HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-1991 City Council Agenda packetSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 'r AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 4, 1991 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
Impacts: None
Motion and Vote:
bl�
Recommended Motion: Authorize Mayor to sign Agreements.
Attachments:
1. Memo from City Attorney
2. Correspondence from Mid Peninsula Housing and Citibank
3. Subordination agreements with Citibank
SUBJECT: Subordination Agreements for CDBG Loan to Mid Peninsula
Housing Coalition, Buildings #751 and #975
Report Summary:
Saratoga loaned $100,000 of CDBG funds to Mid Peninsula Housing
Coalition for the rehabilitation of two fourplex units in the City
of Campbell in 1989. Now Mid Peninsula is refinancing their
current first mortgage on the properties and the new lender,
Citibank, requires subordination agreements for buildings #751 and
#975 from the City of Saratoga. The subordination agreements do
not change the City's status with respect to repayment of the loan.
The rehab loan is currently subordinate to the first mortgage on
the properties.
The agreements have been reviewed by the City Attorney. (Memo
attached.) Citibank has agreed to deletion of language in the
agreement which is not in accordance with HUD regulations.
MIC AE_H NAVE
5TEVEr4 R rAEYERS
E.vET
EL'LAEETH H S,L'V(
MICHAEL S RrB.A_K
".ILLLY T TAM:
\1IChAEL F R;;•(ir�! VEC
K A'hLEEN Fa ..i 3i(j1:
PREGERICK S. ET-I_FIIIDGE
:•'E. A. ?iiFiFRic
IJAVlD lV. SKINNER
OF COoNSEL
ANDREA S4LTZMAN
L' 'IC =MIL ('IF.b'C C I HL
MEYERS, NAVE. RIBACR WEST
A PQOFESS LAW CORD ^Fa'',ON
A' Fv!AY PLAZA
77 DAV'S STRFE`, SUITE 300
SAN, LEANDRO CALIFORNIA 94577
(4151 351 -4304
FAX,: (415) 351 -448i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Carolyn King
Assistant to City Manager
QUESTION:
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
RE: Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition Subordination
Agreement
CONCLIBIONi
!LL NO: 415. 351 -4481 #C59 F'02
PENINSULA QFFICE
1 8;:i,iCWARI) AVc. SUITE 250
9inLiP4 ,AlIF, A 94510.4; I
1415( 348./134
FAr.l4lh1 3.12•CE88
MARIN OFFICE
z.: ':.;RAN AJ: St: E
NovATC, (7A 94945
R E P LY Y O
San Leandro
DATE: August 27, 1991
You have asked for my opinion regarding what effect if any
the City's execution of a subordination agreement relating to
property at 751 and 975 Sharmon Palms Lane would have upon the
City's outstanding balance of $100,000 ($50,000 loaned to each
property) loaned to Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition for
rehabilitation of the subject properties.
The execution of the subordination agreements relating to
the subject properties, allowing Mid Peninsula Coalition to
refinance its outstanding loan on the subject properties, will
place the City's deed of trust in a junior or second position
behind the deed of trust for the refinanced loan amount.
However, this will not have a detrimental effect upon the City's
deed of trust since it is already in a secondary position and the
new loan is a refinancing of existing debt.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
In 1989 the City of Saratoga loaned $100,000 of its
Community Development Block Grant funds to Mid Peninsula Housing
Coalition "MPHC for the purpose of rehabilitating properties
at 751 and 975 Sharmon Palms Lane, for their subsequent use as
affordable housing rental units. At that time, MPHC executed its
deed of trust covering the two properties and securing notes in
TO: Carolyn King, Assistant to City Manager
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
RE: Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition Subordination
Agreement
DATE: August 27, 1991
PAGE: 2
the principal sums of $50,000 for each property. These deeds of
trust are currently in a junior position to the deed of trust for
the loan taken out by MPHC to acquire the property.
MPHC now wishes to refinance the current first mortgage in
order to take advantage of a loan available from Citibank through
the Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program at an
extremely favorable interest rate. The City has been requested
to execute a subordination agreement which is necessary for MPHC
to obtain its new loan.
I have spoken with representatives of Citibank who indicate
that the loan to MPHC is simply for the purpose of refinancing
the existing debt. MPHC is not seeking a loan in an amount in
excess of its existing debt. The purpose for obtaining the new
loan is to take advantage of the reduced interest rate which will
also reduce MPHC's payments on the loan and, according to
Citibank, help make the project more financially viable for MPHC.
The subordination agreement itself does place the City in a
junior position with respect to the principal loan from Citibank;
however, that does not alter the City's current position.
I did discuss with a Citibank representative the language in
the subordination agreement which appears to allow the borrower
to use the borrowed funds for any purpose whatsoever, whether or
not related to the subject property. Citibank has agreed to the
deletion of this language (contained in the "Notice" set forth at
the end of the subordination agreement, just above the signatUre
lines). The language may be deleted by line out with the
initials of the signators.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
MSR:dsp
mnrw 273 \memo \mid- pen.msr
7
Michael S. Riback
City Attorney
August 19, 1991
Ms. Carolyn King
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Reference:
Dear Ms. King,
Sincerely,
---CiM Cd /4/1/1/14)4--------
Daniel Krimmer
Construction Manager
MID PENINSULA HOUSING COALITION
430 Sherman Avenue
Suite 203
Palo Alto, California 94306
Telephone (415) 688 -8300
\O-DS \PVS
b AIG20 VP\
CVO O G ERA
L4 9 pVT� C�
��1 �„�NA
Sharmon Palms Refinance
I have enclosed`subordination agreements from CITIBANK for
buildings 751 and 975. We are refinancing the current first
mortgage with Wells Fargo Bank with a 7.6% loan which is
available from CITIBANK through the Federal Home Loan Bank
Affordable Housing Program.
Please call me at (415) 688 -8300 if you have any questions.
Otherwise, please have the enclosed documents signed and
returned to our office. We will then sign the subordination
agreements and send them to First American Title Company in
San Jose.
Real:
Estate
Investor
Services
Dear Dan:
Citibank, F.S.B. 415/627 -6200
One Sansome Street Fax
San Francisco, CA 415/362 -8823
94104
Mr. Dan Krimmer
Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition
430 Sherman Avenue, Suite 203
Palo Alto, CA 94306
cc: M. Freedland
August 13, 1991
Mid Peninsula Sharmon Palms
As we discussed early this week, I am enclosing Subordination Agreements to
cover the loans from the City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency, the City of
Saratoga and the County of Santa Clara, respectively.
I also have revised the Subordination Agreements I sent to you earlier since
the borrowing entity's corporate designation was incomplete. Rather than
MID PENINSULA SHARMON PALMS CORPORATION, a California nonprofit public
corporation, it now reads "a California nonprofit public benefit corporation"
which matches the vesting on the preliminary title reports.
Also, the Subordination Agreements are grouped by property address and escrow
number (as shown on the face of each document) to enable the title company to
appropriately record the documents at closing.
Please note that the City of Campbell Redevelopment Agency Subordination
Agreements also include a subordination of the agreement incorporating each
parcel under the Regulatory Agreement. This was also done for the state
loans, so there shouldn't be any problem with the City of Campbell.
