP11ON Executive Director Zoe Lofgren 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 224, San Jose, California 95110 (408) 453 -3777 Pdnted on recycled paper Printed on recycled paper. February 5, 1992 uaumi 2' 123 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Will Kempton, Executive Director Santa Clara County Traffic Authority 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 224 San Jose, CA 95110 RE: Rodeo Creek Dear Will: ATTACH HEMT 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman By now I assume you've received the January 20 letter from Joanne Cornbleet, 12105 Saragien Drive, concerning the destruction of the Rodeo Creek riparian way. In case you haven't, I an enclosing a copy for you. This letter, and Mrs. Cornbleet's letter, are in response to your letter to me dated December 11 in which you replied to two earlier letters Mrs. Cornbleet and I wrote to you concerning the same subject. In a nutshell, neither Mrs. Cornbleet nor I are satisfied with your reply. When Harry Peacock and I met with you and representatives from your staff on November 26 to discuss landscaping along Route 85 through Saratoga, we also discussed the problems occurring along Rodeo Creek. I recall your aggravation over the damage which was done and your commitment to personally see to it that the riparian area along the creek be restored. You even mentioned the possibility of filing a claim against CALTRANS' contractor to seek restitution for the damage. None of this, however, is conveyed in your December 11 reply. Instead, you commit to replant only 11 trees on -site as replacement for the 7 Monterey Pines which were scheduled to be preserved and to hydroseed the creek bed area. There is no mention of the 9 replacement trees specified in the April 15, 1991 Tree Removal Permit issued by the City at the start of this project, let alone replacement for any of the 17 additional trees removed and documented by Mrs. Cornbleet. Finally, I am not convinced that the Authority understands in general how the Santa Clara Valley Water District revegetates riparian areas disturbed by major construction work and in specific, the extent which the District will allow replanting along Rodeo Creek. Mrs. Cornbleet has requested that the City Council agendize her letter for discussion at their next regular meeting. I anticipate this occurring on Wednesday, February 19. If you intend to respond to either Mrs. Cornbleet's letter or this letter, it would be helpful if you could do so before then. Pnmr on recvciea owner Thank you for your attention to this and if you or any of your staff wish to discuss any of the above, please give me a call. Sincerely, Larry I. Per in City Engineer A?TAGHM eAt T 4- P.S. Included in your December 11 reply is a reference to a parcel of land in Saratoga at the confluence of San Tomas Aquino and Wildcat Creeks which the Authority is evaluat- ing as a possible mitigation site. This is the first I have heard of this. Can you provide a few more details of what the Authority is evaluating and why? N IA Signature of Property Owner CITY OF SARATOGA Tree Removal Permit Application ATTA•CH EIJT 5 The applicant shall provide stamped, address envelopes for self and all adjacent property owners ,DE. TOO L. EN Property Owner 5ALITA C1.A17A CooburY 1 ¢APFIC AUTHORITY ef• al. Mailing Address /75 TEcHNOLoELY DRIVE.. 4t Ire 22N 5AN TosE. 95"lu0 Today's Date AvR 1 L I S 1 Phone: (h) (w) 4 1015 4 15 -2 1'313 Address where trees are to be removed IZo DE o CREE BET. IZTE Tios ?e Nearest cross street N A Company or individual to remove tree h inr rmr, CoNS TRUCTI o� C a Gt ENic Address 5331 Sw.Yl.AN ISLV1 Business License No. 91-3059 ?ETA' 5s� NTA ►Zo' A. CA 9 5 No. of trees to be oved y Species L1 vE OAK. (3) AC( /1( IA (I Size (Diameter or circum erence) measured 24" above grade) 104-1". to'• loo'. `-1 Z" Specific reasons for removal of tree f NTE I7FERENC E 1t,/ ITH RODEO CREEK IMt A5SOCI4TED v.i ITN d ui E SS Co ►.1 ST I Z L c N F 7 c 1 SP t=C T I?17 To 511 CREW K Location of Trees: Plot all trees to be removed from the property; show dimensions from property lines and existing structures. k F RODEO CTtEEk I IZEE 11.,41.15 SttE ETs T- M 3 M AIZI< T1- fOMAt5 Co TTZEEs 7b 75E ZF_MovE AVE 1'1a 3 S 17 yF C A 1_TtZA NS 1159OS Cox AVE. 'ST E 1(.90 S sIrZA T o GA CA g50 ATTW MAvR.1cE 14 A6E I understand that trees may be removed criteria as established by Article 15- 50.080 signing this form, i am certifying that the solely on my property. 4ANTA CLA1ZA VALLEY 1CIATEZ (P 57SO At. MADEN Exi\LIY. •AN To sE.. CA 's I i g ATTN t3tLL CAZLSot.1 only if found to be within the of the City Code and that by tree(s) to be removed is (are) TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF Date of On -Site Inspection Comments ARIL /S, /99/ Date of Decision A N T 5 Tree Removal Permit No /0 9/ Inspected By 7E /Z L /C../ X This tree removal permit is approved in accord with Article 15 -50. The tree(s) shall not be removed until the end of a 10 day appeal period. The undersigned has reviewed the permit application and a determination has been made on the following criteria: X The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services Necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of property The topography of the land and the effect of the removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters The number, species, size and location of the existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values and any established standards of the area The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forest practices. X Condition of Approval: IZE PLACEMEN i TREES SHALL `bE 2 L1 a ii TL-OX (o 3 o" box 414D 1- 1?› ox (Q TOTAL) ES AN L.0014T,0 t4 To •BE 7 E i EZ M I WED By C 1T'( AT A LATE Z DOTE 8 The replacement tree(s) must be planted within months from the approval date. The city will reinspect to insure compliance with any and all conditions of approval. Tree removal application DENIED for the' following reasons A anni Di ctor or Designated Representative Any person objecting to a decision by the Planning Director may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission (Sec. 15- 50.090). An appeal must be filed with planning department staff within 10 days from the date of action (date decision rendered) on the permit. TREE REGULATIONS A Tree Removal Permit must be approved by the Planning Director for the removal of trees of the following size or larger: (All measurements to be taken 2 feet above the natural grade); Oaks trees (genus Quercus): 32 inches in circumference (10 inches diameter) All other trees: 40 inches in circumference (12 inches diameter) Prior to approval of any tree removal permit, an on -site inspection is first required. All permit applications are reviewed and determined on the basis of the following criteria: 1. The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services. 