Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-1990 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSsT ' SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. _I M�) AGENDA ITEM 4/4 MEETING DATE: 6 -20 -90 CITY MGR. APPROVAL .z_ ORIGINATING DEPT. Engineering SUBJECT: 1990 Pavement Management Program Recommended Action: Authorize staff to advertise for bids on the 1990 Pavement Man- agement Program. Report Summary: Engineering staff is nearing completion of the plans, specifica- tions and bidding documents for the 1990 Pavement Management Program. The annual pavement management program focuses on major structural repairs to the City's street system. This is differ- ent from the annual street maintenance program which focuses on street sealing to extend the useful life of pavement before major structural repairs become necessary. A list of the streets to be included in this year's pavement management program is attached for your review. Fiscal Impacts: The proposed FY 90 -91 budget contains $410,322 in Capital Project No. 909 (Pavement Management Reconstruction) for this work. Attachments: 1990 Pavement Management Schedule. Motion and Vote: 1. /1/\ ''AGE NO. 1 City of Saratoga 5/30/90 1 3/4" OVERLAY Program for 1990 STREET NAME /FROM /TO SQ.YDS MACLAY CT TEN ACRES END 782 SOBEY RD SPERRY SPRINGBROOK 3020 PASEO LADO QUITO PASEO PRESADA 4879 - BELLWOOD BROOKGLEN PALMTAG 1078 BELLWOOD PALMTAG WOODSIDE 1144 BELLWOOD WOODSIDE TITUS 1048 ERIC.DR MILLER CANDY 1294 ERIC DR INGRID CANDY 1030 INGRID CT ERIC END 1350 -ERIC DR INGRID KRISTY 1056 KRISTE LN ERIC PROSPECT 531 KRISTE LN MELINDA ERIC 2618 MELINDA CIR EAST LO MILLER KRISTE 3432 MELINDA CIR WEST LO MILLER KRISTE 2049 MILLER CT MILLER END 1994 CAMBRIDGE DR DORCHESTER BROCKTON 4995 DORCHESTER DR PLYMOUTH CAMBRIDGE 1144 SIXTH ST PAMELA ST CHARLES 260 SIXTH ST PAMELA OAK ST 528 THIRD ST OAK BIG BASIN 791 35023 r SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. —I AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: 6 -20 -90 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: tnclineering ` SUBJECT: SD 89 -008 (Quito Road) - Final Building Site Approval 2 Lots (Winifred Romanchak) Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution granting Final Building Site Approval for SD 89 -008. 2. Authorize Mayor to execute Deferred Improvement Agree- ment on behalf of City. Report Summary: SD 89 -008, a two lot subdivision on Quito Road owned by Winifred Romanchak is ready to receive Final Building Site Approval. All conditions of the Tentative Map Approval have been satisfied. The attached Resolution No. SD 89- 008.1, if adopted, will grant Final Building Site Approval for the two lots. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 89- 008.1. 2. Resolution No. SD 89 -008 Approving Tentative Map with conditions. Motion and Vote: RESOLUTION NO. SD 89- 008 -01 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Winnifred Romanchak The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 40,040.0 S.F. and 41,553.0 S.F. parcels shown as Parcel 1 and 2 on the Final Parcel Map and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as two (2) individual building sites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular 1 meeting held on the day of. 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. SD -89 -008 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF ROMANCHAK, "•Pti:= 9'- 0.7 =I9`� "' 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 2 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -89 -008 of 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 7/12/89 being hereby made for further particulars, 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 5th day of May, 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: In Future 1. Removal of the home on the property shall be completed prior to the recording of the final map. With Building 2. All new structures shall require design review approval from the Planning Commission. 3. Maximum height of main structures shall be 22 feet. Accessory structures to meet current standards. 4. Design review applications shall include landscaping plans to screen the home from surrounding properties. Done 5. Pay all fees required by the West Valley Sanitation District. With 'Demo1i:ti.on 6. Existing septic tanks shall be pumped and backfilled in accordance with Permit County Environmental health standards. With Building 7. Water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Works. r r Done 23. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. SD -89 -008; 15201 Quito Road N. A. 8. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final approval. Done 9. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required checking and recordation fees). Done 10. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" in conformance with official plan lines for Quito Road. Done 11. Improve Quito Road to City Standards. D.I.A. N.A. 12. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as required. 13. Construct Storm Drainage System as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including the following: D.I.A, a. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes. b. Storm sewer laterals with necessary manholes. C. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc. With Building 14. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using 2 1/2" A.C. on 6" aggregate base within 100 ft. of future dwellings. 15. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: D. I . A. a. Storm Drain Construction. 6. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches. With Building 17. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6" aggregate base. N.A. 18. Obtain encroachment permit from the City Engineering Department for driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City Street. 19. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as approved by the City Engineer. With Building 20. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. 21. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. N.A. 22. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills. Done 23. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. SD -89 -008; 15201 Quito Road N.A. 24. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. Done 25. Enter into "Deferred Improvement Agreement" for the required improvements marked "D.I.A." N. A. 26. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. For Z one 27. The western most property line most closely parallel to Quito Road Clearance shall be considered the rear property line of Parcel "B" for purposes of determining the rear yard setback. 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 ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 12th day of July, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Burger, Harris, Moran, and Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Siegfried, Tappan, and Kolstad ATTEST: Ch$irman, Planning Aommission -"Secretary, P nning Commission REC_ it' LT, The foregoing condition are hereby accepted JUL � FA 109 1 PLANNING DEPT t9 ajA 7 . $ Applic nt's signature Date REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROK Martin Jacobson DATE: July 12, 1989 PLNG. DIR. APPRV. APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -89 -008; 15201 Quito Road APPLICANT /OWNER: Romanchak APN: 397 -07 -19 Q N IS05 397 -07_4.4 07-30 ' 18681 3 397-07 -pq 4c ISIZ,9C2) 0 397 07 89 h' I 18619 397.07 -07 397 -07_p8 0 I I5c J 4oe a W � ' 15131 15 °95 9!7.07 -05 103124 397 -07_`6 397 -07 -11 I 18(07! 18615 '"7 -07 -p8 39� o� 79 397 -07_78 408-41 -16 1 '3145 MAUDE AVE, qV0 397 -07 -12 Is 14142 397.° 7-65 /r°I � 1516 �• 397-07-/3 397-07- 6 18640 /5 (c) 317-07. 17 3971 71 -1$ 4p8 q1_0 2 3 �5Z30 25 �4 , C9) 4og -432 s Site a2 15199 397 -07. 14 1`5201 15 2 oo 39 7- \ 0 7 -19 397 -a7_/5 152-50 397 -07-23 90BEY " q0 4p8 - 2 9e 26 (c) 1 5 2 37 15270 97.07_ 15900 22 - 9 397 -p7 -54 397.07 -74 r7) C9) %97, 7 62 iql '397- 07.8 q 377-07.82 � 175 397-07-71 7¢ y I \ Bo �` 15295 ` 40 356 C0) 397- 07- 47 26. 1S Cq ,I C t RffK 61 (2) 397_07 -1 S aOB r` A DFFI:RRFD II.1PROV1'r•1L:N'P AMMUII:NT ny OWNER OR HIS SIICCJ:SSORS IN 1NITREST TO CONSTRUCT LAND DFVGLOPME:NT IMPIIOVEMfNTS Project identification: SD 89 -008 This agreement between the CITY OF SARATOGA, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and Winifred Roman.chak hereinafter referred to as 'Owner" WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property described in Exhibit "A" but wishes to defer construction of permanent improvements beyond the time limits otherwise required and City agrees to such deferment provided Owner agrees to construct improvements as herein provided. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: I, AGREEMENT BINDING ON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST This agreement is an instrument affecting the title and posses- sion of the real property described in Exhibit "A ". All the terms, cove- nants and conditions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors in interest of Owner. Upon any sale or division of the property described in Exhibit "A ", the terms of this agreement shall apply separately to each parcel and the owner of each parcel shall succeed to the obligations imposed on Owner by this agreement. II. STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS A. City and Owner agree that the improvements set forth in this section may be deferred because: The public- interest is served by having all improvements in this area done at•once, that time to be determined in the future. B. Owner agrees to•construct the following improvements on the pro- perty described in Exhibit "A" as well as required off site improvements in the manner set forth'in this agreement: Improvements required by City Department of Public Works are gen- erally described on Exhibit "B ". (Cross out improvements that are not re- quired.) 1. gutter 11. 2�xxi�taboaas>� :gM2V=" 3. Driveways 12. 4. Street grading, base and paving S. Storm drainage facilities 6. Erosion control plantings and facilities 7xxAd=:kzmkb=z 8. Underground conduit with wising and pull boxes 9. Barricades and other improve- ments needed for traffic safety 10. Street trees and other improve - pe v s between crb and property Relocation of existing fences, signs and utilities Payment of a pro rata share of the costs as determined by the Dept. of Public Works of a storm drainage or street improvement which has been, or is to be, provided by others or jointly provided by owner and others where such facility benefits the property described in Exhibit "A" C. 11hC11 Lhc Dire(,(.ur of 1'u111 it Wacks deLCrmLn,::: that Lice reasons for the dafermrnc of Lite improvements as set forth in Section II no longer exist, he shall noLLfy Owner in writing to commence their installation and construction. The.noLice• shall I.e mailed.to Lite current owner or &&hers Of the land as shown on Cite latest adopted county assessment roll. The notice shall describe the work to be done by owners, the time Within which the work shall commence and the time within which it shall be completed. All or any portion of said improv(Mcnts may be required aY a specified time. Each Owner shall participate on a pro rata basis in the cost of the improvements to be installed. If Owner is obligated to pay a pro rata share of a cost of a facility provided by others, the notice shall include the amountto be paid and the time when payment must be made. III. PERFOR,%LANCE OF THE WORK Owner agrees to perform the work and make the payments required by City as set forth herein or as modified by the City Council. Owner shall cause plans a;d specifications for the improvements to be prepared by com- petent persons legal ly:.qualified to do the work and to submit said improve menc plans and specifications Tor approval prior to commencement of the work described in the notice, and to pay City inspection fees. 'The work shall be done in accordance with City standards in effect at the time the improvement plans are submitted for approval. .Owner agrees to continence and complete the work within the time specified in the notice given by the Director Of Public Wprks and to notify the City at least 48 flours prior to start of work. In the event Owner fails to construct any improvements re- quired under this agreement, City may, at its option do the work and colle all the costs from Owner, which costs 'shall be a lien on all. the property described in Exhibit "A" hereof. Permission to enter onto the property of the Owner is granted to City or its contractor as may be necessary to construct such improvements. IV. JOINT COOPERATIVE PLAN Owner agrees to cooperate *upon notice.by City with other property owners, the City and other public agencies'to provide the improvements set forth herein under a joint cooperative plan including the formation of a local improvement district, if this method is feasible to secure the installation and construction of the improvements. V REVIE14 OF REQUIREMENTS If Owner disagrees with the requirements set forth in any notice to commence installation of improvements he shall, within 30 days of the date the notice was mailed, request a review of the requirements by the City Council. The decision of this Council shall be binding upon both the.CLty and the Owner. VI MAINTENANCE. OF IMPROMHENTS . City agrees to accept for maintenance those improvements specified in Section II which are constructed and completed in. accordance with City standards and requirements and arc installed within rights -of -way, or ease - mcnes dedicated and accepted by resolution of the City, after the expira- tion of one year from date of satisfactory completion, Owner to maintain 4 said improvements at Owncr's sole cost and expense at all times prior to I' such acceptance by City. Ou-ner agrees to provide any necessary ter -.porary drainage facilities, access road or other required improvements, to assume responsibility for the proper functioning thereof, to subnit plans to the appropriate City agency for review, if required, and to maintain said improvements and facilities 'in a manner which will preclude any hazard to life or health or damage to adjoining property. VII, BONDS Prior to approval of improvement plans by the City, Owner may be required to execute and deliver to City a faithful perforinafiee bond and .a labor and materials bond in an arAount and form acceptable%to City, .to be released by City Council in whole or in part upon completion of Lho work required and payment of all persons furnishing labor and materials in the perfornance of the work. VIII. INSURANCE Owner shall maintain or shall require any contractor engaged to perform the work to maintain, at all times during.the performance of the work called for herein, a separate policy of insurance in a form and amount acceptable to City. IX. INDENNTTY The Owner shall assume the defense and indemnify and save harrrlless the City, its officers, agents and employees, from every expense, liability or payment by reason of injury, including death, to persons,,or damage to is property suffered through any act or omission, including passive negligence or act of negligence, or both, of the Owner, his employees,. agents, con- tractors, subcontractors, or his employees, agents, contractors, subcontrac- tors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or arising in any way from the work called for by this agreement, or any part of the premises, including those matters arising out of the deferment of permanent drainage facilities or the adequacy, safety, on -use of temporary drainage facilities, the performance or non -p use o nin of the use or Bon work. IN WITNESS .