If you should have any questions, please call me at (415) 627 -6015.
Ver y? truly yours,
John M. Becket
Loan Administrator
CITIBAN(O®
Reams
Estate
Investor
Services
Citibank, F.S.B. 415/627 -6200
One Sansome Street Fax
San Francisco, CA 415/362 8823
94104
August 1, 1991
Fran Wagstaff
Executive Director
Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition
430 Sherman Avenue, Suite 203
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dear Ms. Wagstaff:
This will confirm that Citibank is prepared to make funds available to the Mid- Peninsula
Sharmon Palms Corporation substantially according to the terms and conditions outlined
below:
Borrower: Mid Peninsula Sharmon Palms Corporation
Lender: Citibank Federal Savings Bank
Amount: $1,424,000
Purpose: Term financing for seven fourplex apartment buildings located at 739,751,
775, 949, 964, 975 and 989 Sharmon Palms, Campbell, California.
Interest Rate: First 10 years The interest rate for the first ten years shall be 7.60 This
interest rate is made possible by a Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable
Housing Program .Subsidy in the amount of $251,092
Years 11 -20 Commencing on the tenth anniversary of the first day of the
month immediately following closing (the "Initial Readjustment Date the
rate will equal 2.25% over the weekly average yield on the U.S. Treasury
Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years, as published in the
statistical release H.15 most recently available on such Initial Readjustment
Date. If the Federal Reserve has then stopped weekly publication of
statistical release H.15 or the 10 -year Treasury Constant Maturity Series,
the rate will equal 2.25% over the then current yield (regardless of original
coupon rate) on any U.S. Treasury Security chosen by Citibank FSB for
which yield quotes are publicly available, such security to have a remaining
term of maturity regardless of its original issuance date) of ten years or as
close to ten years as is available from the source from which Citibank FSB
is obtaining such quote.
CITIBAN(O®
f
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITIBANK, Federal Savings Bank
Real Estate Investor Services
One Sansome Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Attn: John Becket
Loan No. 9530691
Property: 975 Sharmon Palms Lane
Escrow No.: 505357
REIS 060 (Rev. 3/91)
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT
MIICE: TBIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT RESULTS IN YOUR SECURITY INTEREST IN
THE PROPERTY BECOMING SUBJECT TO AND OF LOWER PRIORITY THAN THE LIEN OF SOME
OTHER OR LATER SECURITY INSTRUMENTS.
THIS AGREEMENT is made this 5th day of August, 1991, by MID- PENINSULA
SHARMON PALMS CORPORATION, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation,
owner of the land hereinafter described and hereinafter referred to as
'Owner)' and THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation, present owner and
holder of the deed of trust and note first hereinafter described and
hereinafter referred to as "Beneficiary."
WITNESSETH
THAT WHEREAS, Owner did execute a deed of trust to TITLE INSURANCE AND
TRUST COMPANY, a California corporation, as trustee, covering the property
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference (which property, together with all improvements now or in the
future located on the property, is referred to as the "Property") to secure a
note in the principal sum of $50,000.00, in favor of Beneficiary, which deed
of trust was recorded on November 13, 1989, as Instrument No. 10324179, in
the Official Records of the County of Santa Clara, State of California; and
WHEREAS, Owner has executed or is about to execute a deed of trust, and
note in the sum of $1,424,000.00, dated August 5, 1991 in favor of CITIBANK,
Federal Savings Bank, hereinafter referred to as "Lender,' payable with
interest and upon the terms and conditions described therein, which deed of
trust is to be recorded concurrently herewith; and
WHEREAS, it is a condition precedent to obtaining said loan from Lender
that said deed of trust last above mentioned shall unconditionally be and
remain at all times a lien or charge upon the land hereinbefore described,
prior and superior to the lien or charge of the deed of trust first above
mentioned; and
WHEREAS, Lender is willing to make said loan provided the deed of trust
securing the same is a lien or charge upon the above described property prior
and superior to the lien or charge of the deed of trust first above mentioned
and provided that Beneficiary will specifically and unconditionally
subordinate the lien or charge of the deed of trust first above mentioned to
the lien or charge of the deed of trust in favor of Lender; and
WHEREAS, it is to the mutual benefit of the parties hereto that Lender
make such loan to Owner, and Beneficiary is willing that the deed of trust
securing the same shall, when recorded, constitute a lien or charge upon said
land which is unconditionally prior and superior to the lien or charge of the
deed of trust first above mentioned.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing to the
parties hereto and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, and in order to induce Lender
to make the loan above referred to, it is hereby declared, understood and
agreed as follows:
-1-
Its:
(1) That said Deed of Trust securing said Note in favor of Lender, and
any renewals or extensions thereof, shall unconditionally be and
remain at all times a lien or charge on the property therein
described, prior and superior to the lien or charge of the deed of
trust first above mentioned.
(2) That Lender would not make its loan above described without this
subordination agreement.
(3) That this agreement shall be the whole and only agreement with
regard to the subordination of the lien or charge of the deed of
trust first above mentioned to the lien or charge of the deed of
trust in favor of Lender above referred to and shall supersede and
cancel, but only insofar as would effect the priority between the
deeds of trust hereinbefore specifically described, any prior
agreement as to such subordination including, but not limited to,
those provisions, if any, contained in the deed of trust first
above mentioned, which provide for the subordination of the lien or
charge thereof to another deed or deeds of trust or to another
mortgage or mortgages.
Beneficiary declares, agrees and acknowledges that:
(a) He consents to and approves (i) all provisions of the Note and deed
of trust in favor of Lender above referred to, and (ii) all
agreements, including but not limited to any loan or escrow
agreements, between Owner and Lender for the disbursement of the
proceeds of Lender's loan;
(b) Lender in making disbursements pursuant to any such agreement is
under no obligation or duty to, nor has Lender represented that it
will, see to the application of such proceeds by the person or
persons to whom Lender disburses such proceeds and any application
or use of such proceeds for purposes other than those provided for
in such agreement or agreements shall not defeat the subordination
herein made in whole or in part;
(c) He intentionally and unconditionally waives, relinquishes and
subordinates the lien or charge of the deed of trust first above
mentioned in favor of the lien or charge upon said land of the deed
of trust in favor of Lender above referred to and understands that
in reliance upon, and in consideration of, this waiver,
relinquishment and subordination, specific loans and advances are
being and will be made and, as part and parcel thereof, specific
monetary and other obligations are being and will be entered into
which would not be made or entered into but for said reliance upon
this waiver, relinquishment and subordination; and
(d) An endorsement has been placed upon the Note secured by the deed of
trust first above mentioned that said deed of trust has by this
instrument been subordinated to the lien or charge of the deed of
trust in favor of Lender above referred to.