2. The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property. 3. The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. 4. The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, and any established standards of the area. 5. The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. On site inspections are generally conducted on Friday mornings. To be scheduled for a Friday inspection, all applications must be submitted to the Planning Department by Thursday, 12:00 noon. If a condition of removal is to replace the tree, you will be given a deadline for when the tree must be replaced. A follow -up inspection will be performed to ensure compliance with all conditions of removal. If the condition of the tree presents an immediate hazard to life or property, it may be removed without a permit on order of the City Manager, the Director of Planning, the Director of Maintenance or a member of the county Sheriff or Fire departments. Removal of an ordinance size tree without an approved tree removal permit will result in one of the following penalties: 1. Replacement of the unlawfully removed tree with a new tree or a number of similar trees as will provide reasonably "equivalent aesthetic quality; or, 2. Payment of the approximate value of the unlawfully removed tree as determined by the City. November 13, 1991 13777 FRUTVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Will Kempton, Director Santa Clara County Traffic Authority 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 224 San Jose, CA 9511Q Re: MSA 106 -10: Rodeo Creek Construction Dear Will: ATTACHME.,WT �O COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anaerso- Martha Clevenger Willem Kcnrer Victor Mcr ;a Francis Stutzman The attached letter from Joanne Cornbleet (12105 Saraglen Drive) documents the number of trees and shrubs removed from along Rodeo Creek during construction of the drainage improvements associated with Route 85. If Mrs. Cornbleet is correct, then it appears that a number of trees and shrubs have been removed beyond what was expected when the project was approved and what is reflected on the project plans. Further, there is particular concern about the health of 4 pine trees disturbed by the construction activity. The original Tree Removal Permit issued by the City on April 15, 1991 authorized removal of 4 ordinance size trees subject to replacement with 9 trees of specified sizes. In August, the Permit was amended to allow for the removal of an additional 7 Monterey Pine Trees subject to replacement with 8 -24 inch box Strawberry Trees and 3 additional trees of a size and type to be determined. Now that the work in Rodeo Creek is nearing completion and the extent of landscape destruction is clear, I would like to know how the Traffic Authority can facilitate the replacement of the mature trees, shrubs and other plant growth which have been lost. At a minimum, I would expect a willingness on the part of the Traffic Authority to revegetate the creek corridor similar to how the Santa Clara Valley Water District revegetates their channels upon completion of major flood control projects. Since it is approaching the most opportune time of year to perform landscaping and revegetation work, your prompt attention and reply to this letter would be most appreciated. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Larry I. Perlin City Engineer cc: Jack Burbank, Engineering Inspector Joanne Cornbleet Harry Peacock, City Manager AcT r c H 1 e y CD ArrA c m Mr. Larry Perelin Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Perelin: Recently I spoke to you about tree replacement along Rodeo Creek when the CalTrans project is finished. You stated that there would be a 2 for 1 replacement for the trees that had been removed. Because the CalTrans crew removed many more trees and shrubs than originally targeted on the map of the creek, I have polled all of my neighbors to get an accurate count of the number of trees removed behind each individual's yard: 12090 Saraglen Drive 12105 Saraglen Drive 12121 Saraglen Drive 12151 Saraglen Drive 12165 Saraglen Drive Thus the total count to date is 18 trees and 6 bushes, making a 2 -fold replacement of 36 trees and 12 bushes. In addition, one of the four pines in the pine cluster is dead and needs to be removed. This adds 2 more trees, making the new total 38 trees. Finally, i t is unlikely that the 3 remaining pines in the cluster will survive. Thus the final total probably will be 44 trees. We would appreciate if the viability of the pines could be assessed fairly soon, so that removal and replacing will take place before the winter rains. If you have any questions about this count, you may call me at 255 -6572. You also may want to talk to Mr. Grafe at 12121 Saraglen Drive, who had the most plant -life removed behind his house. His phone number is 257 -4143. Sincerely yours, tieed anne Cornbleet Joanne Cornbleet 12105 Saraglen Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 November 11, 1991 pggEg 1101 1 2 1991 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE 4 trees 1 large acatia, 2 large formosas, 1 large oak 2 trees 2 medium redwoods 8 trees, 6 bushes 1 large oak, 1 medium oak, 1 small oak, 1 large black walnut, 1 small black walnut, 1 medium English walnut, 1 wisteria, 1 ornamental plum tree, 6 privet bushes 2 trees 1 large oak, 1 large cypress 2 trees 1 large walnut, 1 small walnut EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. V MEETING DATE: February 19, 1992 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: SD: 89 -018: (19171 Oaho Lane) Saraydarpour Final Map Approval for Two Lots Recommended SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 14-1 AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL 1. Adopt Resolution No. SD 89 -018 granting Final Map Approval of SD 89 -018. Report Summary: Attached is Resolution No. SD 89 -018 which, if adopted, will grant Final Map Aproval for two lots located at 19171 Oaho Lane. I have examined the final map submitted to me in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.40.020 of the Municipal Code and have determined that: 1. The final map substantially complies with the approved tentative map. 2. All conditions of the tentative map as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 89 -018 have been completed. 