*HEREOF, City has executed this agreement as of CITY OF SARATOCA RAYOR IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this agreement as of 11 (General) STATE OF CALIFORNIA l Santa C1 1r T SS. I COUNTY OF 111 On Mazes, 1990 before me. the undersigned. a Notary Public in and for said State. personally appeared Winifred RananChak a W X m J PW1W k(#WaW-r proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) I., he tl(e person _ whose name is subscribed m to the within instrument and acknowledged that She OFFICIAL SEAL rarcutrd the same. Sandra L. Rose WITNESS my ha d official al. NOTARY PIISuc- CALFORNA PRNCPAL OFFICE IN THE Signature COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Sandra L. Rose aaun�im ox 15, 1991 Name (Typed or Printed) OFC•2056 (This area for ./dal astariat wail ,car On - r EXHIBIT "A" That certain property situated in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, more parti- cularly described as follows: That real property Parcel "A" and "B" shown on the Final Parcel Map prepared by Jennings- McDermott - Heiss, Inc. recorded in Book of Maps, Page in the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County, State of California. EXHIBIT "B" 1. Improve Quito Road to City standards. 2. Construct storm drain. 3. Underground existing overhead utilities. t SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. '_2' AGENDA ITEM�� MEETING DATE: June 20, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVA ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering La SUBJECT: SD 88 -066 (Pierce Road) - Status of Public Improvements Recommended Action: Receive as information. Report Summary: At your previous meeting, Steve de Keczer, the property owner of 13415 Pierce Road, reiterated previously stated concerns about safety problems on Pierce Road. In addition, he asked about the progress being made by the developer of SD 88 -006 (Ralph Saviano) to complete the required public improvements associated with that project. Staff was directed to return with a report on the status of SD 88 -006 and to evaluate the concerns raised by Mr. de Keczer. As conditions of Mr. Saviano's three lot subdivision, he is required, among other things, to construct improvements to Pierce Road. The improvements may be summarized as follows: - Widening of the road at various locations. - Installation of berms at various locations. - Widening of the bridge at Chalet Clotilde Drive. - Installation of storm drainage improvements. Plans for the improvements were prepared by Mr. Saviano and approved by the City. On August 2, 1989, Mr. Saviano entered into an Improvement Agreement with the City stipulating that all improvements would be complete within one year. As security for the Improvement Agreement, Mr. Saviano posted a $115,000 Perform- ance Bond and an $11,500 Cash Bond. As of this time, Mr. Saviano has completed only about 15% of the required improvements. I do not expect the remaining improvements to be completed by August 2. Part of the delay is beyond Mr. Saviano's control and has to do with when the Dept. of Fish and Game will allow him to work in Calabazas Creek to widen the bridge and to construct the storm drainage improvements. I do know that Mr. Saviano has entered into a contract with a reputable contractor to do this work and I understand that con- i struction is scheduled to begin in early July. I will be meeting with Mr. Saviano on Tuesday morning to discuss his construction schedule with him and to impress upon him the City's desire to see all of the improvements completed in a timely manner. I will be able to report to you the results of that meeting at your meeting. Assuming construction does begin in early July, I believe the bridge widening and storm drainage improvements can be completed before the next rainy season. With that the case, I see no harm in allowing Mr. Saviano a sixty to ninety day extension of his Improvement Agreement with the City. The alternative would be to declare Mr. Saviano in default of his Agreement and to call in his bonds and construct the improvements ourselves. I do not recommend the latter approach however, as it would almost cer- tainly throw the whole matter into litigation and cause unknown delays in completing the improvements. Once again, Mr. Saviano has contracted for the bridge work and storm drainage improvements and is scheduled to begin construction in early July. This should enable him to complete all of the improvements before the next rainy season. With regard to additional improvements on Pierce Rd., I have evaluated the condition of the roadway between Surrey Lane and Old Oak Way and am developing an estimate for what additional work I believe the City should consider doing. Much of the work is already designed and appears on Mr. Saviano's improvement plans. Additional design work would be necessary for the section between Chalet Clotilde Dr. and Old Oak Way. The intent is to widen Pierce Rd. to a 26 foot travelled way along it's entire length. An exception would be between Chalet Clotilde Dr. and Old Oak Way where the width would vary between 20 and 26 feet unless the Council decided more trees could be removed. Specifically, in front of Mr. de Keczer's property, it is planned to widen the road on his side between 3 to 5 feet. In addition, I would recommend installing a metal guardrail along the curve at the edge of the pavement as a further safety measure for motor- ists and to protect his property. Engineering staff is developing a cost estimate of the additional improvements which I am propos- ing and I will be prepared to present this to you and discuss it in detail with you at your meeting. If the Council agrees with the additional improvements, you would then need to decide wheth- er to authorize staff to seek bids for the work. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: None. Motion and Vote: i � 4 June 1990 , Saratoga, CA To: The Saratoga City Council/Planning Commission Alwyu� . Re: My letter/statement to the Saratoga City Council dated 6 March 1990. and my statement to the Planning Commission on 10 Jan 1990. Sirs: The above two actions and several earlier ones describing the hazardous condition of the roadway in front of my house again fell on deaf ears. NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE SINCE THEN. In fact, I was told that I was overreacting. Since this is apparently the City's perspective, I will explain my perspective: My fence and porch and bicycles were again hit 27 May 1990. My fence was hit 2 Mar 1990. MV fence was hit 26 Nov 1989. Each time the damage was about $500. This coincidentally is the deductible of our house insurance. I have witnessed over 30 major accidents in the past 13 years. Our autos have been hit 3 times. Only once could I collect insurance. Our fence has been hit 8 times in 13 years, and 3 more times in the past 7 months. Several groups of badly bleeding injured people have spent time in our living room awaiting ambulances and rides home. One girls back was broken and several teenagers had crushed faces. I have had to pull an accident victim from her crushed car which was standing in a pool of several gallons of gasoline. This risked injury to her and a lawsuit for me. We must store several blankets and 1st aid kits for accident victims. Our six children and their friends often play just inside the fence. NO, I AM NOT OVERREACTING when I ask that something be done about this clearly hazardous condition, IMMEDIATELY! ^ v � , ' The City has allowed development after development to be built onto what was already a badly over burdened road. Yet the City has done essentially nothing to mitigate the problems caused by these developments. THIS WAS ( AND IS > THE TIME TO DO SOMETHING, AS THE DEVELOPMENTS ARE BEING BUILT ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY HOUSE, NOW! When I asked the Sheriff's Dept what I can do, I was told: "Your only alternative is to complain to the City Council, but of course that will be useless." Per the Memo: City Engineer to the City Council 30 Mar 1990 The substandard berms should be removed, and the road widened as agreed to with the developer. NOW! I DEMAND THAT A PROTECTIVE BARRIER BE PLACED BETWEEN THE ROADWAY AND MY FENCE TO PROTECT MY FAMILY AND MY PROPERTY. AM I ANGRY ? YES WILL I FILE A SUIT ? PROBABLY Respectfu ly Yours ur 13 Steve de Kecze 0 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 1�7 MEETING DATE: June 20, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVA ORIGINATING DEPT: En ineerin SUBJECT: Installation of Stop Signs: Reid Lane /Michaels Drive; Canyon View Drive /Michaels Drive; Canyon View Drive/ Elva Avenue Recommended Action: At the request of residents in the area, staff evaluated the above intersection to determine if additional traffic safety measures should be implemented. Upon review of the intersection, staff believes that all legs should be posted with stop signs to eliminate potential accident problems and to better define right -of -way when two or more vehicles approach at the same time. This matter was considered by the Public Safety Commission at their June 11 meeting and staff's recommendation was unanimously supported. Fiscal Impacts: Approximately $500 to install stop signs and related improve- ments. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. MV- 2. Memo from Community Services Director to City Engineer dated June 13, 1990. 3. Memo from Engineering Department to Public Safety Commission dated Juned 1, 1990. 4. Location Map. Motion and Vote: k - RESOLUTION NO. MV- RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION OF: REID LANE AT MICHAELS DRIVE; CANYON VIEW DRIVE AT MICHAELS DRIVE; CANYON VIEW DRIVE AT ELVA AVENUE, AS STOP INTERSECTIONS. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION I. The following intersections in the City of Saratoga are hereby designated as stop intersections: NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION Reid Lane All vehicles traveling southbound on Reid Lane shall stop at Michaels Drive /Canyon View Drive before pro- ceeding southbound. Canyon View Drive All vehicles traveling northbound on Canyon View Drive shall stop at Michaels Drive before proceeding onto eastbound Canyon View Drive or northbound Reid Lane. Canyon View Drive All vehicles traveling westbound on Canyon View Drive shall stop at Elva Avenue before proceeding west- bound. The above stop signs shall become effective at such time as the proper signs and /or markings are installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of 1990, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR a of sAR9 June 13, 1990 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-3438 To: City Engineer From: Community Services Director COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman Subject: Intersection of Canyon View Drive /Michaels Drive/ Reid Lane /Elva Avenue; Proposed Stop Sign Installations This is to inform you that the Saratoga Public Safety Commission met to review your recommendations concerning the above - referenced intersection on June 11, 1990. As a result of their deliberations, they decided to wholly endorse your recommenda- tions to install stop signs at the following locations: 1. A stop sign for southbound Reid Lane at both Michaels Drive and Canyon View Drive. 2. A stop sign for Canyon View Drive at Michaels Drive. 3. A stop sign for Canyon View Drive at Elva Avenue. By adding the proposed stop signs to those already there, the Commission realized that it was making this intersection an "all - way stop" intersection. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. mlll� Ky� jm cc: PSC Erman Dorsey Printed on recycled paper. I Ps c VI -D-1 i /it /qo June 1, 1990 TO: PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUBJ: INTERSECTION OF CANYON VIEW DR. /MICHAELS DR. /REID LN./ ELVA AVE. - PROPOSED STOP SIGN INSTALLATIONS In 1986, the above subject intersection was modified to provide better alignment of the intersecting streets and eliminating the large paved area, which had no clear definition as to how traffic should traverse it. Along with this modification, stop signs were installed on Elva Ave. and on Michaels Dr. We have received requests from residents of this area, in person, as well as in writing to review the intersection and consider installing stop signs. Vehicles traveling on the upper portion) to Reid Ln. and vice versa ing on their side of the roadway maneuver has the potential of not between vehicles, but also involvin fic. Canyon View Dr. (westerly have been observed not stay - as well as speeding. This only resulting in accidents g pedestrian or bicycle traf- We recommend that stop signs be installed of the following loca- tions: Southbound Reid Ln. at Michaels Dr. /Canyon View Dr.; Canyon View Dr. at Michaels Dr.; Canyon View Dr. at Elva Ave. This proposal would then make this intersection an all way stop intersection, removing any doubts on right of way, as well elimi- nating a potential accident problem. ED:kc ON JTOI Re�eO h 4r = Q 0 _,, EXIST /NC 41' STOP A r� S. - D - t eat JGAL E: / 0' P s oo Eo Z t a � c .d .op yam' •4- I,- vE, ,a: IZI— / 41w �aWa 4441, f DRAWN BY CITY OF SARATOGA STANDARD DRAWING MOVED,gY ZA ER049C7-71 .ON. . / 1.0. -00- &TAXI"Wr t9kIN AY. EX115rING STOP . SCALE HoR. 1" .7 DATE VERT. 1 = DATE MQy, /9go P SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO._4�4 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: 6 -20 -90 CITY MGR. LA�2 ORIGINATING DEPT. Engineering SUBJECT: Turning Restriction - Titus Avenue at Prospect Road Recommended Action: No action required. Do not restrict turning movements from Titus Avenue onto Prospect Road (leave intersection as is). Report Summary: On January 25, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council request the Public Safety Commission to consider prohib- iting left turns onto Prospect Rd. from Titus Ave. at hours of peak traffic at the Primary Plus and McAuliffe Schools. On February 7, the Council referred the matter to the Public Safety Commission. At its meeting of June 11, the Public Safety Commis- sion considered the matter and recommended that the intersection be left as is with no turning restrictions added. Engineering staff has determined that there is no accident history at this intersection which the turn prohibition would have prevented. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Memo dated June 13, .1990, from Community Services Director to City Engineer. 2. Memo dated May 8, 1990, from City Engineer to Public Safety Commission. 3. Memo dated Feb. 7, 1990, from Planning Director to City Council. Motion and Vote: i �� o sAR9�o June 13, 1990 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 To: City Engineer From: Community Services Director COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman Subject: Proposed Turning Restriction at Titus Avenue and Prospect Road This is to inform you that the Saratoga Public Safety Commission discussed your report on the above - referenced subject at both their May 14 and June 11 meetings. Over this two month period, many of the Commissioners made repeated visits to this intersec- tion at various times in the day to determine the seriousness of the problem. An attempt was made to visit the intersection especially during peak traffic periods. As a result of the Commission's field observations, the Commis- sion felt that sufficient justification for the changes proposed did not exist. Therefore, they recommended that the intersection be left as it is with no turning restrictions added. The Commission asked that I emphasize if there is any new infor- mation you, or anyone else, wishes to present to the Commission, they would be more than happy to reconsider this matter at any point in the future. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Todd W. Argo cc: Printed on recycled paper. PSC Steve Emslie Erman Dorsey i MAY 8 - 1990 May 8, 1990 13777 F1Z1'1- 1' \'. \1.1:. \ \'1 :\l 'l: • ti. HA'1'c )GA. ('.