OP THE WLD
""BENEFICIARY":
THE CITY OF SARATOGA,
a municipal corporation
By:
REIS 060 (Rev. 3/91)
"OWNER"":
MID PENINSULA SHARMON PALMS
CORPORATION, a California nonprofit
public benefit corporation
By:
Fran Wagstaff, Exec. Director
(ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED)
-2-
EXHIBIT A
(Description of Property)
Exhibit A to Subordination Agreement executed by MID PENINSULA SHARRON
PALMS CORPORATION, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, as
"Owner" and THE CITY OF SARATOGA, a mIrrvicirual corporation, as "Beneficiary,'
dated as of August 5, 1991.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REAL property situated In the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, described as follows:
PARCEL ONE:
All of Lot 37 as shown upon that certain Map entitled, "Tract No. 2697", which
Map was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa
Clara, State of California on April 6, 1960 in Book 118 of Maps, page 48.
Excepting therefrom the underground water, with no rights of surface entry,
as conveyed to the San Jose Water Works, a California corporation, by Deed
recorded May 25, 1960 in Book 4805, page 388 of Official Records.
PARCEL TWO:
A non exclusive easement for ingress and egress over the Westerly 10 feet of
Lots 27 through 36, inclusive of Tract No. 2697.
APN: 404 -32 -011
ARB: 405 -43 -37
June 4, 1991
(F 505357 505357.A)
REIS 060 (Rev. 3/91)
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 207/ AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE: September 4, 1991 CITY MANAGER:
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: BEAUCHAMPS PARK DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS
Recommended Action:
1) Approve preliminary design as prepared by the firm of Wallace, Roberts
Todd and request that consultant proceed with the working plans and
specifications.
2) Approve an additional $118,000 in addition to the $142,000 already
allocated for completion of the Park.
Summary:
The attached minutes from the Parks Recreation Commission Meeting reflect
the Commission's decision to recommend that the draft Plan, showing one
tennis court, a paved half court, walkways, playground equipment, turf, and
a landscaped screen and street border be approved and that the budget for
Beauchamps Park be increased so that complete improvements can be made at
this time. The current budget for Beauchamps is $120,000 for improvements
plus $20,000 for design. The Preliminary Cost Estimate (attached) for the
recommended Plan is $235,200. The budget should be increased to $260,000 to
cover the cost of the complete project, including design.
Fiscal Impact:
An additional $118,000 is needed to complete the Beauchamps Park project.
Attachments:
1) Report to Council.
Motion and Vote:
c G° A 3f�
To
CITY COUNCIL Date August 15, 1991
From SECRETARY TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Subject BEAUCHAMPS PARK
The Parks and Recreation Commission has, over the past several
months, been working with the Landscape Architectural firm of
Wallace, Roberts, and Todd on the City -wide Parks Master Plan. A
major element of that Plan was the consideration of improvements
for Beauchamps Park. During the Master Plan process the Commission
and Consultant had two workshop meetings with the residents of the
Beauchamps subdivision. These meetings were noticed with
individual mailings and were attended by as many as 30 residents.
Additionally, a Public Hearing, noticed in the paper, was conducted
by the Commission. As the master planning process was concluding,
the City again contracted with W R T; this time, for preparation
of the working plans necessary for the construction of the Park.
In developing the improvement design the consultant and staff met
with the residents twice. The latter meeting was at a formally
noticed Public Hearing before the Commission.
Although there have been several items for which obtaining complete
agreement as to what should be included was impossible, we believe
the plan, as it now stands, represents the consensus of the
neighbors and the Commission. The plan however represents a
Capital expenditure of approximately twice the amount that is
included in the current budget.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The attached minutes from the Park and Recreation Meeting reflect
the Commission's decision to recommend that the draft Plan, showing
one tennis court, a paved half court, walkways, play ground
equipment, turf, and a landscaped screen and street border be
approved and that the budget for Beauchamps Park be increased so
that complete improvements can be made at this time. The current
budget for Beauchamps is $120,000 for improvements plus $22,000 for
design. The Preliminary Cost Estimate (attached) for the
recommended Plan is $235,200. The budget should be increased to
$260,000 to cover the cost of the complete project, including
design.
BACKGROUND
The land for Beauchamps Park, about 2.2 Acres, was dedicated to the
City by Dividend Development as a condition of map approval. While
the Commission's intent was not to make immediate improvements,
once the lots were sold and occupied, the residents made strong
requests to have the park completed as soon as possible. The City
Council was responsive to the neighbors and included $142,000 in
the Capital Improvement Budget. This budget estimate was based on
an assumed cost of approximately $50,000 per acre to develop. The
estimated cost per acre was based on a large turf area with little
or no hard surface or shrubbery.
During all of the meetings with the residents of the surrounding
subdivision, their strong desire for tennis courts was made clear.
It was felt that the turf area should be reduced because of its
high watering requirements. The consultant recommended a wide
screen planting along the bordering neighbors and a wide strip of
ground cover along the street frontages. They also felt that a
half court of asphaltic concrete and a pathway through the park
were essential features. Staff felt the park should have security
lighting, a drinking fountain, and a bicycle rack. The Commission
wanted a climbing play structure and an area which would enhance
children's creativity and sharing. The area is to be shaded and
have the availability of water to mix with sand.
During the various meetings, discussion as to cost and compromise
lead to the following key priority decisions as to the final
design.
1. Provide turf area to get rid of the present "ugly" field.
2. Provide one (1) tennis court.
3. Complete other improvements (least important is the half
court).
4. Provide second tennis court.
IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The draft plans (attached) for the complete park call for the
following: about 40,000 sq. ft. of turf, a wide screen planting of
trees along the westerly boundary, a wide strip of groundcover
along the perimeter streets, an "asphalt" paved walkway running
along the entire width, a "decomposed granite" picnic area with
three (3) picnic tables, a "concrete" curbed sand play area with
play equipment, an asphalt 1/2 court area, a fenced tennis court,
four (4) benches, a bicycle rack, a water fountain, and security
lights along the pathway.
IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE I No Budget Increase
The funds currently allocated ($142,000) will provide for the one
tennis court, the turf area and the asphalt pathway through the
park. The other areas of the park could be turfed temporarily.
Phasing of the rest of the improvements could be done as money
becomes available.
While staying within the current budget, phasing will increase the
long term cost of the completed park. Having a 70,000+ sq. ft.
turf area will increase water usage.
IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE II Increase Budget
The estimated cost to build the complete park, as proposed, is
$260,000 including design services.(See attached "Preliminary Cost
Estimate By eliminating various elements such as the 1/2 court,
tennis court, etc., varying costs can be developed. The cost of
adding an additional tennis court is estimated to be about $20,000.
FUNDING ALTERNATIVE
The current appropriation for this park is coming from the Park
Development Fund and the Roberti'Zberg Fund. The estimated
combined balance of these funds after the $142,000 appropriation
for Beauchamps Park is $344,111 growing to $389,236 at the end of
F.Y. 1993. With the recent increase in the Park Development Fees,
we now anticipate the fund will exceed $420,000 at that time.
FUNDING ALTERNATIVE I City to Fund
There are several sources of funds the City could use for the
additional $118,000 needed to complete the park at this time. All
might require the delay or down scaling of future projects.
1. General Fund Many future projects as well as much is
general City operations are proposed to be funded by this
fund.
2. Park Development Fund The Parks Master Plan indicates
that Azule Park is scheduled for F.Y. 1994 at a total
cost of $365,700. Even with the increased fees, this
Fund will be unable to support the completion of both
parks.