3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all other applicable provisions of law have been com- plied with. 4. The final map is technically correct. Consequently, I have executed the City Engineer's Certificate on the final map and have filed the final map with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 14.40.040 of the Municipal Code for action by the City Council. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 89 -018 with status of Tentative Map conditions. 2. Resolution No. SD 89 -018. Motion Vote: With Building Permit Done N.A. RESOLUTION NO. SD -89 -018 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF WILLIAM TASSARA 19171 OAHU LANE WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of two lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -89 -018 this City; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated February 28, 1990, being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the Negative Declaration prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 12th day of December, 1989 and is marked Exhibit 'A', in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: A. All driveways shall have a 14 feet minimum width plus one foot shoulders. B. Provide a parking area for 2 emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site of parcel "B Details shall be shown on the building plans. C. Submit a parcel map to the City Engineer for checking and recordation. Pay all required checking and recordation fees. D. Engineered improvement plans are required for: 1. Street improvements 2. Storm drain construction 3. Access road construction 4. Grading Done On Parcel Map Done With Building Permit Done Design Review E. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement plans. F. Provide a 10 ft. wide public utilities easement inside the front property line on parcel "A" and the full width of access corridor on parcel "B" to the proposed parcel line. Il G. Sewer connection permits must be obtained for both lots from the West Valley Sanitation District. H. Four -inch cleanouts shall be constructed near the property line on the existing lateral sewers within Oahu Lane. I. Building sewers shall be television inspected. Arrange the inspection with the West Valley Sanitation District. J The access driveway, parking apron, patios and pathways on parcel "B" shall be constructed from pervious turf -stone or similar material. K No swimming pool, excluding spas, is permitted on parcel B" L. No structure on either of the lots shall exceed one story or 18 feet in height. M. Design review approval from the Planning Commission shall e required prior to applying for a building permit. N. All wells on the property shall be registered with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and either maintained or abandoned in accordance with District policies. O. Notwithstanding article 15- 12.090 of the City Code, the building envelope for parcel "B" shall be located a minimum of 40 feet from existing property lines and 12 feet from the proposed parcel boundary. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective 10 days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 2 day of March 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Siegfried, Tucker, Tappan, Burger, Moran NOES: None ABSENT: Harris, Kolstad ATTEST: The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted: Signature of applicant tentmap.res Date 2 -13 -0 MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPT: SUBJECT: Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment: Revised Investment Policy. Notion and Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM February 194/1992 J Finance ,/�(jliCPt112u Annual Review of Investment Policy Recommended Action: Review and accept the revised Investment Policy submitted herewith. Report Summary: The Finance Advisory Committee met on January 29, 1992 to perform its annual review of the City's Investment Policy. The following changes were recommended update and conform policy to current practice: Section II. Varied Investment Program The F.A.C. deleted Bankers Acceptances, Commercial Paper and Repurchase Agreements from the list of acceptable investments. The City has not invested in these media and will have no need for investing in them during the current policy year. Section III. B. Investmept of Inactive Funds The F.A.G. added a clause requiring validation of an Institution's acceptability by an independent rating service. 1 CITY OF SARATOGA INVESTMENT POLICY Amended 2/19/92 The basic intent and purpose of this policy statement is to describe the primary objectives and means by which the City handles various investment instruments for City funds. I. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES The investment of the funds of the City of Saratoga is directed to the goals of safety, liquidity and high yield. The primary objective of the City's investment policy is safety. Our investments are placed in a variety of investment instruments and the balance between the various instruments may change from time -to -time in order to give the City the best combination of high yield, liquidity, safety and local investment. As a matter of policy, one of the secondary goals of this agency's investment program is related to local economic development by the placing of funds in local banks whenever possible (and in the best interests of the City of Saratoga). The City's investment program in local banks and savings and loans is accomplished to the extent that it does not sacrifice other goals of our investment policy, namely, safety, liquidity and high yield. These investments shall not exceed insurance requirements or collateralized securities within any institutions where the City places such investments. II. VARIED INVESTMENT PROGRAM Investments may be made in the following media: Securities of the U. S. Government, or its agencies Small Business Administration Loans Certificates of Deposit (or Time Deposits) placed with commercial banks and /or savings and loan companies Negotiable Certificates of Deposits Local Agency Investment Fund (State Pool) Demand Deposits Passbook Savings Account Demand Deposits Qualified Government Securities Mutual Funds (2/6/91), (2/19/92) CITY OF SARATOGA INVESTMENT POLICY Amended 2/19/92 Page Two III. SARATOGA INVESTMENT PROGRAM A. Deposit of Active Funds Money must be deposited in state or national banks or state or federal savings and loan associations or credit unions. Deposits cannot exceed the amount of the institution's paid up capital and surplus. Institutions must secure deposits either with insurance equal to 100% of the deposit or with eligible securities having a market value of 110% of the total amount of deposit. It is the policy of the City to keep active deposits to the minimum necessary to meet the City's