\1.11 =c , r ► (4()S) 867-3438 I G P S COUNCIL NiE.NiBER3: V — 3 Karen Anderson Martha C.evenger ( David �foyies Donald Pererson Francis Stt tzman MEMO TO: Public Safety Commission FROM: Engineering Department SUBJECT: Turning Restriction - Titus Avenue at Prospect Road During the entire A.M. peak traffic period, parents who drop off children at the Primary Plus and McAuliffe schools, queue up on Titus Avenue at Prospect Road causing congestion. This situation can be remedied by prohibiting left turns :f rom Titus Ave. onto westbound Prospect Rd. between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. Monday through Friday. Motorists could go westbound on Prospect.Road by first going eastbound to Johnson Avenue, and then making a U -turn at the signal. (Johnson Avenue is approximately 500 feet easterly of Titus Avenue). I have attached a copy of a memo to the City Council from the Planning Director regarding this matter. cc: City Engineer Planning Director Printed on recyclea paper V /«-D -3 ro,, 't o OO e e 13777 FRUI �O 'I'VALE AV E �; LE g ARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ste h DATE: 2/7/90 P ep Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Request for Additional Traffic Control - primary plus -- - - - --- -- ---------------------------------------------------- smmmrY ---------- - - - - -- The Planning Commission reviewed the use Plus Preschool in the former Hansen SchooleoniJanua the Primary In conducting this review, the Planning Commission heard 1990. number of residents regarding rom a Consequently, the Planning Commission parking sedtaddit additional corns. tarns on the use permit to rectify the con - prior to the Commission's next reviewing and traffic con - imposition of additional conditions, the planning o In addition to the requests that the Council:investi ate g mmission Titus to Prospect at certain g Prohibiting left turns from Periods o! peak traffic. The Council's resolution granting Plus program at the former HansntSchool permit a red the Planning for the Commission's review of the operation eve first year. At its Janus every four months fornthe mission received a staff re ort' 1990 meetin P that noted a v'io the ationa of the use permit: Parents parking on Titus Avenue to drop students. As staff reported, there is insufficient pickup °f available within the existing lot to accommodate all vehicles during peak morning and afternoon periods. cles The parking deficiency is attributed to the unanticipated crease in parent participation at P in- Program which co- exists with the p =ima Cupertino School District's District officials aver that required rY Plus program. the school day arent School y has essentially re Participation during parking to alleviate required the need for additional Planning Commission required conditions on Titus Avenue. The spaces be constructed by the Cupertino approximately 20 additional the Commission's next review on pi 5 School District prior to 1 In addition to aff's observations, the,. .anning Commission heard from several of'the surrounding neighbors who expressed their concern over traffic conditions. Neighbors submitted photographic evidence of school related vehicles making illegal mid -block U- turns, spoke of the long traffic queue to execute a... left turn onto Prospect, and requested the use of traffic moni- tors or guards to escort children from vehicles within the inter- nal parking lot into the classrooms. The Planning Commission found these suggestions to be positive additions to the present slate of regulations and acted to address each as a condition or as staff direction. However, the establishment of restriction on left turns at Prospect was outside of the Planning Commission's purview and prompted a request for Council review of the present traffic conditions. Based on the testimony of the resident, on the east side of the Titus /Prospect intersection, the Planning Commission was con- vinced of a need for limitations on the left turn movement at certain times during the school day. The Planning Commission heard described conditions which prevented the resident from leaving his driveway at peak hours due to the long queue. Fur- ther, the Planning Commission questioned the safety of large numbers of school related vehicles executing a left turn peak hours. The Planning Commission felt that restrictions of left turns at prime morning drop off and afternoon pickup periods would ease the conditions the residents are now experiencing. The Planning Commission also concluded by emphasizing that left turn restric- tions should be limited to certain peak school traffic to prevent inconvenience to residents. Staff reported to the Planning Commission that the usual proce- dure in reviewing traffic safety issues is to seek Council's direction to refer the request to the Public Safety Commission for further study. Although the Planning Commission indicated a sense of urgency in implementing, staff recommends Public Safety Commission and City Engineer's review to ensure the provision of a maximum degree of safety and traffic flow. Staff recommends that Council request the Public Safety Commis- sion to consider prohibiting left turns onto Prospect from Titus Avenue at hours of peak traffic at the Primary Plus and McAuliffe Schools. Step en lie Planning Director Enc. 2 w SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. V S AGENDA ITEM l!J MEETING DATE: 6 -20 -90 CITY MGR. APPROVAL 'r ORIGINATING DEPT. Engineerin SUBJECT: Quito Road - Revisions to Official Plan Line Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 376.1 revising Official Plan Line policy for Quito Road. Report Summary: At your previous meeting, Council wanted to clarify the City's adopted policies relating to the Official Plan Line for Quito Road. Specifically, the Council wanted to declare that future planning of Quito Road should be predicated on a two -lane roadway within the City limits. Attached is Resolution No. 376.1 which if adopted, would state that policy. The Resolution would repeal Resolution 376, attached, adopted on September 6, 1967, estab- lishing the current 90 foot Official Plan Line for the portion of Quito Road between Ravenwood Drive and Pollard Road. South of Pollard Road, the Official Plan Line would remain at a 60 foot width. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution 376.1. 2. Resolution 376. Motion and Vote : ��-f RESOLUTION NO. 376.1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 376 AND ESTABLISHING CERTAIN POLICIES FOR QUITO ROAD. WHEREAS, on September 6, 1967, the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted Resolution No. 376 establishing an Official Plan Line for that portion of Quito Road in the City of Saratoga between Ravenwood Drive and San Tomas Aquino :,reek at Austin Corners, and WHEREAS, on June 6, 1990, the City Council of the City of Saratoga reconsidered certain policies for Quito Road. NOW, THEREFDSORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Resolution No. 376 adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on September 6, 1967, is hereby repealed. 2. The portion of that certain map designated O.P.L. No. 1006.02 and on file in the offices of the City Engineer of the City of Saratoga, shall remain as the adopted Official Plan Line for Quito Road in the City of Saratoga between Pollard Road and San Tomas Aquino Creek at Austin Corners. 3. Future planning of the remaining portion of Quito Road in the City of Saratoga and for which no Official Plan Line exists shall be based on a sufficient width as determined by the City Engineer to safely accommodate two lanes of traffic. PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK I RESOLUTION NO. 376 RESOLUTION ADOPTING OFFICIAL PLAN LINES FOR THAT PORTION OF QUITO ROAD IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA BETWEEN RAVENWOOD DRIVE AND SAN TOMASPQUINO CREEK AT AUSTIN CORNERS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That certain map designated O.P.L. No. 1006.02 , either attached hereto, or on file in the offices of the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga in File No. pl 06.92 , is hereby adopted as the Official Plan Lines for Quito Road of the City of Saratoga, between Ravenwood Drive and San Tomas Aquino Creek at Austin Corners, s pursuant to Article XI, Chapter 3, Title 7 of the. Government Code of the State of California, and pursuant to Article VI of Chapter 13 of the Saratoga City Code, as adopted by Ordinance No. 38.1 of this City. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 6th day of September , 196 -7 by the following vote: AYES: Glennon, Tyler, Hartman, Robbins NOES: Burry ABSENT: None ATTEST: city ci.om r •1 SAR,AATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 0 AGENDA ITEM 41 MEETING DATE: June 20, 1990 . CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services SUBJECT: Additional Sheriff's patrol of Bohlman Road on July 4th Recommended Motion Authorize two Sheriff's Reserve at the beginning of Bohlman Road from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. as Commission. Report Summary Units to establish a checkpoint to restrict access on July 4th recommended by the Public Safety Over the past five years, the City Council has authorized the "closure" of Bohlman Road on July 4th due to the propensity of people living outside of the area to use Bohlman Road as a place for viewing fireworks displays. Previously, large numbers of people would take advantage of the spectacular view of a number of fireworks displays offered in the valley, and then would have parties of their own. The street closure was not a true closure in the sense that the Sheriff's officers would allow residents and guests of residents to proceed past the checkpoints established at the base or entrance of Bohlman on the evening of the 4th. At the Public Safety Commission meeting of June 11, 1990, Saratoga Fire District Chief Kraule recommended the proposed action in light of the serious fire hazards inherent to the area. This recommendation was endorsed by the Commission by unanimous vote. Staff also supports the recommendation due to the minor cost involved, and the extreme fire danger which exists in the area resulting from the abundance of vegetation and the drought -like conditions which currently exist there. Fiscal Impacts The total cost for assigning two reserve units to Bohlman Road as recommended would be.$180.00. Attachments None Motion and Vote b(L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: CITY NAGER: '/7 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: DAN TRINIDA MAINTENANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT CRACK SEALING KETTLE Recommended Action: Authorize staff to purchase a crack- sealing tar kettle needed for the City street maintenance program for a total cost of $17,594.36 from Bacon - Western, 1977 Marina Blvd., San Leandro, CA 94577. Summary: The Street Maintenance Department budgeted for a replacement trailer- mounted crack - sealing kettle in the 1989/90 budget. The City of Lompoc has recently purchased a tar kettle for their street maintenance department which is the same type Saratoga needs. The City of Lompoc used the formal bid process and then awarded the purchase to Bacon - Western Company for a total cost of $16,405 plus tax. Attached you will find the bid summary from Lompoc. Although Aeroil was not low bid, it was the only piece of equipment to meet the specifications for a heated hose system. This is considered a time and money saving feature because it eliminates down time for recirculating material through the hose and wand back to the vat, which keeps the substance hot in the delivery system. It is also equipped with an electric 110 volt overnight heater for fast morning starts. Bacon - Western has been contacted and will sell to the City of Saratoga for $16,405 plus tax, for a total cost of $17,594.36. Fiscal Impacts: Funds for this purchase are included in the fiscal year budget. Attachments: Lompoc bid summary. Motion and Vote: Al P?11400t . /Div. 54Y UNIT AMOUNT UNIT AMOUNT U& o UwIT ��: �r.l.. L. -- - DATE: looll, G 8 Y Yi -CHECKED �31r— — -- BY ?AGE 0 f OL E 7R E C: VL L TAX DA 7 6A UNIT AM OUNT - / UN 43aCon Nca4y-h 60-. AMOUN UNIT_ T IUNT CL o((h CHECXED B Y AGE T . %7I i -7 �j k)f.4vn M�-� ('0 u�� . "'r3 UNIT AMOUNT K� nI# Ls 6 -- F AMOUNT 0 Wid 100. � lollIll r PAGE - mo U N �T�— FS TAX Fr -ntl 92 76 I V E- R Y D E AR, ED BY CHECKED DY Ls 6 -- F AMOUNT 0 Wid 100. � lollIll r PAGE - mo U N �T�— C. OF SARAT�QOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. '-' v AGENDA ITEM C4 MEETING DATE: June-20,1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services SUBJECT: Brief Report from Public Safety Commission Concerning Sheriff's D.U.I. Program Recommended Motion: Note and File Report Summary: Attached is a brief report from the Public Safety Commission concerning the Sheriff's D.U.I. Program. The Commission wanted the Council to know that it is monitoring the program closely on a monthly basis, and will periodically update the Council on the program's performance. Overall, the Public Safety Commission is satisfied that the D.U.I. program continues to provide a valuable public service toward the improvement of public safety in the community, while also providing an additional law enforcement unit in cost - effective manner. Fiscal Impact: None Attachments: 1. Report from the Public Safety Commission 2. Summary of Performance Statistics Motion and Vote: s JUN 13 "DO 22:44 flay 16, 1990 P.2/3 SARATOGA DUI UNIT DUI Unit Arrests Fiscal 89/90 DUI Arrests by DUI Unit (to date) = 111 *Deputy on vacation month of July 1989 Fiscal 89/90 DUI Arrests by DUI Unit (projected) _ 133 Fiscal 88/89 DUI Arrests by DLIJ Unit = 90 Other Arrests Other Arrests by DUI Unit (to date - Fiscal 89/90) 39 Other Arrests by DUI Unit (projected - Fiscal 89/90) - 47 DUI Accidents Fiscal 89/90 DUI Accidents (to date) - 23 Fiscal 89/90 DUI Accidents (projected.) = 28 Fiscal 88/89 DUI Accidents - 32 Hit & Run Accidents Fiscal. 89/90 Hit & Run Accidents (to date) = 53 Fiscal 89/90 Hit & Run Accidents (projected) - 64 Fiscal 88/89 Hit & Run Accidents = 81 • JU•I 13 '90 22.43 P.1/ JUNE 14, 1990 70: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL FROM: PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE "DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE" PROGRAM The Pubtic Satiety Commizzion continues to monitors the Sheni66'.a DUT pnognam a.s Saratoga has a dedicated DUI unit. The de taited stati6tica ant pnov.ided montht y to the Community SeAv.icea Dike tort and the 6ottow.ing summaxy aitt be o6 .interest. The time pexi.od being covered .i,a the 6izcat yeah. 6nom Jazy1; 1989 to June 30, 1990, thene6on.e one month o6 the 4igwtea .is projected. The jiguxes abed have been provided 6Aom the Sher,i66'.6 Deparrtment. The tota.t numbest o6 moving citations i4sued bon the tact pV iod was 345, as compared to 517 bon the cuA tent peni.od. In the .Past pesr iod the number o6 DUI aavr.e4t6 were 90 as compared to this pe-ti.ad o6 133. In addition, the 'DUI oj6icen aAeady this peer i.od has made 47 other aAAe6t6 . Fors this pehi.od 6nom JuA-y 1, 1989 to June 30, 1990, the Shmij6'4 Depaatment's. �gunea bon the coat to netain the DUI un.ft ha.a been pnoJected at'appnoxirnateey 103,000. The appnaxi.mate DUI Sine revenues (bon aU uni..ts) iz $91,000. The appnoxdmate DUI 4.cne hevenuea .vs $49,000. The appnoxcmate DUI unit citation %evenum i,6 $10,000. What :i6 being phoJec.ted bon the DUI 6.ine ltevenue.a - a $63,000. What is bang projected bon DUI Sine revenues (a.P_.i' unitM' i6 $109,000. The membe>r.s o6 the Pubtic Satiety Commi4zion jeee there .i..s t tt2e doubt a.s to the merit o6 this pnognam and to the .among need to maintain the DUI program in Saratoga. A6 an adds ti.onat beneii t the DUI of 6icen has pr iovided the .apeca,2 DUI tAaining to the other o6 j.icvt4 thereby enhancing them abit.ity to do the DUI en6otcement in the 6.ieZd. The Commizzion hereby makes the n.ecommendation that the ptop= i6 continued Don another yeah. Commis,6 ioner Ro,6 earn Ro.a e PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION P SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL �q EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. s I AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: June 20, 1990 CITY MANAGE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: DAN TRINIDA MAINTENANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONGRESS SPRINGS SKATEBOARD RAMP Recommended Motion: Approve Commission's recommendation to direct staff to obtain information and guidance from an acoustical engineer as to the feasibility of attenuating the sound of the skateboard ramp to bring it within the City's ordinance requirements, and if that is possible, establish a budget for accomplishing the recommended improvements. Report Summar Attached are the draft minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of June 11, 1990, at which time a public informational hearing was held on the subject matter. After listening to testimony, the Commission recommended the following: 1) If the City's noise standards can be met as confirmed by an acoustical engineer, staff should proceed to modify the ramp and re -open it. Z) Staff is directed to limit the hours of operation. 