3. Roberti'Zberg Fund This State funding program has
provided approximately $15,000 per year to the City for
many years. However, since it is funded by the State on
an Annual basis, there can be no reliance on it in the
future.
4. State Park Bonds Money for Park Acquisition and
Improvement is provided by State bond election on a
fairly regular basis. Although the bond measure failed
at the last election Parks Bonds have an excellent record
for passing and therefore some reliance of future
measures providing some funding to the City is
anticipated.
FUNDING ALTERNATIVE II Neighborhood to Fund
1. Assessment District Several methods of assessing the
residents of the Beauchamps Subdivision are provided by
statute. An annual assessment of $30 on the 40+ lots for
15 years would raise the necessary $118,000.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Parks and Recreation Commission, after hearing testimony from
the neighborhood, the consultant, and staff, determined that, with
minor modifications, the design presented at the meeting of July
1,1991 met its and the neighbors desires. Although not providing
everything for everybody the plan had a very strong consensus
support. A portion of that support was tied to the timing and the
quick completion of the full improvements.
Although the Commission did not recommendation the method of
funding the additional $118,000, it is staff's recommendation that
it comes from the Park Development Fee (as increased) and that any
shortage in future park development funding be met through the use
of future State Park Bonds. This may cause a minor delay in the
completion of some future project.
Native Trees: Oaks, Alder Bay Native Grasses and Wildflowers Drinking Fountain
Bike Rack Bench 10' Path Light
Flowering Accent Trees. Open.Turf Play:Area Tennis .Court
Playground. Picnic Area Trash Receptacle
BeauCharnes Lane
0
WRT
911887 NO
lalE22.TL99C:
9 10 29 30 19
Nbilace Roberts lbdd
tall Soak 711111mr
/*Fazio:0.0411N
H51100131
•L••■•••■■•■■■•• Illem
BEAUCHAMPS PARK
Saratoga, California
_PRELIMINARY PLAN
WRT
BEAUCHAMPS PARK PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Plans Dated July 22, 1991
Item
Area /Unit Unit Cost Total
Rough Grading 10,000
Site Drainage 7,500
Site Electrical 2,500
A.C. Paving 4,200 sf 2.00 8,400
D.G. Paving 1,150 sf 1.50 1,725
Sand 3,350 sf .75 2,500
Concrete Curb 200 If 15.00 3,000
Curb Cuts 2 ea 750.00 1,500
Wood Header 2,100 If 2.75 5,775
1/2 Court 9,000
Tennis Court 35,000
Play Equipment 25,000
6' Bench 4 ea 600.00 2,400
Picnic Table 3 ea 1,500.00 4,500
Bicycle Rack 1,200
Trash Receptacle 3 ea 250.00 750
Water Fountain 3,000
Security Lights 3 ea 1,600.00 4,800
Trees 26 ea 250.00 6,500
Native Grasses 19,000 sf .85 16,150
Groundcover 28,700 sf .85 24,395
Seeded Lawn 40,280 sf .85 34,238
60 Day Maintenance 4,000
Subtotal 213,833
10% Contingency 21,367
TOTAL $235,200
4 C_MM I 0
13777 FIZUITVrA_E AVENUE,' SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
(408) 867-34 UTES
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SARATOGA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
TIME: MONDAY, July 22, 1991 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: SARATOGA COMMUNITY CENTER
19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chairman Ward called the meeting to order at 71:30pm.
':,;ui°rt na reCyCfW paper
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Francis Stutzman
I. ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL Present: Crotty, Franklin, Gilman, Miller, Pierce
Swan, Ward
Staff: Trinidad
B. MINUTES Approval of Minutes 7/1/91. Minutes were
approved with following changes:
P. 2 Commissioner Pierce's comment that the creeks
belong to everyone should be changed .to !'the
creeks should belong to everyone."
P. 3 V. Change Kevin Moran Park to Gardiner Park.
C. POSTING OF THE AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting
was properly posted on July 17, 1991.
II• OLD BUSINESS
This meeting was dedicated to the presentation and approval.of the
final draft proposal of the Beauchamps Park plans. The presentation
was made by the firm of Wallace, Roberts Todd by their
representatives Steve Wheeler and Kathryn Ramsden. There were ten
residents in attendance.
Secretary Trinidad gave a brief background on previous meetings. for
the benefit of the residents. He stated that while it appeared that
the neighborhood would like to have two tennis courts and paved off-
street parking, it is staff's recommendation that only a single
tennis court be built with no off street parking, because of the
cost, limited space, and because the Master Plan states, that one of
the distinctive features of a neighborhood park versus a community_
park is one that has no off street parking.
Parks Recreation Meeting of July 22, 1991
Page 2
It was further pointed out that the current capital improvement
fund provides $120,000 for Beauchamps Park improvements, while the
plan being proposed tonight, which includes one tennis court,' is
estimated to cost $235,000.
Steve Wheeler then made a complete presenta.ti ?n of all the various
features being proposed. Of major interest is a heavily planted
buffer area separating the park from the
a small group picnic area, an area with properties
limpbin i g play y s ctur
for young children, a paved half -court which can be used for es
skating, remote control cars, ball bouncing, etc., a tennis court,
a large turf area and a sloped area planted with ground cover which
runs along the exterior perimeter. The park will also have a
bicycle rack, benches, water fountain and three 10' high security
lights.
Commissioner Franklin questioned whether the low ground cover
would encourage bike riding on the sloped bank and onto the street.
Steve Wheeler stated that their concern was that taller plantings
along the slope could interefere with the site distance along
Beauchamps and would not necessarily stop any traversing. It was
felt that bike riding would not be a problem, but if it was, it
could be remedied upon identification.
Commissioner Crotty expressed her pleasure on the type at El Quito Park and is hoping that this t o will be
considered for Beauchamps. She also stated that a solid, well-
draining surface should be provided under the drinking fountain.
Residents, who were not identified individually, felt as
follows:
They were generally very pleased with the desi n of the
and wished to be assured it was a small 9 park
for multiple family use as opposed Picnic area planned
sed
site distance along Beauchamps to large group use, that the
Beauchamps, and vehicular speed should be addressed s along
Secretary Trinidad responded that the Plan would be taken before
the City Engineer to evaluate all traffic concerns.
Parks Recreation Commission Meeting of 7/22/91 Page .3
It was the consensus of the residents in attendance that an
additional tennis court should be a higher priority than the
paved half- court. It was stated that while the lots in Beauchamps
are large enough to provide their own paved basketball area, they
are not large enough for tennis courts. Secretary Trinidad pointed
-out. that tennis courts have a rather narrow users group and that
the paved half -court would provide a recreapion area for young
children, teenagers and adults alike.
The neighborhood's priorities were decided to be as follows:
Landscaping and coverage of the unsightly, unimproved land,
play equipment, picnic area, one tennis court, second tennis
court, and then paved half- court.
After general discussion between the Commissioners and the
audience, it was determined that since the estimate for the
proposed design far exceeds the current capital improvement'
amount budgeted, that the proposed plan represents the best
opportunity for acceptance by the Parks Recreation Commission,
the residents and the City Council. At this point, the public
hearing was closed and the Commissioners offered their input.