near term cash flow requirements. (1/20/88) B. Investment of Inactive Funds Saratoga operates its pooled inactive cash investments under the Prudent Man Rule. This affords a broad spectrum of investment opportunities so long as the investment is deemed prudent and is permissible under currently effective legislation of the State of California and other imposed legal restrictions. It is required that each financial institution in which inactive funds are invested submit current financial statements to be evaluated by the Treasurer and Finance Director. No funds shall be invested in any institution which has not shown a net profit in each of the three preceding years of operation. In addition, investments in Savings and Loans and Credit Unions shall be limited to institutions which have an asset -to- equity ratio of at least 3 The City will verify an Institution's acceptability by validation through an industry- accepted independent rating service. (1/20/88), (2/19/92) Investment in qualified government securities mutual funds shall not exceed $1,000,000. No more than 20% of the City's invested funds shall be placed with the same financial institution. Investment in the Local Agency Investment Fund shall be limited to $10,000,000. (2/6/91) 1. Investment of Operating Reserve It is the policy of Saratoga to retain a general operating reserve of at least six months based on the current operating budget adopted by the City Council. In order to implement this policy, the amount of active deposits and inactive investments with a maturity of one year or less shall always be equal to or greater than the required general operating reserve. The monthly investment report of the Treasurer shall demonstrate this policy is in effect. (1/20/88) CITY OF SARATOGA INVESTMENT POLICY Amended 2/19/92 Page Three 2. Investment of Reserve for Housing Assistance It is the policy of Saratoga to retain a $1,000,000 reserve to implement its Housing Assistance Policy for Department Directors. Any portion of the reserve which is uncommitted to loans may be invested in active deposits or inactive investments with a maturity of one year or less. (1/17/90) 3. Investment of Funds in Excess of the Operating Reserve Inactive Funds which exceed the minimum required reserve may be invested for a term not to exceed five years. (1/20/88) C. Relationship with Investment Brokers For the sake of efficiency the City may wish to purchase Certificates of Deposit and /or other investments through a third- party intermediary. The selection of Broker Dealers will be made by the City Treasurer upon a review of an RFI (Request for Information) submitted by prospective broker dealers. The City will establish a list of qualified broker- dealers based on successful responses to the RFI and verifications of references. (1/18/89) The request for information will be updated annually in January. (1/17/90) IV. STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY The City Treasurer shall submit for City Council review and acceptance a monthly report on the status of all invested funds. The report shall be signed by the City Treasurer and shall certi- fy that all investments made are in accordance with the current adopted Investment Policy. The Investment Policy may be changed only with approval of the City Council and shall be reviewed by the City Council not less frequently than once a year as required by Section 53646 of the Government Code. (1/15/86) Amended: January 15, 1986, September 13, 1986 January 21, 1987 January 20, 1988 January 18, 1989 January 17, 1990 February 6, 1991 February 19, 1992 CITY OF SARATOGA INVESTMENT POLICY Amended 2/19/92 Page Four I certify that the above policy was duly adopted and amended as shown above by the City Council on the dates shown. Harry R. Peacock, City Clerk jm c: \wp \misc \invest.pol Date Printed on recycled paper. 7 OEVff of lung) February 19, 1992 To: City Council 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: From: City Manager Subject: Offer to Sell or Lease Surplus Land by the State at 13685 Quito Road As I in- formally informed you two weeks ago, we have received the attached offer from the State to either purchase or lease the property at 13685 Quito Road. The property is 22,000 square feet and contains a typical Saratoga single family, one story, ranch type house. The City must notify the State by March 24th of its interest in acquiring the property for public purposes including use of or resale of the property for low- and moderate income housing. It occurred° to me that this might prove to be an opportunity to provide another Project MATCH home at an extremely attractive price since the_City would have 20 years to pay for the- house and HCDA funds might be available to buy the house. I am seeking Council direction and authority to research this possibility and if it proves feasible to return with a proposal on March 18th. j m Peacock, City Manager Attachment: Letter from the Department of Transportation dated January 24, 1992 Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 7791 SAN FRANCISCO 94120 -7791 (415) 557 -8595 City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070-5/99 Gentlemen: January 24, 1992 OFFER TO SELL OR LEASE SURPLUS LAND The following facts pertain to this land: 2. Size: 22,390 s.f. 3. Zoning: Residential 4. Highest and Residential Best Use: 5. Topography: Level 1 EgEHE PETE WILSON, Governor JAN 2 9 1992 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 04- SCL -85 P.M. 12.6 DD- 048782 -01 -01 The Department of Transportation hereby offers to sell or lease the surplus land shown on the attached map in accordance with the provisions of Sections 54220 through 54227 of the Government Code. 1. Location: 13685 Quito Road, in the city of Saratoga, Santa Clara County. 6. Improvements: SFR 7. Encumbrances: Special assessments if any, restrictions, reservations and easements of record. 