3) Staff is required to establish membership requirements. 4) Staff is to arrange for supervision during hours of operation. 5) Staff is to provide security when ramp is not in use. FISCAL IMPACTS: Staff has projected the cost of making the necessary improvements to be $6,000. A precise amount for budget appropriation will be forthcoming. Attachments: Draft of minutes of meeting of June 11, 1990. Motion and Vote: r I MINUTES SARATOGA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TIME: Monday, June 11, 1990, 7:30 PM PLACE: SARATOGA COMMUNITY CENTER 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting Chairman Ward called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL - Present: Clemens, Franklin, Gilman, Pierce, Swan, Ward Absent: Saunders Staff: Pisani, Rizzo, Tate, Trinidad B. MINUTES - Approval of Minutes - 5/7/90. Minutes were approved as submitted. Pierce /Swan. Passed 6 -0. C. POSTING OF THE AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954. 2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 6, 1990. II. OLD BUSINESS Due to the lack of a quorum at the regularly scheduled meeting of June 4, 1990, the skateboard public informational meeting was continued to this date. Secretary Trinidad explained to the attendees the events leading up to this meeting, and also reviewed each phase of the staff report. Chairman'Ward reiterated the purpose of this meeting and the role of the Parks & Recreation Commission. The attendees, being encouraged to speak, offered the following: Terry Zaccone - relocate skateboard ramp to another location - close down until freeway opens - fees should cover insurance costs Patrick Kwok - Proper procedures not followed, to Planning Department - Presented Cal. Environmental Quality Act to Commissioners - Skateboarding too noisy for residents - Staff report was not technical enough - Sound report was not professional - not conducted at peak use - Supports ramp, but should'be relocated I JUNE 11, 1990 MINUTES - PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Page 2 Tom Vargas - Will help quiet ramp and patrol it James Dietz - Put carpet between ramp & base to quiet David Wild - Noise is not as much as freeway, train or traffic Should not have bought if didn't want noise - "Kwok" dog is always running loose Children need activities of quality Bill Elhoff - Relocate the ramp Safety concerns - quoted '65 magazines & several books regarding hazards of skateboarding Insurance liability of City - Noise measurements in violation of DBA levels Paula Reavis "Idle hands are the devil's tools ". - Need something for children - parks for our youth Bev. Paradis - Unaccustomed to sounds of ramp - need to deaden - Enjoys the sounds of the park activities _. - Ramp is a joy to the children, gives them pride - Need to wear safety gear & support each other Can alleviate the problems, keep the ramp C. Kummerer - Can't move the ramp, expensive - Youth built it and are proud of it - Can quiet the ramp, but shouldn't take it away E. Duemmlein - Noises from different activities don't bother him - Thanked City for ramp for the children Children helped build it, it is their dream New sport, promotes friendship, place to meet Try new restrictions, proposal is good place to start W. Simmons - Noise bothers him Worried about undesirable elements Fighting, beer cans, trespassers, 1:15AM noises MINUTES OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING - JUNE 11, 1990 Page 3 D. Bowman - Saratoga residents only should be encouraged to use ramp Have membership, no extra $$ for each use Open the ramp, but with proposed restrictions - Should be self- supporting Jeffrey Farr - He is reporter from Saratoga News - Costs to repair for minimizing noise? - Insurance ramifications - who's insuring? - Membership fees cover insurance? Children sign waiver? Safety equipment required? The above concerns were add essed by Secretary Trinidad. - Costs to rXce sound should be low, but we need advice - City is insured by ABAG pool, self- funded. Our ramp was evaulated & determined that if safety procedures are followed, we have a liability of very low exposure - Safety gear is required for all skateboarders, and as a part of the recommended membership procedures, waivers of liability will be required. M.Giansiracusa- City uses trial & error, suppositions, ignores others experiences Should have done a study first - Neighbors have been abused, City should relocate ramp Palo Alto /Mt. View - community pool should be investigated G. Rishell - Ramp noise is bad. Ramp brings more traffic to area - Relocate ramp - hold hearings & find new place _ No assurance that $6K will improve noise Will receive requests for additional hours than in staff report What about liability due to railroad crossing? J. Beyers - Type of noise is aggrevating, not just levels of noise - Crime is a concern of neighbors - Commission should appoint 5 people to analyze sites in and outside of City - opposes present ramp site J. McCartney - Commends City for ramp, but noise is issue - Shoop /shoop, slapping, repetitive dropping - Find another location - Causes stress and concern for.residents - Noise is heaviest on weekends - Aluminum in proposal is noisier, how attached? MINUTES OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING - JUNE 11, 1990 Page 4 Secretary Trinidad addressed the aluminum question by explaining that a series of aluminum sheets would be attached to the ramp with screws. Lois D. - Is a realtor in Saratoga & knows properties close to ramp are devaluated Limits buyers because of freeway and ramp Lack of supervision disturbs her, as does insurance liabililty of City . J. Frazzini - Commends City for ramp, don't close it - Noise issue is valid, but fix it, don't close the ramp T. Wild - Ramp is great for youth of the area - .Noise can be reduced, but don't close ramp - Masonite, concrete, wood ramp discussion regarding injuries Following were concerns of the Commissioners. Clemens - Noise is too loud --What happens when skateboard is not in use? Secretary Trinidad advised that there are foolproof methods of securing the ramp when not in use, which will be incorporated into the renovation.. Swan - More research on' quieting the ramp - Parents help monitor what's going on Franklin - Hours of usage - Why closed -on Wednesday? - Provisions for Easter, Xmas, etc? - Hours not adequate. - Shouldn't charge fees - public park - Closed on rainy days? Secretary Trinidad explained that details still needed to be worked out. Gilman - Concerned about noise level — Location was researched Youth should not be penalized, need somewhere to go Liability was checked out prior to opening Pierce - Originally against ramp - Here now, give it a chance, trial period - Experiment, monitor, keep neighbors happy, too - Impressed with youth participation - Need restrictions, additional soundproofing Ward - In agreement with other commissioners. S MINUTES OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING - JUNE 11, 1990 Page 5 The Commissioners made four motions which passed. 1) If we can meet the noise guidelines and this is confirmed by an acoustical engineer, then we should proceed to modifying the ramp and re- opening it. Pierce /Franklin 2) Staff will be directed to limit the hours of operation. Pierce /Franklin 3). Membership4:r.e,quirements should be established. Pierce /Swan Nae /Franklin 4) Monitor there at all times ramp is open. Pierce /Swan 5) Security in place and no use after hours. Clemens /Pierce III. NEW BUSINESS None IV. STAFF REPORTS None V. COMMUNICATIONS None VI. ADJOURNMENT: Pierce /Swan /9:30. Zlidad, Dan Secretary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. I w " AGENDA ITEM: 6001,69, MEETING DATE:6 /20/90 ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning CITY. MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Draft response to ABAG's Regional Policy Framework Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council author- ize the Mayor to sign the attached response prepared by the Plan- ning Commission. Report Summary: Recently, the City Council referred ABAG's recent "Land Use Policy Framework for the San Francisco Bay Area" to the Planning Commis- sion for preparation of a draft reply. Attached the Council will find a draft response which the Planning Commission recommends the Mayor execute. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachment 1. Draft Response 2. ABAG Policy Statement Motion and Vote: K,i June 21 1990 DRAFT U � D Dc Fr, Mr. Warren K. Hopkins President, ABAG P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604 -2050 Dear Mr. Hopkins: This is in response to the request for comment on the Land Use Policy Framework for the San Francisco Bay Arec by the City of Saratoga on May 1, 1990. General Comments The City's general response to the policies outlin( Framework is one that supports the notion of regional cc at the local level. However, Saratoga questions the p the Policy Framework that a new layer of government is and that local decision - making cannot result in the rest regional problems. This City remains unalterably oppos movement to undermine a community's right to self deter especially in matters of land use. While the Policy professes to balance regional solutions with local cor City feels that the implementation of these policies plant a City's responsibility to adopt and maintain Plan which reflects a community's goals and aspirat addition, we are concerned about the apparent lack of c tion given to environmental quality issues in the Pol_ work, and its emphasis on growth and development. In particular, we question the need to create another governance when many of the problems identified in the can be resolved using tools currently available. For the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provide ess by which agencies can consult with each other t matters of regional importance. This City would suppor- tion to strengthen, rather than supplant, the CEQA p require more regional cooperation, consultation, and tion, and penalties if violations occur. 1 Printed on wcvaed paper L (-SOS) HO / "141';S COU K,i June 21 1990 DRAFT U � D Dc Fr, Mr. Warren K. Hopkins President, ABAG P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604 -2050 Dear Mr. Hopkins: This is in response to the request for comment on the Land Use Policy Framework for the San Francisco Bay Arec by the City of Saratoga on May 1, 1990. General Comments The City's general response to the policies outlin( Framework is one that supports the notion of regional cc at the local level. However, Saratoga questions the p the Policy Framework that a new layer of government is and that local decision - making cannot result in the rest regional problems. This City remains unalterably oppos movement to undermine a community's right to self deter especially in matters of land use. While the Policy professes to balance regional solutions with local cor City feels that the implementation of these policies plant a City's responsibility to adopt and maintain Plan which reflects a community's goals and aspirat addition, we are concerned about the apparent lack of c tion given to environmental quality issues in the Pol_ work, and its emphasis on growth and development. In particular, we question the need to create another governance when many of the problems identified in the can be resolved using tools currently available. For the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provide ess by which agencies can consult with each other t matters of regional importance. This City would suppor- tion to strengthen, rather than supplant, the CEQA p require more regional cooperation, consultation, and tion, and penalties if violations occur. 1 Printed on wcvaed paper Mr. Warren K. Hopkins President, ABAG June 21, 1990 Page Two Notably absent from discussion of Policy One is the need to balance infill development with adequate infrastructure including open space. It is often the infill areas that require additional parks and open space, which is the land most difficult for cities to obtain. Further, Policy One suggests that unbridled growth within our developed areas will resolve the range of regional problems we are facing. However, this policy fails to stress the importance of a regional greenbelt to preserve the sensitive hillside topography and to prevent urbanization of environmental- ly sensitive lands. Policy Two proposes land use policy change to de- emphasize long distance. commuting. Saratoga believes that reliance on mass transit is the solution to congestion problems the region cur- rently experiences. Saratoga feels that Policy Two should ad- dress comprehensive development of accessible mass transit alter- natives. Further, the jobs /housing balance issues should be carefully evaluated to avoid shifting congestion problems from one locale to another. Policy Three states that regional agencies will bear the ultimate responsibility to review and approve local land use plans. This policy statement precipitates some fundamental questions that are unanswered by the Framework. To whom will the regional agency be accountable? How will the regional agency ensure that the local General Plan will be followed? This City strenuously objects to this policy as its implementation would seriously undermine the local agency's ability to adequately plan its own destiny. Saratoga now provides housing for all income levels. Imposition of arbitrary but well- meaning housing goals (Policy Four) often prove impossible to attain. Development of housing goals by ABAG has traditionally ignored economic and topographic constraints. In fact, it is our experience that housing goals or requirements have little effect on a jurisdiction's ability to provide afford- able housing. This is demonstrated by Saratoga's housing stock which serves all income levels. Policy Five and Six raise questions regarding enforcement and provision of adequate open space. Saratoga questions the ability of ABAG to ensure interagency participation in tax sharing agree- ments given the current scope of ABAG's authority. Secondly, the proposed policies fail to recognize the role of CEQA in resolving adverse impacts on a regional basis. Lastly, there is no mention of a local agency's responsibility to include open space as a feature of its land use plan. While Policy Six states that 2 Mr. Warren K. Hopkins President, ABAG June 21, 1990 Page Three communities must provide a balance of land uses, open space and recreational uses are notably absent. In conclusion, Saratoga is seriously concerned that the Policies indicated in this document may have been hastily conceived to address only a narrow range of our regional problems. Saratoga urges ABAG's Regional Planning Committee to revisit its policies and to consider issues raised in our comments: local determina- tion, environmental quality, mass transit, practical implementa- tion, and the role of the California Environmental Quality Act in arriving at solutions to regional problems. Very truly yours, MARTHA CLEVENGER Mayor, City of Saratoga SE \ABAG:cw cc: City Council 3 A PROPOSED LAND USE POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA ADOPTED BY THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS APRIL 11, 1990 Many citizens in the Bay Area have noticed that their quality of life is being jeopardized by haphazard regional growth patterns. People are becoming increasingly aware of the impact of problems such as: • traffic congestion • cost and supply of housing • loss of open space and deterioration of the environment • diminished air and water quality • perception of economic decline The real dilemma is not that these problems exist, but that they appear largely unresolvable by our present structure of independent local decision-making. Recent attempts at inter- jurisdictional land use cooperation and coordination have 'gentmily fallen short while problems have worsened GUIDING PRINCIPLE The Regional Planning Committee of the Association of Bay Area Governments believes that local governments must find a way to balance local self - determination with effective subregional and regional policies and decision - making. The Committee also believes that it is far better to develop our own common vision and interjurisdictional approach to decision - making within the Bay Area than to have unilateral actions dictated by the State of California PROPOSAL OVERVIEW The Committee proposes the establishment of a policy framework for future land use decision - making in the Bay Area which . respects the need for strong local control. The framework advocates a city- centered concept of urban development, with balanced growth guided primarily into or around existing communities while preserving surrounding open space. The proposed system reduces public costs by encouraging a more efficient use of existing and future infrastructure. Subregional decision - making is established to resolve intesjurisdictional land use issues and to carry out regional objectives. Finally, the policy framework addresses existing fiscal constraints and motivations influencing many existing land use decisions. 