M. Swan generally supported the proposed design; however,
felt that the children's play. yard is lacking in that the
children need the opportunity to play together and that the'play
equipment should help in filling that need and also develop their
creativity. She does not like the "pipeline" play'structures and
further is concerned with the overall cost of Beauchamps..
D. Miller stated the need for a sandbox. Also does not like the
"pipeline" equipment. She feels that if additional funding is not
possible, the tennis courts should be deferred until later.
M. Pierce likes the Plan.. Does not want to see anything deferred
and feels the Commission and neighbors should push to get it now.
F. Franklin likes the current Plan and feels we should do it now.
Is sorry there is so much neighborhood contention about the
additional tennis court.
J. Crotty likes the current. Plan and feels it should be completed
now, but feels we should prioritize as discussed during public
hearing. She likes the "pipeline" equipment but is willing to
accept other equipment, also.
mt
Parks Recreation Commission Meeting of 7/22/91
Page .44
A. Gilman would like to see the whole parkcompleted now. Likes
the equipment installed at Brookglen Park but is willing to accept
other equipment, also.
Chairman Ward agreed with and supported the comments made by
other Commissioners and further stated that he, too, supports
completing the whole park as designed now.
It was moved that the Plan be approved with the single tennis
court. 6/1.
Opposing vote was cast by M. Swan who felt more input was needed
for children's play equipment.
It was then decided that prior to final determination of
play
equipment, staff and the consultant should consider utilizing
equipment which would better meet the creativity criteria discussed
by Commissioners Swan and Miller.
VI. Adjournment 9:15.
1
SUBJECT: Written Communication from Dr. Edward Levin,
13481 Pierce Rd., requesting completion of
Improvements associated with SD 88 -006 (Saviano)
Recommended Action:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. T- 4 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 4, 1991 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
Direct staff to complete the improvements associated with SD 88 -006
and to reply to Dr. Levin.
Report Summary:
The attached letter from Dr. Levin requests that the City complete
the installation of the wood retaining wall which was originally
required of the developer of SD 88 -006. As you may recall, the
property owner along Pierce Rd. to the north of Dr. Levin, Mr.
Kenneth Schoniger, objected to the installation of the wall and
persuaded the Council to delete the requirement for its
installation.
Because construction of the wall had already begun before the
Council made its decision, the portion of the Pierce Rd. embankment
along Dr. Levin's property was already cut into and remains exposed
and unprotected. Except for certain remedial measures such as
placing erosion control matting on the exposed portions of the
embankment and planting a ground covering, there is little that can
be done to protect the embankment and correct the problems
particularly where the cut into the embankment is vertical.
It has been staff's opinion all along and still is staff's opinion
that the wood retaining wall should be installed. The original
intent of the wall was to protect the road against the very problem
which is now occurring and also, to allow for an incremental
widening of the edge of the road along one of its narrowest
locations. If the Council agrees, the cost to install the wall at
this time would be approximately $6500.
Fiscal Impacts:
Depends on Council's decision. $1000 for erosion control up to
$6500 for installation of the wall.
Attachments:
1. Letter from Dr. Levin dated August 14.
2. Portion of improvement plan for SD 88 -006.
Lotion Vote:
I aa ,,,,,t o
AUGUST 14, 1991
Mayor Willem K o h l e r
City of Saratoga
About five months ago the road was widened and my property was cut
into, exposing not only tree roots but the water lines to my home.
Post holes were made but then all work was stopped and has never been
resumed. I spoke to Dr. Stutzrnan, who was Mayor at that time and he
said the city had changed its plans and there was nothing he could do.
However, the city would do something else to prevent soil erosion and
slides and also cover the exposed water lines.
Needless to say, nothing yet has been done. Once the rains begin,
we're going to have a mess, and a serious safety problem. Also, those
exposed water lines leave me extremely vulnerable to any mishap as
they can easily be broken by a falling rock.
I called Larry Perlin with these concerns and he felt the best
solution would be to complete the retaining wall and suggested I write
this letter.
On a totally separate issue is the metal retaining barrier already
completed on the opposite_side of the road. The bright silver color is
aesthetically out of place for a country road and I'd like to request
that it be painted brown, similar to those on Prospect near the old
Parker Ranch.
Sincerely yours,
ret
Edward N. Levin, M.D.
13481 Pierce Road
Saratoga
741 -5933
DECEMO
AUG 16 1991
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY A NAGER'S OFFICE
Dear Mayor Kohler,
I reside at 13481 Pierce Road, with my property beginning at Chalet
Clotilde and extending along Pierce Road for approximately 150 feet.
About one year ago I learned that the city was planning to cut into my
property in order to widen the road. Because my property next to the
road is very steep, I was concerned that this would result in soil
erosion resulting in slides and the loss of several large oak trees. I
went down to the City Offices and voiced my concerns to one of the
engi n eers, and I was that the tty was just as concerned and nut
to worry because a hand built retaining wall was to be constructed to
prevent these problems.
INSTL 2" PCP (MA)
AND 2. TL PLAsric.
rE.AAas Fr6 BONO
Loc. WI RI. PER C.P3 *Co
4
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 G AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 4, 1991 n CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
Fiscal Impacts:
Not known at this time.
,Attachments:
Bid Summary.
Motion Vote:
N/A. -o
SUBJECT: Civic Center Improvements Capital Project No. 956:
Summary of Bids
Recommended Action:
Receive as information.
Report Summary:
Sealed bid proposals for the Civic Center Improvements were opened
on Wednesday afternoon. A total of five contractors bid the
project. A summary of the bids is attached. Swenson and
Associates of Campbell submitted the lowest base bid of $1,268,350
which is 17.6% below the engineer's estimate of $1,520,205.
Because of the complex nature of the bidding on this project, staff
is unable to determine at this time whether the low bid submitted
is a responsible bid. Both staff and the low bidder have
additional work to do to make this determination. Additionally,
staff must determine which, if any, of the alternate bid items
should be included in the contract which is ultimately awarded.
At your meeting on Wednesday, staff will present you with a report
recommending whether Swenson and Associates should be declared the
lowest responsible bidder and if so, additional recommendations for
awarding a construction contract.
SUMMARY OF BIDS
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
L, n F E
Stu E JS (1
Item
Description
Unit Price
Total
Unit Price
Total
Unrt Price
Total
Unit Prloe
Total
8 t 11
I 5�.3
i ;?68
/1- 1
/6 '4(9
16 000
A 4
17
;2.4 .S v
s Ott)
7
,2
A 6
i7 D
l o /L
T
Project Name: C U it a ,U e kL
Project Na
CITY OF SARATOGA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY OF BIDS
Page:
By: Bid Date: 9/2 /7 l
SUMMARY OF BIM
ENONEER'S ESTIMATE
/4L% (.c i j A)
/lap G S G !l/
i PrI tJ 1L -`LS
4 1
Tote'
Item
No.