8. Remarks: If this property is sold to a public agency, this property shall be conveyed to the grantee to be used by the grantee, its successors or assigns solely for a public purpose. If said property is used or developed for other than a public purpose, all title and interest to said property shall revert to the State of California, Department of Transportation, its assigns or successors in interest. This condition shall run with the land for a period of fifteen (15) years commencing on the date of recordation. A. Sale at Fair Market Value or Lease Pending Sale at Fair Market Value Any sale pursuant to the above -noted statutes will be at current appraised fair market value. Any lease pursuant to these statutes will be at a lease rate which will enable subsequest sale, subject to the lease, for a price no less than the current appraised fair market value of the parcel as if it were unencumbered by any lease. B. Notification of Intent to Purchase or Lease Surplus Land Please notify the undersigned within sixty (60) days of this notice if you intend to purchase or lease this surplus land. If we do not hear from your agency within sixty (60) days, the surplus land will be disposed of in another manner. C. Resale of Land for Development of Low and Moderate Income Housing Government Code Section 54224 allows a local agency, housing authority of redevelopment agency to reconvey land purchased from our Department to a nonprofit or for profit housing developer for development of low and moderate income housing. D. Payment Period Government Code Section 54225 allows our Department to provide for a payment period of up to twenty (20) years in any contract of sale or sale by trust deed as to: 1. Surplus land to be used for park, recreation or open- space purposes, and 2. Improved surplus land to be used for low and moderate income housing purposes. Streets and Highways Code Section 118 allows our Department to provide for a payment period of up to forty (40) years in any contract of sale or sale by trust deed as to unimproved surplus land to be used for low and moderate income housing purposes. y E. Multiple Offers In the event our Department receives offers for the purchase or lease of this surplus land from more than one entity, we shall give first priority to the entity which agrees to use the site for housing for persons and families of low or moderate income, except that first priority shall be given to an entity which agrees to use the site for park or recreational purposes if the land being offered is already being used and will continue to be used for park or recreational purposes, or if the land is designated for park and recreational use in the local general plan and will be developed for that purpose, (Government Code Section 54227). If we receive.a notice of intent to purchase or lease this surplus land within sixty (60) days of your receipt of this letter, we will prepare an appraisal of the surplus land. Upon completion of the appraisal, we will commence negotiations with your agency pursuant to Government Code Section 54223 regarding the sale of the land. If the price cannot be agreed upon after a sixty (60) day negotiation period, our Department may dispose of the land without further regards to Government Code Sections 54220 through 54227. 3 Sincerely, PRESTON W. KELLEY District Director By ELSA LOPEZ Right of Way Agent Z1'695•V 11 0•8 i b v��5 c 11 ifab 96► 9 sassy 9St. NAM 1011, WIC 1,6609 g£72> mei 4 L 229E1 fKOt OYl2► cr9iC Et ZI 69 11.695-v v01-695 M991 01.695 -y 01'695.Y O'bt 'W d I cP s_ter 81660 6 9685 =b m� 36060 961.9► iG9 96 1.90 z196D ,D6L9f i99af 9;90 ne6p 16 L Es, Y /09E1 Z 92, 9 s av 919ft Yy 790.11, 26L6b 6196/ 8 695.0 190Kd= S6Lg 609(1 SS9S1 _6 6 69, -Y o9ic 696 -1 98 '696 .1 1 noGo BD 9L9art 9SL9. SHIVE 1. 95 -Y =:D 'IF it oil •.b 02t7p fa9ab D£921, 66 LS, r[9tY 609ft 909f 969- S619b 1 2120 021.30 611.20 Blurt LILab v5'695 -V SS 9 1.3p LL L »D Ea92f guest 9If30 09590 91991 9i9Z9 2 t gar b9i1 R 9fLIt %9af Wit 99LL af ftin a IK(t Lffit coif{ 5695 1 9 1 90 9 21.21, L91.N IZ92r 9C99C t'b9S{r r �0 r � O A(48 46 J n tpi 48804 ZJ� cP W o. Ar tA r d,j 26 ZS 8.,E •�/ �� • /�/ C � i III \ .9 \���� i I l-- I I 48803 0 403, eB _ r 31 -- 36 "S P. 418.98' O X13' 4 T: s -, Printed on recycled paper. February 14, 1992 Recommendation: Discussion: Uniform Administrative Code 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Council FROM: City Engineer /Bui•ing Codes Administrator SUBJECT: Appointment of Boards of Appeals Members Uniform,Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman Appoint John Edwards, Paul Conrado and Steven Benzing as members of the Board of Appeals for the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and appoint Steven Benzing as the citizen member of the Board of Appeals for the Uniform Administrative Code. In order to determine the suitability of alternative building materials and methods of construction and to provide reasonable technical interpretations of the various building codes, the Uniform Administrative Code provides for a Board of Appeals consisting of the City Engineer, the Building Codes Administrator and one other member to be appointed by the City Council. The appointed member holds office at the pleasure of the Council. Currently there is no Council appointed member to this Board. In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the Building Official (City Engineer) under the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the code provides for a Board of Appeals consisting of members qualified by experience and training who are not employees of the City. The Building Official is an ex- officio member and acts as secretary to the Board but has no vote upon any matters before the Board. The Board of Appeals is appointed by the City Council and holds office at its pleasure. The Board adopts rules of procedure for conducting its business and renders all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant, with a duplicate copy to the Building Official. Copies of all rules or regulations adopted by the Board Printed on 1 er. are delivered to the Building Official, who makes them accessible to the public. The Board of Appeals has no authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of the code nor is the Board empowered to waive requirements of the code. Currently, there are no appointed members to the Board. Appointee Qualifications and Training Each prospective appointee is recommended based on their years of interaction with the City Building, Engineering and Planning Departments, citizenship in Saratoga, and professional qualifications and training. Resumes of the three recommended appointments are attached for your review. Fiscal Impacts: Very little, if any, for either Board to carry out its business. There is no expense allowance or meeting stipend proposed for Board members as meetings are held very infrequently. Attachments: 1. Resolution making appointments. 