2 POLICIES AND ACTIONS While recognizing that there are numerous growth - related issues that could be addressed in any new approach, the Committee elected to develop a discrete set of policies aimed at the most critical land use issues confronting the Bay Area. t • _ POLICY ONE Growth shall be encouraged where regional infrastructure capacity, such as freeway, transit, water, and solid waste capacity, is available or committed. A. Regional agencies shall advocate a priority in allocating Federal, State, and special district grants, loans and funds to support housing, industry retention and new job growth in those communities that are easily accessible to existing concentrations of unemployed or underemployed workers. B. Cities, counties and special districts shall discourage significant infrastructure extensions beyond urban growth boundaries. C. Cities and counties shall designate vacant or underused land with available infrastructure for higher intensity use in their general plans. 3 POLICY TWO Encourage development patterns and policies that discourage long distance automobile commuting and increase resident access to employment, shopping and recreation by transit or non -auto means. A. Cities and counties shall designate office and industrial land (in excess of long- term need) for residential use where necessary to balance future employment and housing. B. Cities and counties shall encourage employment and housing in proximity to transit stations. C. Cities and counties shall ensure that non - transit accessible employment improves job/housing balance within the community or subregional area. D. All public agencies shall support telecommuting opportunities. E. Cities and counties shall encourage employment that provides jobs for local residents. F. Regional agencies shall advocate .firndWg priority to transportation projects in communities with programs that reduce job/ housing imbalances. POLICY THREE Establish firm growth boundaries for the urban areas of the Bay Area. Urban development shall be encouraged and permitted only within these growth boundaries. A. Cities and counties shall develop long -range plans to accommodate population and employment growth projected by the regional agency. Assuming reasonable residential and employment densities, localities shall propose an urban growth boundary for inclusion in their general plan. B. Land that is located beyond urban growth boundaries will be protected for agricultural or rural use. C. Regional agencies will be ultimately responsible for final acceptance of locally proposed urban growth boundaries. D. Regional agencies will advocate restricting funds to jurisdictions who have plans inconsistent with this policy. 4 POLICY FOUR Encourage the provision of housing opportunities for all income levels. Actions A. Cities and counties shall make every effort to improve the supply and affordability of housing in their local plans and programs to accommodate both local and regional needs. B. City and county growth manage- ment plans and programs shall develop strategies and actions to meet local and regional housing needs. C. Regional agencies shall advocate funding priority within communities having effective housing policies and programs. D. Regional agencies will advocate restricting funds to jurisdictions who have plans inconsistent with this policy. Imb. • POLICY FIVE Coordinate local land use plans with neighboring jurisdictions on a subregional basis. A. Cities, counties and special districts shall jointly develop subregional policies and review boards to resolve matters relating to job - housing balance, the amount and allowable density of needed housing, open space buffers, coordination of infrastructure, and capital needs and responsibilities. B. Once subregional policies have been adopted, they will be reflected in local general plans and relevant special district programs. C. Local jurisdictions shall participate in interagency tax sharing agreements on a subregional basis when appropriate to balance fiscal inequities caused by land use policies. D. The mitigation of significant adverse impacts of a plan or project on a neighboring community shall be required unless, on a subregional basis, mitigation is deemed infeasible due to overriding social or economic considerations. E. Cities and counties shall consider sharing and pooling of local housing funds on a subregional basis. F. Cities and counties shall, on a subregional basis, develop procedures for improved notification and communication on planning and development issues. E POLICY SIX Allow for the development of new communities along transit corridors when they would not negatively impact existing communities. A. Counties could designate in their general plans, and regional agencies shall prioritize, areas appropriate for new community development. B. New communities shall provide residents with the ability to live, work and shop within their boundaries. C. All public agencies shall ensure that new communities include a full range of facilities, such as water, sewer, transportation, schools and recreation. ORGANIZATIONAL CONSOLIDATION AND COORDINATION The Committee recognizes that many critical issues remain unresolved in this proposed framework. A key to directing and implementing this system is both horizontal and vertical consistency between the plans and policies of public agencies. No specific recommendations have yet been formed about the need to merge, add to, or abolish existing levels of authority. Finally, the Committee has not suggested the means of electing or appointing policy persons to manage this proposed new system, or on the details of authority at either the subregional or regional level. 6 RECOMMENDED STATE ACTIONS, INCENTIVES AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS Full achievement of this regional policy framework requires state action in a variety of areas. It is crucial to recognize the need for additional revenue in conjunction with this or any new system. The impact of Proposition 13, costly mandated activities relating to county social, health and justice services, and the need for increased maintenance of existing infrastructure precludes full implementation of the proposed policy framework without new revenue. The state should: A. Allow for the establishment of authority at the subregional and regional level to carry out adopted land use policies and actions. B. Require special districts, local agency formation commissions (LAFCO's), and regional agencies to coordinate their efforts. C. Either directly provide a new and stable source of funding, or enable regional comprehensive planning agencies to raise revenues to fund comprehensive planning and infrastructure programs. 'b. " — Reduce the 2/3 vote requirement for infrastructure bond issues. E. Improve flexibility in rules governing tax sharing arrangements between local jurisdictions. F. Allow for the withholding of new revenue as well as grant funds to cities, counties and special districts that do not comply with adopted land use policies and actions. G. Permit the imposition of a regional impact fee on developments which proceed contrary to the regional policy framework. i REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Tom Powers, Chair, Supervisor, Contra Costa County Emily M. Renzel, Vice Chair, Councilmember, Palo Alto Albert Aramburu, Supervisor, Marin County Dorothy L. Breiner, Vice Mayor, San Rafael Robert H. Bury, Councilmember, Redwood City Sam Caddie, Supervisor, County of Solano Louis M. Cortez, Councilmember, Newark Robert E. Davis, Mayor, Cotati Paul DeFalco, Consultant, League of Women Voters John C. Dustin, Bay Conservation & Development Commission Bonnie England Coalition of Labor and Business David A. Fleming, Councilmembe, Vacaville Marge F Gibson - Haskell, CouncilmembeL Oakland Maria Gonzalez. La Confederation De La Rau Unida Mary GriMn. Supervisor, County of San Mateo Gary Hambly, Building Industry Association of Northern California Stana Hearne, League of Women Voters of the Bay Area John Holtmlaw, Sierra Club Warren K. Hopkins, ABAG President, Cottncilmember, Rohnert Park Tom Hsieh, Supervisor, City & County of San Francisco Roberta H. Hughan. Mayor, Gilroy, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Mary L. Jefferds, East Bay Regional Park District WWiam Lucius. Commissioner. Metropolitan Transportation Commission Kenneth R. Mercer, Mayor, Pleasanton, Regional Water Quality Control Board Kenneth Mltam, Bay Area Planning Director's Association Larry Orman. Greenbelt Alliance Susanna M. Schlendorf, Councilmember. Danville Angelo J. Shwusa, Bay Area Council Richard Spec. Councilmenber, Oakland Percy H. Steels, Jr.. Bay Area Urban League William H. Steels. ABAG Associates Edwin J. Suehman, Councilmember. San Leandro Mel Varrelman. Supervisor, County of Napa .4ft- ._ Staff: Gary Binger, ABAG Planting Director 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1W MEETING DATE:6 20 90 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning AGENDA ITEM: 4f) CITY. MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT Addendum to Consultant Agreement for Open Space Needs Survey. Recommended Motion: Approve the Addendum, authorize budget adjust- ments of $1445.00. Report Summary: The original agreement with MIG, the Open Space Survey consultant, does not include public hearing appearance and presentations of the survey by the consultant. Presentation is listed in the agreement as an optional item which may be done for additional cost. The City Council continued the review of the survey from 4/4/90 meeting to July's meeting. Due to the importance of the survey for the City future policies regarding open spaces and the expressed public interest in the survey, presentation of the results by the consultant is recommended. The consultant is prepared to appear and present the survey at July's meeting for a cost of $1445.00. Two cross tabulations of the survey results are included in the original contract. If necessary, additional cross tabulation can be prepared by the consultant for additional costs. Staff recommends approval of the budget adjustment of $1445.00 for the presentation. Fiscal Impacts: Budget adjustment of $1445.00 to Planning Depart- ment Account No. 2026/4510. Attachments 1. Letter from MIG Consultant dated 6/6/90 2. Copy of original agreement 3. Resolution Motion and Vote: Planning Design Communications Management F -A N O G O L T$ M' A N :EIVED June 6, 1990 JUA - 0 Steve Emslie, Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Steve: Tsvia Adar called me to clarify the status of the Community Survey project after she received our final invoice. Because of a delay following your receipt of the Draft version of the Community Survey Summary Report, we had already sent our final invoice for this project. However, we wish to acknowledge officially that you have not yet received the final report which will include analysis and presentation of up to two (2) data crosstabulations. Tsvia requested our presence at the July 10th meeting of the Council, the Park and Recreation Commission and the Heritage Foundation. I am available to attend that meeting, present the slides and respond to questions. (I'm pleased that we have another chance to present the results!) Our contract with the City specifies preparation of slides and presentation of results as optional tasks with additional costs. The total cost, for these tasks as described in our proposal, including professional time and direct costs, will be $1445.00. Please authorize this as an addendum to our existing contract or as a separate agreement. After the July meeting, I will perform the two crosstabulations, edit and send the final Summary Report. We have enjoyed working with you and your staff. Hope to see you on the 10th. Regards MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN 6�0 Carolyn Verheyen Associate 1802 cc: Tsvia Adar Fifth Street Berkeley CA 94710 415/845 -7549 Other Offices Washington DC Raleigh NC S01D AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION OF A COMMIINITY OPEN SPACE NEEDS SURVEY FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGAA THIS AGREEMENTis entered on this 2nd day of August, 1989, by and between the City of Saratoga, California, hereinafter called "City," and Moore Iacofano Goltsman, hereinafter called "Consultant," whose address is 1802 Fifth Street, Berkeley, CA, 94710; WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the Consultant to render certain technical and professional services in connection with the preparation of a Community Open Space Needs Survey, and WHEREAS, the Consultant has a professional staff qualified to undertake such services and is desirous to provide these services. NOW, THEREFORE, City and Consultant hereto do mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE I. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is the preparation of a Community open Space Needs Survey, for which the scope of work is described in Exhibit "A" attached. Consultant shall provide said services at the time, place, and in the manner specified, and in conformity with the descriptions of tasks and procedures set forth therein. ARTICLE II. COMPENSATION A. The City shall pay to the Consultant the sum of $24,615 for a door -to -door survey outlined as Option 1 in the Consultant's proposal dated July 6, 1989 and incorporated herein by reference. The City shall pay an additional sum not to exceed $1,220 for Optional Tasks 5.0 and 6.0 if the City elects to purchase these products after the Survey is completed. Compensation for services under this Agreement shall be payable in accordance with the following schedule. Consultant shall submit invoices identifying the work completed during the billing period. Invoices will be paid within 30 days of receipt. 1 TASK Contract issuance Focus group results (through Task 1.2) Completion of survey administration (through Task 3.0) Final report (through Task 4.0) PAYMENT SCHEDULE AMOUNT $ 4,923.00 $ 6,153.75 $ 6,153.75 $7,384.50 PERCENT OF TOTAL 20% 25% 25% 30% TOTAL: $24,615.00 100% C. The services of the Consultant are to commence as soon as practicable after execution of this Agreement. The services described in Exhibit "A" shall be completed by the consultant approximately 8 weeks after the execution of this agreement. ARTICLE III. CONTRACT AMENDMENTS No amendment of this Agreement shall be valid or binding unless in writing, signed, and duly authorized on behalf of both parties. ARTICLE IV. CONSULTANT TO THE CITY It is understood that the Community Open Space Needs Survey is to be prepared in and with cooperation from the City of Saratoga and its staff, and that the Consultant's responsibility will be to the City. Accordingly, Consultant shall prepare said Survey so as to'be as accurate as reasonably possible. It is further agreed that in all matters pertinent to this Survey, the Consultant shall act solely as the Consultant to the City and shall not act in any capacity as Consultant to any other individuals or entities. ARTICLE V. CONSULTANT: PROJECT COORDINATOR The Consultant shall designate a professionally qualified person who will be called Project Coordinator. - - --The Project Coordinator shall be principally responsible for the onsultant's obligations under this Agreement and shall serve as principal liaison between the City and Consultant. Name of the Project Coordinator is James S. Oswald. 