Awn
Quantity
Deaai
Unit Price
Total
Unit Price
Total
Unit Rice
Total
1 Unit Rice
g -;t 8,
1,
1 4 12 6 0c3
1 21 coo
it 1
IS' vt 0
C C.vn
11,
A Z
Id I 0 00
{l
1h
3
8 3 0
1/) 6OD
2d I mu/
4 W
ao
1X 60
ia
r mo o
A (o
,Q
17Q
7 87
Project Nam C 1 U i C. C r l-'T 4
Project No.
CITY OF SARATOGA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY OF BIDS
Pape:
BY. Bid Data S /2-d/ c
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. V* AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE Sept. 4, 1991 ITY MGR. APPROVAL 1 61 /li�u.14 ,14-
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering 4!
&pg
SUBJECT: Civic Center Improvements Capital Project No. 956:
Award of Construction Contract
Recommen4led Action:
1. Declare Swenson and Associates of Campbell to be the lowest
responsible bidder.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached contract
with Swenson and Associates for $1,289,560.
3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up
to $75,000.
Report Summary:
Since the bid opening last Wednesday, staff and the Project
Architect have analyzed the low bid submitted by Swenson Asso-
ciates of Campbell. Per the instructions in the bid documents,
Swenson and Associates submitted an itemized breakdown of their
bid both by bid item and by major elements of work before 3:00
p.m. last Thursday. These figures were compared to the project
estimate and found to be reasonably consistent. Additionally,
staff has checked six of the references listed by Swenson and
Associates for whom they recently completed similar projects. In
all cases, favorable comments were provided.
Fiscal Impacts:
The recommended contract award includes the Base Bid of
$1,268,350, Alternate Bid Item No. 2 (Fruitvale Ave. parking lot)
for $6,560, Alternate Bid Item No. 3 (north parking lot) for
$13,640 and Alternate Bid Item No. 6 (Misc. drywall in the Commu-
nity Center) for $1,010. The total contract award would be
$1,289,560. Sufficient funds exist in Capital Project No. 956,
Account No. 4510 to award the contract and to cover unanticipated
changes up to $75,000.
,Attachments:
1. Contract for Public Works Construction.
Motion k Vote:
o
CITY OF SARATOGA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION
CIVIC CENTER ADDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
THIS CONTRACT, made this 4th day of SPpi mhPr 1991 by and
between the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation, in Santa
Clara County, California, hereinafter called the City, and
Swenson and Associates
hereinafter called the Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,the City has caused to be prepared in the manner pre-
scribed by law, plans, specifications and other contract docu-
ments, for the work herein described and shown and has approved
and adopted these contract documents, specifications and plans
and has caused to be published in the manner and for the time
required by law, a Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for doing the work
in accordance with the terms of this Contract, and
WHEREAS, the Contractor in response to said Notice has submitted
to the City a sealed bid proposal accompanied by a bid guaranty
in an amount not less than ten percent (10 of the amount bid
for the construction of all of the proposed work in accordance
with the terms of this Contract, and
WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly
opened, examined and canvassed the bids submitted and as a result
has determined and declared the Contractor to be the lowest
responsible bidder and has duly awarded to the Contractor a
contract for all of the work and for the sun or sums named in the
bid proposal and in this Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I. WORK TO BE DONE:
That the Contractor shall provide all necessary labor, machinery,
tools, apparatus and other means of construction; shall furnish
all materials, superintendence and overhead expenses of whatever
nature necessary to construct all of the improvements for the
City of Saratoga in conformity with the plans, specifications and
other contract documents and according to such instructions as
may be given by the Saratoga City Engineer or his authorized
agent.
19
le
ARTICLE II. CONTRACT PRICES
Except as provided in Section IV B of the Specifications
"Changes and Extra Work the City shall pay the Contractor
according to the prices stated in the bid proposal submitted by
the Contractor, which shall include all applicable taxes, for
complete performance of the work.
The Contractor hereby agrees to accept such payment as full
compensation for all materials and appliances necessary to
complete the work; for all loss or damage arising from the work
or from action of the elements, or from any unforeseen obstruc-
tion or difficulties which may be encountered in the prosecution
of the work; incurred in and in consequence of the suspension or
discontinuance of the work; as hereby specified; for all liabili-
ties and other insurance; for all fees or royalties or other ex-
penses on account of any patent or patents; for all overhead and
other expenses incident to the work and expected profits; and for
well and faithfully performing and completing the work within the
time frames specified in the Notices to Proceed, all according to
the contract plans and specifications, the details and instruc-
tions, and the requirements of the City.
ARTICLE III. PARTS OF THE CONTRACT:
That the complete contract document consists of the following:
1. Notice Inviting Sealed Bids
2. Bid Proposal
3. Bidder's Bond or Bid Guaranty
4. Contract for Public Works
Construction
5. Hold Harmless Clause
6. Performance Bond
7. Labor and Material Bond
8. Plans
9. Specifications
10. Detail Manual
11. Insurance Certificates
In case of any conflict between this Contract and any other part
of the contract, this Contract shall be binding.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused its corporate name to be
hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed
by its City Manager and its City Clerk thereunto duly authorized
and the Contractor has executed these presents the day and year
hereinabove written.
AWARDED BY CITY COUNCIL: CITY OF SARATOGA:
Date
September 4, 1991
ATTEST: CONTRACTOR:
City Clerk
The foregoing Contract is
approved as to form this
day of
19
City Attorney
21
By
Title
License No.
Tax ID or SSN
Overview
Printed on recycled paper.
Recommended Motion
M E M O R A= -N_ D U M-
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Zoning Amendment concerning Real Estate Open
House Signs
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
8/30/91
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Wi/lem- Kohler
Victor Monia
Francis Stutzman
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce the ordinance
recommended by the Planning Commission and adopt the' Negative
Declaration.
Pursuant to City Council direction, the Planning Commission has
drafted amendments to the sign ordinance to clarify the following
aspects relating to open house signs:
1. Placement: Signs were to be located on private property with
the owners' permission, or within the parkway adjoining
private property.
2. Removal provisions: Change the three day notice provision to
allow summary removal by a City agent.
3. Penalties: -Levy a $50 fine for illegal placement of a sign.
In addition to the above, Council direction to the Planning
Commission also address the following issues:
1. Limitation of the number of signs at an intersection: The
maximum number of signs at any one intersection is two.
2. Size Limitation and Sign Type: The maximum size is limited to
one square foot. Sizes may either mounted on a stake, or
be a free- standing "A" frame sign.
3. Prohibited locations: Signs shall not be located _within
medians.
4. Prohibition of Appurtenances: Signs shall not include
streamers, balloons or similar devices designed to attract
attention.
5. Identification: To facilitate enforcement, signs are required
to identify the agent using the sign.
6. Permits: The ordinance requires an annual encroachment permit
to be issued for signs located in the public right -of -way.
7. Time Limit: Signs are to be removed at sundown each day of
open house.
Background
The Planning Commission broadened the scope of the recommended
ordinance as a result of input from staff, the Board of Realtors,
and the public. The following summarizes the issues debated by the
Planning Commission:
1. Sign Type: The Planning Commission debated whether "A" frame
signs should be permitted in the recommended ordinance. The
Planning Commission concluded by including "A" frame signs for
the following reasons:
a. "A" frame signs allowed in Saratoga would be consistent
with adjacent cities.
b. Realtors in Saratoga also conduct business in nearby
cities. Therefore, a consistent sign type would
facilitate enforcement.
c. Stake type signs are not preferred by some realtors who
find them difficult to install due to the five year
drought.