2. Resumes of recommended appointees. Motion Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARDS OF APPEALS FOR THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga appoints PASSED and ADOPTED this by the following vote: CITY CLERK STEVEN M. BENZING to the Board of Appeals for the Uniform Administrative Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga appoints the following persons to the Board of Appeals for the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings: STEVEN M. BENZING PAUL R. CONRADO JONATHAN W. EDWARDS day of 1992, MAYOR C E t 1 4 h h: 1 1 1 i" W n r r e Y, t: Seven M. Benzing 12403 Fredericksburg Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 408 867 6910 Steve moved with his family from the East Coast, specifically New Jersey, in 1964 and settled in Saratoga. Attended Oak Street school for Eighth grade and then Saratoga High School. Graduating in 1969 he decided to attend the University of Oregon majoring in Architecture, having his interest in Architecture fueled by summer employment with the local Architect Warren Heid. Graduating the University in 1975 with a Bachelor of Architecture, he joined the design firm of Madsen's Drawing Service in 1976. The firms main emphasis was track housing for large developers in the Eugene Springfield area of Oregon. In 1980 he took control of the business renaming it Drawing Service Inc. and redirected the firm toward custom housing and small commercial applications the Eugene area. In 1984, after a motorcycle accident which left him with limited use of his legs, he returned to Saratoga and accepted a position with the firm of Warren B. Heid AIA Associates, Completing the requirements of the State of California he took and passed the State Board exams and became licensed in 1987. In 1990 he was accepted into the American Institute of Architects. In the eight years since returning to the Saratoga area he has been involved in local service thru a position on the Heritage Commission, a member of the Village Design Task Force, participation in Career Day at Saratoga High School and joining the Rotary club of Saratoga in 1990. Now in an Associate's position with Warren Heid he has been involved with many projects directly related to the City of Saratoga and it's Village. The Inn of Saratoga Pollack Plaza Addition to the Senior Center of Saratoga Saint Andrews Episcopal Church Addition Numerous residential work In 1991 he and his family moved into a home in Saratoga to be closer to his work and the City in which he's involved. Steve is married to Sondra Gail Johnson, they have two children; Scott (Sondra's from a former marriage) and Stacey. THE CONRADO CONPANY, INC. 14363 Saratoga Ave., Suite 206 Saratoga, Ca 95070 (408)867 -2095 PAUL R. CONRADO THE President Education includes a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering (1973) and a Master Degree in Business Administration (1982) from the University of Santa Clara. He is a registered civil engineer (RCE #26509) and a licensed general contractor #B- 407717) in the State of California. The Conrado Company, Inc. is a custom home builder located in Saratoga. In the past seven years (7), Paul has built ten (10) custom homes in Saratoga. Paul has been a practicing civil engineer since 1973, having worked for the Town of Los Gatos and as an office manager for Creegan D'Angelo. He is a member of the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. Paul's residence is located on La Paloma Avenue in Saratoga. PAUL R. CONRADO, R.C.E. PRESIDENT CONRADO COMPANY INC. CUSTOM HOME BUILDERS LIC. #575965 14363 SARATOGA AVE SUITE 206 SARATOGA, CA 95070 OFFICE: (408) 867 -2095 FAX: (408) 867 -2097 JONATHAN W. EDWARDS 18917 Cabernet Drive Saratoga, California 95070 Phone: 408 446 -3019 OBJECTIVE: To associate with .a sales oriented growth development Company. I am committed to sales and the home development industry, having spent 24 years in the business. LICENSES: STATE OF CALIFORNIA GENERAL CONSTRACTORS STATE OF CALIFONRIA REAL ESTATE BROKERS March 83 to EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: present J. LOHR PROPERTIES., INC., SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA. Construction Project Manager /Real Estate Salesman. Twenty three custom hillside homes individually designed with the owners /buyers. Responsible for all phases of construction management,from off site and on site, improvements through buyer acceptance and closing. Additionally res- ponsible for sales during the afternoon, and assistant in individual home designs. Three previous projects completed with all of the responsibilities as stated above. January 1981 COD ?SOLIDATED PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION CO., Berkely, Califonria, Project to March 83 Manager and Superintendent for construction of four story office building in downtown Palo Alto. Responsible for all phases of construction management from demolition of existing structure through completion of new building and final tenant improvements. PROJECT MANAGER for 4 story combined office and residential condominium with reinforced concrete walls and post tension slabs for first two floors. Top two floors are conventional wood frame. Responsible for all phases in construction and sales of condominiums. June 1980 SHAPPEL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA to Janaury Purchasing Agent, purchase materials, supplies and contracting 1981 services for all phases of on -site development. Reviewed new plans for possible change recommendations and to locate subcontractors, new materials, methods, products and ideas to enhance the product and reduce construction costs. March 1967 to TANNER CONSTRUCTION INC., Campbell, California. Assistant General June 1980 Manager; responsible.for all contracting, job bidding, material expediting and, job costs for large wood framing company. Tanner Consturction Co., framed between 900 and 1400 homes per year at that time. During this period I was also associated with Value Realty, Inc., as Broker, selling residential Real Estate. PERSONAL: Married with two children, ages 19 and 23. Resident of Santa Clara Valley since 1951. REFERENCES: Mr. Dick Randal,'William Lyons. Development (408) 977 -0101 Mr. John C. Houg, Financial Guardian (408) 288 -8000 Mr. Charles Lonwello (415) 651 -8730 6 THT 04 0 1' M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Stanley A. Eisner, Interim Planning Director VIA: Harry Peacock, City Manager DATE: February 11, 1992 SUBJECT: Assignment Review 2 /r 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman The following assignments were given to me when I accepted the position of Interim Planning Director. Progress has been made on all projects, and the following represents a progress report and schedule. Printed on recycled paper. SCHEDULE OF WORK PROJECTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL 1. HR Zone (combine NHR HCRD) Planning Commission March 11, 1992; City Council to follow 2. Boundaries of R -OS Zone (Sphere of Influence) Base map of constraints In order to get to LAFCo in June (Material to LAFCo April 22) Planning Commission action is required by February 26 3. Open Space Element Study