2 ARTICLE VI. ASSIGNMENT OF SUBCONTRACTORS Consultant is engaged by the City for his unique qualifications and skills, and specific performance is required. However, this Consultant may subcontract portions of the work identified in Exhibit "A" to another qualified person or firm, but Consultant and Project Coodinator remain entirely responsible for the work product. Consultant will not assign this Agreement or any portion of it to another person without the express written consent of the City. ARTICLE VII. EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL Consultant shall provide experienced and qualified personnel to carry out the work to be performed by Consultant under this Agreement and shall be responsible and in full control of the work of such personnel. ARTICLE VIII. PLACE SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be performed at the Consultant's place of business or in the field, except for attendance and representation at meetings. ARTICLE IX. MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT A. Consultant shall furnish, at his own expense, all materials and equipment necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. B. Consultant shall be liable for any personal injury or property damage resulting from the use, misuse or failure of such equipment while this equipment is being used by the Consultant or his employees, subcontractors or agents in their performance of the work of this Agreement. ARTICLE X: LIABILITY OF CONSULTANT (NEGLIGENCE) Consultant shall be responsible for performing the services under this Agreement in a safe manner and shall be liable for his own negligence and the negligent acts of his employees. City shall have no right of control over the manner in which the work is to be done and shall therefore, not be charged with the responsibility of preventing risk to the Consultant or his employees. All work shall be done at Consultant's risk. ARTICLE XI: Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, liability, costs,. and expenses of whatever nature, 3 including court costs and counsel fees arising out of injury to or death of any person or persons or loss of or damage to any property resulting in any manner from any act or omission of Consultant, Consultant's employees, agents or subcontractors. ARTICLE XII: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTIES: WORK STANDARDS A. The parties to this Agreement agree that Consultant is a professional consulting firm and that the relation created by this Agreement is that of an independent contractor. Consultant is not an agent or employee of the City and, among other things, is not entitled to the benefits provided by employer to his employees, including but not limited to workers compensation insurance and unemployment insurance. B. Consultant will adhere to professional standards and will perform all services required under this Agreement in a manner consistent with generally accepted professional planning procedures. Consultant will strive for maximum accuracy in providing his services. ARTICLE XIII. CITY REVIEW OF WORK A. City shall promptly review all reports and data submitted by Consultant and notify consultant in writing of ambiguities, discrepancies, deficiencies, omissions or errors which its review indicates are contained in such data and reports. B. In the event of_any disagreement between the Consultant and the City, not involving issues of professional judgment, the recommendation of the City shall prevail. All claims, disputes and other matters in question between parties to this Agreement, arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be decided by arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. ARTICLE XIV. CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES TO DRAFT REPORTS Consultant shall prepare and distribute an administrative draft of the Survey Report for review by the City, in accordance with the Scope of Work. Upon receipt of corrections and changes by the City, consultant shall prepare and distribute a second administrative draft to correct any discrepancies, deficiencies, omissions, errors, or ambiguities, in satisfaction of all reasonable claims by City, provided City has notified Consultant of any such error, omission, discrepancy, deficiency, or ambiguity within fifteen (15) days after receipt by City of the= draft Survey report. The Consultant will then prepare and distribute a final survey report incorporating all the corrections and changes made by the City. Consultant give immediate attention to any changes so there will be a minimum delay to the City. 4 ARTICLE XV. DATA DEVELOPED IN PUBLIC DOMAIN All information, data, maps, charts, tables and studies developed by the Consultant to complete the Survey are in the public domain and may be used by the Consultant or the City as property within the public domain. Consultant, by signing this Agreement, disclaims any copyright in the information published in the Element. The City plans to make information developed in the Survey available to the public and for use as a data base in preparing future plans for the City of Saratoga. ARTICLE XVI: DOCUMENTS AND MAPS DEVELOPED ARE CITY PROPERTY All original documents, maps, charts, photographs and other photo - ready materials prepared by the Consultant for the completion of the Survey shall be the property of the City and shall be delivered to the City prior to final payment. ARTICLE XVII: TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated in one of two ways set forth below: A. Discretionary Termination The City or the Consultant may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days prior written notice to the other. City shall pay consultant an amount equal to the work completed in Exhibit "A" as determined by the Planning Director. B. Termination Upon Failure of Performance The City may terminate this Agreement upon seven (7) days written notice should the Consultant, in the sole judgment of the Planning Director, fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner any of the obligations under this Agreement. In this event, the City shall pay consultant an amount equal to the value of the services completed up to the date of termination as determined by the Planning Director. ARTICLE XVIII. INTEREST OF CONSULTANT The Consultant covenants that he directly has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or_ indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of his services hereunder. The Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement no person having any such interest shall be employed. 5 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written: CITY OF SARATOGA Zo. CITY r ATTEST A-� (�. 1.,6� DEPUTY CITY C 6 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF WORK Task 1: Survey Issues Identification Task 1.1 - Conduct Survey Issues Identification Meeting With Review Committee. Consultant will conduct one (1) meeting with the Review Committee to identify the range of issues to be addressed in the Community Survey. Results from the meeting will be summarized in a brief memorandum and used in structuring the draft survey instrument. Task 1.2 - .Conduct Community Focus Group Session. Consultant will conduct one (1) survey issues focus group with 10 -15 City residents to identify the range of topics and issues to be addressed in the Community Survey and to test potential question format. Focus group shall be selected by the Review Committee. Results from the focus group will be summarized in a brief memorandum and used in structuring the draft survey instrument. Task 2: Survey Instrument Design Task 2.1 - Design Survey Instrument Consultant will translate the topic areas and issues identified in Task 1 into questionnaire format and will prepare a draft of the survey instrument for comments, review and approval. . Task 2.2 - Review Draft'Instrument with Review Committee Consultant will meet once with the Review Committee to review the draft survey instrument. Task 2.3,- Pilot Test Draft Survey Instrument A pilot survey will be conducted to test survey length, question phraseology and response quality. The final survey instrument will then be developed with the Review Committee input and approval. Task 2.4 - Develop Survey Sample Profile A stratified sample will be.devised based on owner /renter status, geographical location, age, and other socia- economic and geographical variables considered to be of prime importance by the Review Committee for planning purposes, to ensure balanced community representation and generalizability of survey findings. 0j Task 3: Survey Implementation (Door -to -Door) The survey will be administered door -to -door to a stratified sample of community residents. The estimated sample size is 400. The survey will have twenty -five (25) close -ended questions and five (5) open -ended questions. The maximum length of interviews will be approximately 15- 20 minutes. Consultant will deploy its own survey team and will monitor the data collection procedure to ensure consistency and reliability. Task 4: Survey Analysis and Reporting Completed surveys will be computer tabulated; major findings will be presented in a report using text, graphs and tables. A maximum of two (2) data sorts will be provided as specified by the Review Committee. The report will include an executive summary of key survey findings. Consultant will furnish City with five (5) bound copies plus a camera -ready copy of the report for reproduction.. Task 5: Survey Results Presentation Slides (Optional) A summary of key findings will be illustrated on 35mm slides (color bar, tab and text charts) for ease of presentation to the Planning Commission, City Council and community groups (approximately 36 slides). Task 6: Presentation of Findings (Optional) Consultant will attend one (1) meeting to present and discuss Community Survey results. S RESOLUTION NUMBER RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE F.Y. 1990 BUDGET WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the City Manager that the following transfer of appropriations and increase in the present budget appropriations be made: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution be amended as follows: Transfer: $1445.00 (0001 -2000) $1445.00 (2026 -4510) Purpose: from Fund Balance to Contract Services To fund the consultant's presentation of Open Needs Survey itemized as an optional item in the original contract with the City. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 20th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: DEPUTY CITY CLERK MAYOR G EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE:6 20/90 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning AGENDA ITEM: 4 CITY. MGR. APPROVAL _o?,4C44r�C- SUBJECT Addendum to Consultant Agreement for Open Space Needs Survey. Recommended Motion: Approve the Addendum, authorize budget adjust- ments of $1445.00. Report Summary: The original agreement with MIG, the Open Space Survey consultant, does not include public hearing appearance and presentations of the survey by the consultant. Presentation is listed in the agreement as an optional item which may be done for additional cost. The City Council continued the review of the survey from 4/4/90 meeting to July's meeting. Due to the importance of the survey for the City future policies regarding open spaces and the expressed public interest in the survey, presentation of the results by the consultant is recommended. The consultant is prepared to appear and present the survey at July's meeting for a cost of $1445.00. Two cross tabulations of the survey results are included in the original contract. If necessary, additional cross tabulation can be prepared by the consultant for additional costs. Staff recommends approval of the budget adjustment of $1445.00 for the presentation. Fiscal Impacts: Budget adjustment of $1445.00 to Planning Depart- ment Account No. 2026/4510. Attachments: 1. Letter from MIG Consultant dated 6/6/90 2. Copy of original agreement 3. Resolution Motion and Vote: e i SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. I ?& ?° MEETING DATE: June 20, 1990 ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVA SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to the Blaney Plaza Banner Program Public Notice: An agenda and the proposed policy was sent to all groups that utilized this program during this past year. Recommended Motion: Amend the Rules & Regulations for Hanging of Banners in Blaney Plaza effective March 1, 1991 to include a change in the scheduling procedure and length of time to hang a banner. The Director of Recreation will accept all requests and finalize the schedule. The Saratoga Fire Department will continue to actually hang the banner. Also, during prime times, groups will be limited to 7 days of usage. Report Summary: Currently one person from the Saratoga Fire Department is assigned to oversee scheduling and hanging of banners at Blaney Plaza. His hours and days at work vary from week to week and there have been some problems with groups being able to submit their requests 1 year to the day in advance. This past year more than twice as many groups requested to hang a.banner than there was space available. During prime times some groups have been approved for 14 days -and`other community organizations submitting their request minutes or hours later have been disappointed. Staff is recommending that in March each year community groups will be asked to submit their request for preferred dates from July 1st to June 30th for hanging a banner at Blaney Plaza. The Director of Recreation will consider all requests and finalize the schedule for the coming year. Dates open after the calendar is established can be filled throughout the year. City of Saratoga sponsored activities will be given first priority. Groups previously using the plaza will be given priority over new groups. During prime times groups will be allowed 7 days of usage. If there are no other requests, days of usage will be extended to a maximum of 14. 11 Fiscal Impacts: None i Attachments: 1) Current Rules & Regulations for Hanging Banners in Blaney Plaza 2) Proposed Rules & Regulations for Hanging Banners in Blaney Plaza 1 CITY OF SARATOGA Rules and Regulations for Hanging of Banners in Blaney Plaza 1. All reservations for the use of Blaney Plaza for the purpose of hanging a banner will be handled (in person) on a first come, first served basis. 2. The Reservation Form must be completed at the time the reservation is made at the Saratoga Fire District Station, 14380 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA. Phone: 867 -0991. The reservation form may be forwarded by District Personnel to the City for approval of the request. 3. Reservations may not be made more than twelve (12) months in advance of the date requested. 4. Non - profit organizations advertising Saratoga -based community events, or organization advertising Saratoga -based non - profit events may hang banners in Blaney Plaza. Groups may be asked to show proof of non- profit status. 5. Groups will be allowed use of the Plaza for their banner no more than two (2) times each twelve month period. 6. A banner may be hung a maximum of 14 days per usage. 7. Banners will be reviewed by Saratoga Fire Department personnel to assure banners meet the following standards: a) Banners must be four (4) feet by at least twenty -five (25) feet long. If properly prepared, banners up to forty -five (45) feet in length may be allowed. b) Banners must be made from a heavy -duty canvas or awning type material. c) One half inch inside diameter metal grommets are to be placed at all four corners of the banner. Each of the four corner grommets should have attached fifty (50) feet of heavy (between 1/4 inch - 1/2 inch) line or rope. d) One half inch inside diameter metal grommets must be placed at least every thirty -two (32) inches along the top edge of the banner. e) Half moon air holes must be cut into the banner every five feet of length in order to avoid tearing or ripping from the wind. Depending on type and weight of banner fabric, it is recommended the half moon cuts be sewn to avoid tearing or ripping. e. All banners will be hung by Saratoga Fire Department personnel. Banners must be submitted to the Fire Department Office at least one full week (seven days) in advance of scheduled usage date. 1 I 9. This policy has been approved and will be administered by the City of Saratoga. The Saratoga Fire Department will be responsible for the tasl of scheduling and hanging the banner. 