2. Encroachment: The Planning Commission allowed signs in public
right -of -way within curbside parkways. After considering the
safety and liability concerns associated with signs in these
locations, the Planning Commission concluded that from an
enforcement standpoint, signs would be better regulated if
they were located in the right -of -way since this is where they
would be placed regardless of City regulations. The Planning
Commission did, however, recommend that an encroachment permit
be required to address safety and liability concerns.
3. Penalties: The Planning Commission also discussed the amount
of fines for violations. Some testimony was given indicating
that the $50 fine was excessive. The Planning Commission
concluded, however, that $50 provided sufficient deterrent to
encourage compliance.
Conclusion
SE:cw
The Planning Commission has acted to implement the Council's
direction to resolve inconsistencies with the Sign Ordinance
relative to open house signs. In doing so, the Planning Commission
addressed additional issues and concerns in concert with the
community and the Board of Realtors. The end result is a broader
ordinance that the Planning Commission and staff recommend for
adoption as this ordinance reflects actual conditions and promotes
compliance.
Respectfully submitted,
S EP EN EM IE, Planning Director
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Planning Commission minutes dated 2/27/91
3. City Manager's Memo dated 9/21/90
4. Draft Negative Declaration
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 27, 1991 Page 13
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
10. AZO -90 -009 City of Saratoga, a draft ordinance to establish
regulations concerning the placement of real
estate signs in all zone districts within the City
of Saratoga (cont. from 1/9/91).
Mr. Emslie reviewed the staff memorandum dated February 27, 1991.
The public hearing was opened at 10:05 p.m.
Mr. Eric Morley, Legislative Advocate for the Los Gatos Saratoga
Board of Realtors, addressed the Commission regarding the proposal.
He expressed concern regarding the provision that there should not
be more than two open house signs at any intersection because it
would be difficult to identify who placed the additional signs.
Mr. Emslie responded that if there were more than two signs at an
intersection all signs would be considered noncomplying and the
Code Enforcement Officer would remove all of them.
Mr. Morley suggested as an alternative proposal to the provision
that there should be no more than one sign per direction per
intersection. That would maximize the use of each sign and would
allow for more than two signs per intersection in some cases but
would be a fair way to assess an issue from a Code Enforcement
Officer's position. This could be done by increased cooperation
within the real estate community.
Mr. Bill Murphy, 12150 Saragien Dr., addressed the Commission
regarding the above mentioned provision.
Mr. Morley also discussed the staff recommendation regarding the
issue of A -frame signs versus stake signs. He said that because of
the drought, it is difficult to drive stakes into the ground. He
stated that many communities discourage stake signs because of
safety. reasons.
Mr. Morley indicated that those who are violating the sign
ordinance should be penalized and not those who are attempting to
comply. The Board is concerned about the administration process of
having an annual encroachment fee and the enforcement of that
because of liability and financial issues.
Mr. Gene Zambetti, 14510 Big Basin Way, addressed the Commission
and suggested that numbers be placed on the open house signs in
order to identify the agents to whom they belong.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 27, 1991
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
DURKET MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
Passed 7 -0.
MORAN /CALDWELL MOVED
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
Commissioner Caldwell
of discussion.
TO RECOMMEND THAT
stated she seconded
Page 14
HEARING AT 10:28 P.M.
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
the motion for purposes
Mr. Emslie discussed the suggestion regarding one sign in an
intersection for each direction and indicated that worked very well
in a community in which he worked in the past with the use of
generic signs.
Commissioner Bogosian said he was inclined to agree with several of
the considerations regarding A -frame signs and was in favor of a
numbering system for identification of the signs as was suggested.
Commissioner Moran felt that persuasive reasons were offered and
she could support the use of A- frames. She also was agreeable to
an amendment to restriction No. 8 to include independent as well as
real estate company people and would include affiliates as well as
employees although she was not in favor of including homeowners in
that provision.
Commissioner Tappan commented that he believed homeowners were, in
some cases, more abusive than some of the realtors with regard to
placing. signs.
CALDWELL DURKET MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO AMEND SECTION
1(A)(1) TO PROVIDE THAT THERE BE ONE SIGN PER DIRECTION PER
INTERSECTION; THAT SECTION 1(A)(2) BE AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR A -FRAME
STYLE SIGNS; THAT SECTION 1(A)(8) BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR
ENCROACHMENT PERMITS FOR EMPLOYEES, INDEPENDENTS AND AFFILIATES;
THAT SECTION B BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR A CITATION PROCESS WHERE
THERE IS DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE PERSON WHO HAS VIOLATED THE
ORDINANCE AND ALSO TO ALLOW FOR THE SIGNS TO BE SOLD BACK TO THE
REAL ESTATE COMPANIES, THEIR EMPLOYEES, INDEPENDENTS OR AFFILIATES.
In response to Chairperson Tucker's question regarding how the
Commission could provide for review of whether the A -frame signs
are working, Mr. Emslie responded that the Commission could provide
direction to staff to review the provision one year after the
effective date of the ordinance.
The motion on the amendment carried on a 6 -0 -1 vote (Commissioner
Tappan abstained).
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 27, 1991 Page 15
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The motion on the original motion carried on a 6 -0 -1 vote
(Commissioner Tappan abstained).
Mr. Murphy requested that the Commission also consider an amendment
to extend closing time of open houses to sundown.
CALDWELL /MORAN MOVED TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 71 TO AMEND THE LAST
PHRASE OF SECTION 1(A)(9) TO READ "AND NO LATER THAN SUNDOWN."
The motion carried on a 6 -0 -1 vote (Commissioner Tappan abstained).
11. V -91 -001 Park, 14800 Masson Ct., request for variance
approval to allow a 5 ft. tall ornamental iron
fence with 6 ft. brick columns to be located
within a required front setback. An exception
request is also part of the application to allow a
greater than 4,000 sq. ft. area of enclosure
within the Saratoga Heights subdivision and NHR
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Using an overhead projector, Mr. Walgren presented the Report to
the Planning Commission dated February 27, 1991.
The public hearing was opened at 10:50 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Camargo, the architect for the project, addressed the
Commission and described the project. He said the purpose of the
fence was to secure the front area of the house for the family.
Mr. Joseph Park, applicant, addressed the Commission regarding the
project and pointed out that the primary reason for construction of
the fence is a safety issue as he has a small child. He
distributed a copy of a petition signed by the neighbors in support
of the fence.
Ms. Marie Rose Gaspar, 14754 Pierce Road, addressed the Commission
in support of the proposal.
FORBES /CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:03 P.M.
Passed 7 -0.
FORBES /CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE ENCLOSURE WITH THE OPEN WIRE
FENCE AND DEFER THE REST OF THE FENCING PROPOSAL TO A STUDY
SESSION.
Commissioner Caldwell indicated she seconded the motion for
purposes of discussion.
Printed on recycled paper.