Sessions February 4 and 18; anticipated public hearing in May, 1992 4. =Fence Ordinance (Heritage Lanes) Study Session March 3, 1992; Planning Commission public hearing on March 25, 1992; City council to follow 5., Heritage:Incentive Program 6 months to finish Goes °Heritage Commission for first review. February 12, 1992 6. Heritage Inventory To City Council May, 1992 7. Ridgeline Maps Out to Consultant Due in 6 -8 weeks 8. Circulation Element Traffic study (by Engineer) to City Council April, 1992; Element to follow in July, 1992 for Planning Commission hearing; City Council to follow 9. Housing Element See schedule for detail work program tasks Draft by June; Planning Commission hearing September City Council hearing September /October, 1992 10. Sign Ordinance to Planning Commission for study /hearing, February 26, 1992; City Council to follow 11. Lighting Ordinance assigned to staff and City Attorney 12. Tree Preservation Ordinance revisions to Planning Commission in May, 1992 for study; public hearings at Planning Commission /City Council to follow 13. Geological Maps William Cotton and Associates is preparing maps 14. Parking lot design procedure (Zoning Ordinance amendment) is set for Planning Commission study session; Planning Commission public hearing in March; City Council to follow Printed on recycled paper. I Li-L( g`TVW (Dft 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council /Planning Commission FROM: Interim Planning Director DATE: February 11, 1992 SUBJECT: Parking and Storage of Recreational Vehicles Tsvia Adar for Stan Eisner, Interim Planning Director 6 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman The issue of parking and storage of recreational vehicles within the front and exterior side yards has been of the City's concern for some time. The current City regulations restrict motor vehicles in all the residential zone district but were difficult to enforce. Amendment to the existing regulations for RV's were examined before but were not established due to practical and code enforcement problems related to this issue. The City Council includes this subject on the joint meeting agenda for further discussion and directions. Pursuant to Section 15- 12.160 of the City Code, the parking and storage of motor vehicles, trailers of any kind and boats, within any required yard adjacent to a street, is prohibited. In addition, Article 9 -55 of the City Code provides specific regulations related to abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles on private or public property. Section 15- 12.160 and Article 9 -55 of the City Code are attached. A record of the number of RV related complaints is also attached. (3) Boats. Zoning Regulations Supp. #7, 11/87 Page 15 -49 "...,...�_..'��'YV33tH2t. PIv L-5.:;..:w_s�o *.t" �,:.:_..�:a.e.iu �aa�: naw- i +�..wa S15- 12.150 515- 12.150 Design review The construction or expansion of any main or accessory structure in an R -1 district shall comply with the applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15 -45 or Article 15 -46 of this Chapter. S15- 12.160 Storage of personal property and materials (a) No portion of any site on which no dwelling exists, or on which a fully constructed dwelling exists but is not occupied and used for human habitation, shall be used for the unenclosed storage of any personal property. (b) With respect to any site on which a dwelling exists which is occupied and used for human habitation, no portion of any required front yard, and no portion of any required exterior side or rear yard of corner lots, and rear yards of double frontage lots, except as hereinafter provided, shall for any period of time in excess of five consecutive days be used for the unenclosed storage of any of the following: (1) Motor vehicles, except automobiles in fully operational condition and currently registered and licensed for operation on public highways and in normal daily use by the occupants of the site. (2) Trailers of any kind or make. Camper units detached from the truck or other motor vehicle for which they are designed or customarily used shall be considered trailers for the purpose of this Section. (4) Parts of any of the items of property described in Subparagraphs (1), (2) or (3) above. (5) Building or construction materials, except those materials reasonably required for work under construction on the premises pursuant to a valid and effective building permit issued in accord with Chapter 16 of this Code. (6) Trash, garbage or refuse, except as provided by Article 7 -05 in Chapter 7 of this Code. Any of the foregoing items of property which have been stored on a site or yard described herein for less than five consecutive days and then removed, shall not again be stored on such site or yard unless in compliance with Paragraph (c) of this Section or pursuant to a temporary use permit issued pursuant to Paragraph (d) of this Section. (c) The items of property described in Paragraph (b) of this Section may be stored in exterior side and rear yards of corner lots and rear yards of double frontage lots for periods in excess of five consecutive days where a fence has been legally constructed of sufficient height and of a type which screens the stored property from public view and reasonably prevents such property from becoming an attractive nuisance. Zoning Regulations Supp. #7, 11/87 Page 15 -50 §15- 12.160 (d) The Planning Director shall have power, in cases of practical difficulty or hardship, to grant temporary use permits for storage of the items of property described in Paragraph (b) of this Section in front, side or rear yards of sites for limited periods of time in excess of five consecutive days. Application for such storage permits shall be in writing, on forms furnished by the City, and any permit issued pursuant thereto shall be in writing, shall describe the personal property to be stored, and the location and time limit of the storage. The Planning Director may impose reasonable conditions in any such storage permit, which shall be agreed to in writing on the face of the permit by the applicant prior to the permit being issued. Sections: 9- 55.010 9- 55.020 9- 55.030 9-55.040 9- 55.050 9- 55.060 9- 55.070 9- 55.080 9- 55.090 9- 55.100 9- 55.110 9- 55.120 9- 55.130 Motor Vehicles and Traffic ARTICLE 9-55 ABANDONED, WRECKED, DISMANTLED OR INOPERATIVE VEHICLES Findings and determinations Exemptions Application of other laws Enforcement of Article Right of entry of certain persons Administrative costs Abatement and removal; authority Notices of intention Request for hearing; notice Action by City Council Removal Notice of removal Assessment of costs s s s* S9- 55.010 Findings and determinations ^7:446:ke,>:AZ:.