10. Changes to the above rules and regulations must be approved by the City of Saratoga. 11. Banners must be claimed within ten (10) days from the date of their removal. Those not claimed may be disposed of at the discretion of the Saratoga Fire Department. 12. Neither the City of Saratoga nor the Saratoga Fire Department assumes responsibility or liability for banners, nor for theft, damage or injury that may result from the placement of banners at Blaney Plaza. 13. Groups will be charged a $35 installation per banner fee. All checks are to be made payable to the Saratoga Fire District and paid at time of application. 14. The City of Saratoga will be exempt from the fee requirement and the limitation of time per year. Adopted: 6/1/83 Revised: 12/1B/85 Revised: 2/17/88 L PROPOSED CITY OF SARATOGA Rules and Regulations for Hanging of Banners in Blaney Plaza 1. Mon- profit organizations advertising Saratoga -based community events, or organization advertising Saratoga -based non- profit events may hang banners in Blaney Plaza. Groups may be asked to show proof of non- profit status. 2. In March each year community groups will be asked to submit their requests for preferred dates from July 1st to June 30th for hanging a banner at Blaney Plaza. The Director of Recreation will consider all requests and finalize the schedule for the coming year. Dates open after the calendar is established can be filled throughout the year. 3. Requests will be given the following priority 1) City of Saratoga sponsored activities 2) groups previously hanging banners 3) new groups. 4. Groups may be allowed use of the Plaza no more than two times each twelve month period. 5. A banner may be hung 7 days per usage. If there are no other requests this time period may be extended to a maximum of 14 days. 6. All banners will be hung by the Saratoga Fire Department personnel. Banners must be submitted to the Fire Department Office Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. at least 1 week in advance. 7. Groups will be charged a $35 installation per banner fee. All checks are to be made payable to the Saratoga Fire District and paid when the banner is submitted to the Fire Department. 8.' Banners must be claimed within five (5) days from the date of their removal. Those not claimed may be disposed of at the discretion of the Saratoga Fire Department. 9. Banners will be reviewed by Saratoga Fire Department personnel to assure banners meet the following standards: a) Banners must be four (4) feet by at least twenty -five (25) feet long. If properly prepared, banners up to forty -five (45) feet in length may be allowed. b) Banners must be made from a heavy -duty canvas or awning type material. c) One half inch inside diameter metal grommets are to be placed at all four corners of the banner. Each of the four corner grommets should have attached fifty (50) feet of heavy (between 1/4 inch - 1/2 inch) line or rope. 1 d) One half inch inside diameter metal grommets must be placed at least every thirty -two (32) inches along the top edge of the banner. e) Half moon air holes must be cut into the banner every five feet of length in order to avoid tearing or ripping from the wind. Depending on type and weight of banner fabric, it is recommended the half moon cuts be sewn to avoid tearing or ripping. 10. Neither the City of Saratoga nor the Saratoga Fire Department assumes responsibility or liability for banners, nor for theft, damage or injury that may result from the placement of banners at Blaney Plaza. 11. The City of Saratoga will be exempt from the fee requirement and the limitation of time per year. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1, J AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE:6 /20/90 ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning CITY. MGR. APPROVAL -P4k# - SUBJECT: Planning Commission Analysis of Senior Development at Oddfellows Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council review the report of the Planning Commission and determine if further study and analysis is required for locating senior housing at the Oddfellows site. Report Summary: The City Council requested the Planning Commission's input regard- ing a master plan of the Oddfellows including the 10 acre, Phase III portion of the San Marcos Heights Subdivision. The purpose of the review was to report on the possibility of relocating senior housing from the approved location at the former Paul Masson Champagne Cellars to the Oddfellows to avoid site conditions in- cluding air quality, economic affordability and proximity to Route 85. The Planning Commission reviewed alternative plans and conducted a publicly noticed community meeting to receive public input. The results of the Planning Commission meeting and their analysis is attached to the report. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Report dated 6/20/90 2. Correspondence 3. Alternatives Motion and Vote: ugu'f Qo 0&MZUQ)S& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council DATE: 6/20/90 FROM: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Analysis of Senior Development at Oddfellows overview The City Council requested the Planning Commission's review of alternatives for locating a full service senior housing project at the Oddfellows property that encompassed the 10 acre portion of the San Marcos Heights, Phase III. The Planning Commission reviewed three (3) alternative plans prepared by the architectur- al firm of Ogren, Juarez & Givas, a firm specializing in senior projects and is familiar with the Oddfellows site conditions. The review occurred with public notice given to all surrounding property owners. This memorandum will summarize the results of this meeting as well as provide the Council with the Commission's analysis. Background Three alternative plans were prepared and circulated among inter- ested parties: the surrounding neighborhood and the Senior Coor- dinating Council. All plans encompassed the 27 acres of the existing Oddfellows campus and the 10 acres of the Phase III San Marcos Heights development, for a total of 37 acres. All access was proposed from the Oddfellows access road adjacent to San Marcos Road. At the hearing, staff presented the significant features of each plan that can be summarized as follows: Plan A * Construction of a 155 unit, 2 and 3 story congregate care facility in place of the existing Oddfellows home for communi- ty wide use. * Construction of a 90 -unit congregate care facility east of the Oddfellows access road and adjacent to the California Villas for exclusive use of the Oddfellows members. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE:6 /20/90 ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning CITY. MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Planning Commission Analysis of Senior Development at Oddfellows Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council review the report of the Planning Commission and determine if further study and analysis is required for locating senior housing at the Oddfellows site. Report Summary: The City Council requested the Planning Commission's input regard- ing a master plan of the Oddfellows including the 10 acre, Phase III portion of the San Marcos Heights Subdivision. The purpose of the review was to report on the possibility of relocating senior housing from the approved location at the former Paul Masson Champagne Cellars to the Oddfellows to avoid site conditions in- cluding air quality, economic affordability and proximity to Route 85. The Planning Commission reviewed alternative plans and conducted a publicly noticed community meeting to receive public input. The results of the Planning Commission meeting and their analysis is attached to the report. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Report dated 6/20/90 2. Correspondence 3. Alternatives Motion and vote: * Conversion of the California Villas into a 70 unit Assisted Living Facility. * Construction of 80 single story attached units for independent living on portions of the Oddfellows site and on the 10 acres of the San Marcos Heights Phase III development. Advantages: Provided identity for each the Oddfellows and the community facilities, provided one -story independent units facil- itating senior accessibility. Disadvantages: Independent units were located within views of the adjacent neighborhoods. Access to independent units was adjacent to the westerly property lines common to existing single family homes. Inadequate open space buffers were provided be- tween the neighbors and the independent units and the congregate care facility. Project included removal of the existing Oddfel- lows home. Plan B * Construction of a 186 unit 3 -story congregate care facility in place of the Oddfellows home to be shared between the Oddfel- lows members and the community. • Conversion of the California Villas into 70 units of Assisted Living Facility. • Construction of a Skilled Nursing Facility with a 120 bed capacity. * Construction of 66 single story units on both Oddfellows and San Marcos. Advantages: Provided open space and preserved existing trees in the picnic area. Disadvantages: Created the need to combine Oddfellows and commu- nity services. Proposed a 3 -story congregate care building. Independent units were within views of adjacent residences. Inadequate buffers were provided between senior facilities and the neighborhood. Required removal of the existing Oddfellows home. Plan C * Construction of a 2 and 3 -story 161 unit congregate care facility in place of the Oddfellows home. * Conversion of the California Villas to a 70 -unit assisted living facility. * Construction of a skilled nursing` facility with a 120 -bed capacity. E •i * Construction of 88 independent units arranged in two -story four -plex structures. Advantages: Provided significant buffers to existing residential areas. Did not require access roads near neighborhoods. Pre- served substantial trees in the picnic areas. Disadvantages: Two -story independent units required elevators to ensure senior access. Three -story congregate care facility required joint use of congregate care by both Oddfellows and the community. Following the presentation of master plan alternatives, the Planning Commission opened the meeting to general questions and comments. Several Oddfellows members expressed their extreme concern that the existing home was proposed to be replaced. Others questioned the intentions of the City in pursuing a master plan that was not acceptable to the members. Oddfellows residents also stated their concern regarding the amount of traffic that would be generated from the increased density of the site. Neighbors were unified in their opposition to the proposed master plans. The overriding concern expressed by neighbors was the fact they had relied on General Plan policies to ensure Oddfel- lows development was compatible with their neighborhoods and that the high density housing was inconsistent with these policies. Other reasons neighbors opposed the master plan alternatives included increased traffic, noise and congestion, the loss of trees that currently provide natural screening, loss of open space and destruction of views. Further, several neighbors objected to the use of City resources in the preparation of these alternatives. Representatives of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council were in attendance to express their impressions of the purpose of this meeting. The Coordinating Council presented written com- ments that are attached to this report for reference. In sum- mary, the Coordinating Council is supportive of considering the Oddfellows location for the community's senior housing needs, but an acceptable plan to all parties must be developed. Representa- tives indicated that the Planning Commission should recommend the formation of a Task Force to examine the feasibility of this location and pursue analysis of the complex issues involved. Lastly, the developer of the senior project approved for the former Paul Masson Champagne Cellars site was in attendance and expressed his observations regarding the minimum density required in order to attract quality.operations for the facility. He stated that a minimum of 300 units is necessary in ordet to at- tract a suitable operator. 3 Planning Commission Analysis In responding to the Council's request for review of the Oddfel- lows site, the Planning Commission understands the Council's concern that the Paul Masson Champagne Cellars site has environ- mental and economic characteristics not conducive to the creation of a quality senior facility. Namely, the proximity of the project to Route 85 causes the Council to be concerned regarding air quality and its effect on infirm senior citizens. Secondly, the limited project area results in an institutional appearance. And lastly, the high land costs result in exceedingly high cost for units that may not be attractive to Saratoga residents, the precise community need this facility was intended to fulfill. The following points were identified by the Commission in re- sponse to the presentation of master plan alternatives: 1. While there are certain economic and environmental conse- quences of the former Masson Champagne Cellars site, this site should not be abandoned as the primary location for Saratoga's much needed senior housing. 2. The density indicated on all conceptual master plans is excessive. Further economic and feasibility analysis would be imperative in order to assess the acceptable range of units suitable for this site. 3. The Planning Commission felt that the benefits of the Odd - fellow location warranted discussion of specific concepts but extensive study of land use and economic issues would be required if the Council requested continuation of Planning Commission's consideration. 4. The extensive footprint proposed for the building replacing the existing Oddfellows Home is extremely large and is not adequately setback from neighbors' property lines. 5. Since major obstacles in overcoming the economic feasibility of the former Masson development has been the apparent need for a building height which is in conflict with the City's development code, the Oddfellow's master plan also includes three -story structures in a similar environmentally sensi- tive area. 6. The Planning Commission determined that the existing General Plan policies were in conflict with conceptual master plans. Should the City Council decide to proceed with analysis of the Oddfellows site, the General Plan policies will need to be revisited at an initial stage of review. 7. The traffic generated by the increased development of the master plan is a Planning Commission concern. Because of the proximity of the Oddfellows access road to the private San Marcos Road, increased traffic would not be acceptable 4 until the intersection at Fruitvale Avenue can be resolved. 