Harry Peacock
City M ager
BOB WE) ff 0 IV 0
cc: City Council
Planning Director
13777 FRL'ITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
Q __yam 1Y' (408) 867 3438
�FnR
September 21, 1990 COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Mona
Franc's Stutzman
TO: Planning Commission, City Attorney
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment to Sign Ordinance regarding enforcement and
open house signs in residential districts
On September 19, 1990 the City Council reviewed a letter from
Miles Rankin and a report from the City Manager regarding real
estate signs and enforcements of the sign ordinance. A copy of
both documents is attached.
The City Council has directed the Commission to hold public
hearings amending the sign ordinance along the lines recommended
by the City Manager. These amendments would:
1. Limit the placement of open house signs to private
property and parkways adjoining private property
with the adjoining private property owners permission.
2. Change the three day notice provision to exclude
removal of open house signs. Allow open house signs
to be summarily removed by any officer or employee of
the City or the Sheriff's department.
3. Levy a fine of $50 for illegal placement of an open
house sign.
I would urge the Commission to take this matter up at its earliest
convenience and ask that the City Attorney draft an amending
ordinance to be heard at an early date.
Until then, we can rely only on the "immediate and substantial
hazard" provision to effectively enforce violations. This has
only limited application and opens the City of challenges.
Effective enforcement is extremely difficult under such
circumstances.
X iS+v\ e 9k aft o vt,
S15 30.150 Open house signs in residential districts
Non illuminated, open house signs are permitted in any residential zoning
district, but limited to no more than two double -faced signs per intersection. No
signs shall be located in bike lanes, sidewalks, median strips or streets, nor shall
such signs be located within seventy feet of the right -of -way line of a designated
scenic highway. No sign shall exceed one square foot of area or four feet in height
and no open house sign shall contain individual or company advertising. Owner
identity shall be affixed to the edge of each sign and shall not exceed one -half inch
by two inches. Signs shall be fixed to a single pole of wood or metal material.
Whenever any such sign is to be placed on private property, permission must first be
obtained from the owner of such property. Each sign shall be removed each day
after closing of the open house for that day.
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 de-
scribed project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse
impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Zoning amendments to revise regulations pertaining to the City's Sign
Ordinance, Section 15- 30.150 of the City Code relative to real estate
open house signs. The ordinance includes regulation limiting the size,
placement, type and number of signs allowed to advertise property for
sale in the City of Saratoga.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
File No.
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
The proposed zone amendments will provide improved enforcement of the
City's Sign Ordinance in order to minimize the aesthetic impact of the
unregulated placement of real estate open house signs.
Executed at Saratoga, California this day of
Director of Planning
Director's Authorized Staff Member
1991.
Printed on recycled. paper.
Staff Recommendation:
M E M O R A N D U M
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: Mayor and City Council 8/30/91
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Status report on DR -91 -013; Appellant /Applicant: West
14801 Andrew Court
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Francis Stutzman
On August 9, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a study
session to review a one -story alternative pursuant to City Council
direction. The study session was attended by concerned neighbors
as well as the architect representing the applicant.
While the Planning Commission concluded that the one -story design
addressed many of the compatibility and privacy concerns, it
directed that the revised plans return to the Commission at a re-
noticed public hearing.
The applicants are currently preparing finished drawings depicting
the one -story addition in preparation for the upcoming hearing.
Since staff has not received nor reviewed the finished plans, no
public hearing date has been established.
This report is made to the Council pursuant to State law which
requires that the Planning Commission provide a report within
forty -five (45) days after remanding the application to the
Planning Commission. The Commission requires approximately thirty
(30) additional days in order to complete the hearing process to
resolve this appeal.
Staff recommends that the City Council receive this report and
allow the Planning Commission thirty (30) additional days to
complete the review of the proposed one -story addition at a regular
public hearing.
Off`
SE:cw
Printed on recycled- paper.
Background:
Fiscal Impact:
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
Recommended Motion:
M E M O R A N D U M
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
TO: Mayor and City Council 8/30/91
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Contract amendment for completion of the draft Open
Space Element
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the final contract
amendment to add an additional $3,025 to the previously amended
contract, for a total contract amount of $32,315, and authorize
staff to execute the attached letter of agreement.
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
Francis Stutzman
The following chronology represents the history of the City's Open
Space contract with Willdan Associates:
December 1990 City Council approves contract for $16,380
April 1991 City Council approves amendment for a total
contract of $29,290
August 1991 Willdan Associates proposes amendment for a
total contract of $32,315
Staff finds that the additional costs associated with contract
increase is a result of the Open Space Task Force's request for
additional maps and graphics not called for in the initial scope of
work, nor the recent contract amendment. The Council should note
that the Open Space Task Force requested the additional graphics
after the Council reviewed the most recent contract amendment.
The City's budget for advance planning consulting services contains
(0C
f
reserves to accommodate the increased contract amount. There is no
need for a budget adjustment to accommodate this request.
Status of Open Space Element:
The consultant is awaiting City authorization to complete the final
graphics to conclude the final draft. Staff anticipates receiving
the draft element on September 13, 1991. Upon satisfactory
completion of the draft, the Planning Commission will begin its
hearings to consider the recommendations of the Open Space Task
Force.
Respectfully submitted,
SST
SE:cw
E Director
Attachment: Wilidan letter dated August 1, 1991
August 1, 1991
Mr. Stephen Emslie
Planning Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS P_ANNERS
Professional Consulting Services Since 1964
RE: Change Order, City of Saratoga Open Space Element
Dear Stephen:
As we discussed on July 19, 1991 a considerable effort in time and materials has been put
forth to produce high quality graphics for the City of Saratoga Open Space Element. As a
follow up to our discussion, I have prepared a summary letter which identifies contract
changes and the estimated additional costs associated with these changes. The following
estimates are effective June 15, 1991, through project completion.
Task 4: Revised Open Space Element Preparation
During discussions between yourself and Mr. O'Connell, graphic requirements for the Open
Space Element were expanded to include two additional maps: a Trails Map at 600 scale
and a Ridgeline Map as separate from the Gateways and Watercourses map. Mr.
O'Connell has and will continue to exert an effort which is beyond the original scope of
work for the project. The effort required to complete the project now requires an additional
35 hours in professional time. Material costs have also exceeded the original estimate and
thus an additional 1000.00 is required.
All maps are being prepared in color, camera ready for reduction and reproduction by Steve
O'Connell.
O'Connell 35 hours 45.00 per hour 1,575.00
Materials for the production of graphics 1.000.00
2,575.00
r
6140 STOt1ERIDGE MALL ROAD SUITE 340 PLEASANTON. CALIFORNIA 94588 (415) 460 -8558 FAX (415) 460 -8562
Willdan Associates will produce a final draft for presentation before the Planning
Commission and City Council. Willdan will continue to absorb the time and materials costs
for formating and enhancing the text. Editorial and coordination time is budgeted below.
Brekke 6 hours 75.00 per hour 450.00
Very truly yours,
Therese Brekke
Willdan Associates
GRAND TOTAL 3,025.00
Your signature at the close of this letter constitutes agreement with this change order and
an order to proceed with the tasks as revised.
Stephen Emslie
City of Saratoga