�ii�_3£7� _i�: .:.:,uiyvui;,;��• S9- 55.010 In addition to and in accordance with the determination made and the authority granted by the State pursuant to Section 22660 of the Vehicle Code to remove abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles, or parts thereof, as public nuisances, the City Council hereby makes the following findings and declarations: the accumulation and storage of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles, or parts thereof, on private or public property is hereby found to create a condition tending to reduce the value of private property, to promote blight and deterioration, to invite plundering, to create fire hazards, to constitute an attractive nuisance creating a hazard to the health and safety of minors, to create a harborage for rodents and insects, and to be injurious to the health, safety, and general welfare. Therefore, the presence of an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicle, or parts thereof, on private or public property, except as expressly permitted by the provisions of this Article, is hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance which may be abated as such in accordance with the provisions of this Article. S9- 55.020 Exemptions (a) The provisions of this Article shall not apply to: (1) A vehicle, or parts thereof, which is completely enclosed within a building in a lawful manner where the vehicle is not visible from the street or other public or private property; or (2) A vehicle, or parts thereof, which is stored or parked in a lawful Page 9 -47 S9-55.040 Enforcement of Article 59- 55.050 Right of entry of certain persons 59- 55.060 Administrative costs Page 9 -48 Motor Vehicles and Traffic §9- 55.030 manner on private property in connection with the business of a licensed dismantler, licensed vehicle dealer, or junk dealer or when such storage or parking is necessary to the operation of a lawfully conducted business or commercial enterprise. (b) The provisions of this Section shall not authorize the maintenance of a public or private nuisance as defined under provisions of law other than Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650) of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code and this Article. 59 -55.030 Application of other laws The provisions of this Article shall not be the exclusive regulation of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles within the City. The provisions of this Article shall supplement and be in addition to any other regulatory codes, statutes, and laws heretofore or hereafter enacted by the City, the State or any other legal entity or agency having jurisdiction. Except as otherwise provided in this Article, it shall be the duty of all policemen and Com munity Service Officers appointed for such purpose, all deputies of the County Sheriff performing police services in the City, the City Manager, the Planning Director and the Maintenance Director to enforce the provisions of this Article. All persons having authority to enforce this Article, as described in Section 9- 55.040, and the authorized representatives of such persons, and any person acting pursuant to a contract or franchise granted by the City Council, may enter upon private or public property to examine a vehicle, or parts thereof, or to obtain information as to the identity of a vehicle owner and to cause the removal of a vehicle, or parts thereof, declared to be a nuisance pursuant to this Article. The City Council shall from time to time establish by resolution an amount to be assessed as administrative costs, excluding the actual cost of the removal of any vehicle, or parts thereof, for the purposes of administering the provisions of this Article. 59- 55.070 Abatement and removal; authority Upon discovering the existence of an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicle, or parts thereof, on private or public property within the City, any person having authority to enforce this Article may cause the abatement and removal thereof in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Article. 0 0114 00116 0 00131 COMPLAIN 0/02/90 10/08/90 00050 10/16/90 0063,10/17/90 010 10/29/90 010.1",10/30/90 --4 10/30/90 10/31/90 10/31/90 10/31/90 11/02/90 11/07/90 11/07/90 00139)11/08/90 1 00 S 11/16/90 401761 1/16/90 er 12/05/90 12/05/90 2/05/90 COMPLAINT RECORDS Record 9 on Line 1 SOURCE Melin Melin Melin Iida Melin Reeve Reeve Iida Melin Melin Iida Reeve Melin Melin Melin Reeve Melin Reeve Melin Melin F4 LP ESCEXIT F2SAVE S COMPLAINT RECORDS Record 216 on Line 21 COMPLAIN SOURCE 12/13/90 Melin 12/13/90 Melin 12/13/90 Melin 12/18/90 Melin 0 12/19/90 Melin •4019244 12/19/90 Melin 01/09/91 Melin 01/21/91 Melin 002: 01/23/91 Melin "041494 Melin 00298 02/07/91 Melin 00300 02/07/91 Melin 00305 02/07/91 Melin 0309 Melin 031202/14/91 Reeve 00 02/12/91 Reeve 02/14/91 Melin 00339 02/25/91 Spoulos 00367 03/06/91. Reeve 03/14/91 Melin F4CMDH LP ESCEX =T F2SAVE SI COMPLAINT RECORDS Record 372 on Line 41 COMPL COMPLAIN 00372_03/14/91 X 0373 '3/13/91 00 03/18/91 00379 03/18/91 00380 03/18/91 00386 03/22/91 004.03,03/28/91 SOURCE Melin Melin Melin Spoulos Reeve Melin Melin F4 '.i LP ESCEXIT F2SAVE Sh COMPLAINT RECORDS Record 470 on Line 61 00527 0 R 0542 04/03/91 04/03/91 04/10/91 04/10/91 04/10/91 4/16/91 04/25/91 04/25/91 04/25/91 04/29/91 5/08/91 5/08/91 COMPLAIN 5/13/91 5/22/91 5/22/91 05/22/91 05/31/91 05/31/91 6/03/91 6/05/91 06/05/91 06/10/91 06/14/91 06/28/91 06/28/91 06/28/91 7/01/91 07/02/91 07/03/91 7/11/91 7/11/91 07/15/91 Reeve Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin SOURCE Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin D'Ambrosia Emslie Iida Melin Spoulos Spoulos Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin Myers F4CMDHELP ESCEX =T F2SAVE S COMPLAINT RECORDS Record 661 on Line 81 COMPL COMPLAIN SOURCE 07/16/91 Melin 07/25/91 Melin 07/31/91 Melin 08/05/91 Melin 8/09/91 Chandler 08/14/91 Spoulos 08/21/91 Melin 0728► 08/21/91 Melin 08/21/91 Melin 08/22/91 Melin 08/22/91 Melin 8123/91 Melin 08/28/91 Melin 08/28/91 Melin 8/28/91 Melin 9/06/91 Melin 9/19/91 Melin 10/07/91 Melin 10/07/91 Melin 10/08/91 King /Emsli LP ESCEX :T F2SAVE Sh COMPLAINT RECORDS Record 847 on Line 101 COMPLAIN 0/08/91 10/08/91 10/11/91 0/16/91 0/16/91 0/22/91 0/28/91 11/13/91 11/13/91 11/14/91 12/06/91 12/19/91 01/13/92 01/13/92 01/24/92 1/24/92 1/24/92 02/04/92 2/04/92 2/04/92 LP ESCEX SOURCE Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin Melin Iida Reeve Melin Melin Spoulo Reeve Melin Reeve Melin Melin Melin Peacoc Reeve T F2SA TOTAL- 62 complaints for storage of RV's, cars, trailers, boats, etc. between the period of 10/1/90 2/5/92.