8'. The compatibility of the senior housing within the R -1- 40,000 neighborhood was a major concern. The Planning Commission felt that many neighbors have relied on the existing policies of the General Plan to ensure compatible usage of the Oddfellows property and that the City land use policy should continue to reflect this commitment. In conclusion, the Planning Commission is concerned about the intensification of the Oddfellows site but recognizes the possi- bility to improve upon the location for the much needed senior facility. However, only proposals that are significantly reduced in density and do not conflict with the quality of life for the surrounding neighbors and the Oddfellows residents should be considered. Further, the Planning Commission feels that the approved senior development at the former Masson Champagne Cel- lars should not be abandoned. Karen Tucker Chairperson Attachments: 1. Correspondence from Coordinating Council 2. Correspondence from 3. Correspondence from Saratoga Area Senior dated 4/6/90 Jeffrey A. Schwartz Vic Monia 5 N Saratoga Area S SC SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL C P. O. Box 3033 • Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Eat. 57 April 6, 1550 TO: Members of the City Council, City of Saratoga API? PLANN!NG DEPT Members of the Planning Commission, City of Saratoga City Manager, City of Saratoga Planning Director, City of Saratoga Rogers and Brook 2251 Grant Road Los Altos, CA 94022 Dividend Development Corporation 3600 Pruneridge Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95051 Executive Director and Board of Directors Odd Fellows Home of California 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Long Term Senior Care Facilities - City of Saratoga On April 24 the City Council and Planning Commission will hold a joint study session in which they will further consider questions relating to a prospective senior retirement center to be located on property known as the Odd Fellows property. We believe it is appropriate at this time to give you a current update on the position of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council on this matter. A statement and explanation of our position are attached. We appreciate the strong support given by the City Council, the Planning Commission and the staff, and we would be happy to answer any questions you may wish to ask. A. Beverett, Chairman Housing Committee Betty skeldson President 0 STATEMENT AND EXPLANATION OF POSITION 4/6/90 SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL Our statement gives recognition to certain background information which is stated briefly below. On October 25 we sent the City Council a letter explaining the position of the Senior Coordinating Council at that time. We recommended that the existing plan for development of a retire- ment center on the "Paul Masson Champagne Cellars" property remain in effect but be held in abeyance until the City and other interested parties could evaluate the feasibility and desirability of locating a retirement center on the Odd Fellows property. The City Council and Planning Commission asked that such an investigation be undertaken by the City Staff, the developers concerned, and a representative of the Odd Fellows. In response to the assigment, the task group conducted a study and produced for the City's consideration tentative plans and drawings which provide 36 acres for a complex. The complex would include both the presently contemplated "market rate" facility and the Odd Fellows retirement home, each independently owned and operated. Joint use of skilled nursing and inter- mediate care facilities would appear feasible through con- tractual arrangements. 'The Odd Fellows site is larger than the Masson site and is located in a serene setting a considerable distance from the junction of the Route 65 Freeway and Saratoga Avenue. because of this it would appear (at least at this point in time) to have some distinct advantages. a. More allowable greenspace and lower density. b. A higher quality residential appearance. c. More freedom from the negative impacts of traffic congestion, noise and air pollution. d. Greater flexibility in the planning of individual resi- dential units- -with size, quality and the amount of greenspace better suited to the needs and financial resources of the various prospective residents. e. A greater market appeal. f. Possible economies of scale and a higher level of service in the skilled nursing and intermediate care facilities (if joint usage could be achieved. One of the advantages associated with the Paul Masson location is its closer proximity to churches, shopping centers, medical centers and bus stops. However, our inquiries at similar complexes in suburban locations indicates that typical resi- dents do not make great use of public transportation such as buses, particularly on cold, windy or rainy days. Those too old of physically unable to drive their own cars tend to 1 prefer portal -to- portal van service provided by the complex. It would appear that such portal -to- portal van service would probably be required at either the Paul Masson or Odd Fellows location. It would initially appear that the impact of the prospective complex on surrounding neighborhoods would not be great, particularly when a retirement institution is already located there. However, we certainly recognize that occupants of these neighborhood deserve the right to make their views known. We are well aware, of course, that the principals involved (the City, the developer and the Odd Fellows) would require further investigation and public inputs before making any commitments. We are also aware that a number of issues that relate to either location (such as the third -floor issue, the traffic congestion issue and the air pollution issue) would need to be addressed and resolved. If the potential advantages of the new location could be realized, a well thought out senior facility there might not only well serve the needs of senior citizens but, in addition, be a Saratoga asset to which all citizens could point with pride. All factors considered, we believe that present evidence adequately supports our present recommendation. The recom- mendation is that the City: (a) continue to hold both the Odd Fellows option and the Masson option under active considera- tion; and (b) pursue the Odd Fellows study to a point that will permit a decision between the two options. The latter decision will of course.require an updated assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each:' If the decision is in favor of the'Odd Fellows option, we would urge that the Paul Masson option not be abandoned until the City has an absolute guarantee that the Odd Fellows Life Care Facility will be built in a timely manner. If you pursue this course, we present for your consideration four needs that we consider important. The first is the need to minimize future procedural delays with the goal of reaching a decision as soon as practicable between the two basic options. Not much forward motion can be attained until this decision is made. The second is the need to review the design and size of the proposed market rate congregate care complex as these factors would be viewed by operators. We have heard informally that some reliable operators (such as Presbyterian Homes) believe 200 residential units to be a minimum size from the standpoint of operator economics (compared with 165 units in the present plan). There are great risks associated with marginally qualified operators. Sufficient investigation to insure that 2 design and size are acceptable to reliable operators would appear to be an imperative. The third is the need to introduce into the study as soon as practicable an analysis of ownership and financing factors as they will affect prospective residents. We are anxious that the facilities be as affordable as practicable to present Saratoga residents. The fourth is the need to include in the City's conditions a requirement (if the Odd Fellows option is decided upon) that the duplex component can not be completed without concrete assurances and guarantees that the congregate care component will also be completed. The Senior Coordinating Council appreciates the Gity's past willingness to allow the Senior Coordinating Council to parti- cipate in the development of significant steps in planning. We feel that any future comments we may make, whether pro or con on a given matter, will be more useful and less likely to cause problems if the comments can be presented on a before - the -fact rather than an after- the -tact basis. 3 SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL P. O. Box 3033, Saratoga, CA 95070 May 22, 1990 NOTE TO STEVE EMSLIE, CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR Subject: Draft - Summary of 4/24/90 Odd Fellows Study Session References:, (a) Yours of 5/18/90 (b) Prospective Draft to City Council You indicated that'comments from the floor on Reference (b) would not be appropriate on April 24, since neither a public hearing nor work session is scheduled. This letter is in response to your invitation to send you informal comments to use at the meeting. Our letter will comment only on items of major interest at this point in time. 1. The last sentence in Reference (b) appears ambiguous to a number of us: "Further, the Planning Commission feels that progress should continue toward constructing a senior facility at the former Masson Champagne Cellars ". If this comment says or implies that construction should be continued without any regard for giving the Odd Fellows location a fair chance to compete on its merits, we would protest it vigorously. If the intent is that both location options should be held open until each can be given a fair assessment based on its merits Prior to a decision to proceed with either, then we believe you may wish to change the language of the sentence. 2. We believe that any of the three concepts shown would require substantial revisions if it is to properly address the concerns of those interested, including the Odd Fellows, the neighbors and the seniors. Based on early stage discussions, we have high hopes that differences can be eliminated or substantially reduced. If the response from the Odd Fellows Grand Lodge meeting of May 25 is sufficiently positive, we suggest that the next step should be the appointment of a working task group to develop broad recommendations for re- visions, using inputs from the parties concerned. 3. It is evident that the retired Odd Fellows residents who spoke at the April 24 meeting had not been properly informed of the plans of Odd Fellows management, viz., to construct a new congregate care facility for their own seniors regard- less of whether a market rate facility is developed. It is our impression that this is being corrected. A. J. Beverett 7 ratoga 1 .7 7 Fr-uitvaie Avenue Call +ornia. �J(_ ) C. Oear P1anninq Commi _sioners: I am gut of the country and I have asked one of my neighbors `o read this letter. The plans beinq presented for the Odd Fellows property are an cutraq_e. They are an affront to the commission and to the city. I ask. that you deny them resolutely, and not encourage variations on these themes and months and months of meetings and neighborhood turmoil. These are not technical development issues. They are not philosophic issues about land use. They are not litmus tests of whether you are for or against senior citizens. These are very simple questions. The Odd Fellows lied to you and to us. They did so repeatedly and intentionally. They presented their, master, plan as though they had no intention of an expansion of this sight. These plans are an explosion of square footage and of units. They said they had no plans for what to do with the main building and they would replace it with two smaller buildings. Now the plan calls for three large buildings. They said, the earthquake made them decide to tear down the main building, but it is still safe enough to be occupied today, and the plan to replace it predates the October earthquake. These are not errors, or misunderstandings, or semantic problems, they are lies. And isn't this the same organization that last year packed the commission and council meetings with elderly residents who pleaded with us not to subject them to any new traffic on their property, because of their, need for quiet and safety'? To use their own elderly residents and members in pursuit of development dollars and now approach the city .with these plans is beneath contempt. It is a real pity that an organization that was for a long time a model neighbor has been dishonored by bad local leadership. The neighborhood question is also quite simple. People run for city council and apply for planning commission with promises about neighborhood integrity and sensitivity to residents. Any increase in density on the Odd Fellows sight in total number of living units and residents, will be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. It is that simple. We already have large delivery trucks, emergency vehicles, and round the clock employee traffic to a sight that is not well screened from surrounding low density JD ,(� residential homes. We also know from enperience that the .A=_t onj ority - perhaps aLmost all - of the residents of any new unit=_ on that sight will not come from Saratoga. I hope the commission will strife to help the current residents of our citv. and the ad joining neighborhoods, rather than help _cme. de , e l _per make mega bucks, and help people from other areas rove to Saratoga. I would hope that your commitment is to neither help nor hinder people from other areas, but that you have a primary commitment to this city's residents. 1 said, these are rather simple issues. Thank vou. Sincerely, Jeffery A. Schwartz San Marcos Road GGO4 iI i r of : ar•atoga 1_77'717 Fruit ✓ale A'venUe C'r:;ar f "l�nnln3 �= ,cmmission: I ari writinq o you concerning the proposed develoF�ment building .at the Odd Fellows, both as a neighbor of the Odd Fellows and as a candidate for city council. I have supported senior, issues In Saratoga and I have specifically favored senior, housin3. I have also supported and publicly advocated for the Odd Fellows going back: more than ten years, and my family has volunteered at the Odd Fellows in the past. When the recent subdivision on the Odd Fellows land was discus =ed. the Odd Fellows representative repeatedly told the planning c=ommission and council that any additional traffic on their, road - even that from 1) additional homes - would present an Unacceptable danger, to current residents. As I Understand the current concept, there would be new independent living units and over all density on the property. As the Odd Fellows representative explained to us all, many times, the routing of the traffic is not the issue. because many residents use the property to walk for, e:'cercise. The greater density would add traffic far beyond what the Odd Fellows found extremely dangerous just last fall, and that doesn't even consider the increase that would occur in service vehicle traffic. A second concern is economics. If: it is.impractical to put a facility on the Mason sight because it cannot be operated at a profit, then I do not see how this sight changes the economic equation. The Mason sight is not problem free, but I prefer it on the information I have so far. I would also ask the planning commission to consider that the care facility was the major concession the city received in return for allowing high density development of the Mason sight.. If the facility is not going to be built on the Mason sight, I would hope the planning commission and city council would renegotiate the entire sight for development. Perhaps it might be possible to do something on the Mason sight that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, like single family resident homes at three or four to the acre and /or substantial open space. Thank you for your consideration. Sin 7,ely, �v is a G03072 SAR��A�pT // rOG�A CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. O(O T AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 20, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services SUBJECT: Resolution Pursuant to Section 6- 15.130 of the City Code Establishing Fees for Second Responses to Public Disturbances Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution as proposed. Report Summary: The second - response public disturbance ordi- nance, adopted by Council on April 4, 1990 as Municipal Code Section 6- 15.130, authorizes fees to be charged for second and subsequent responses by police personnel to public disturbances, as a cost recovery measure. Staff is recommending that the charge be $1.39 per minute per officer, up to a maximum of $700 per incident. In addition, costs for the repair or replacement of damaged City and /or County property, together with medical charges for injured public safety personnel, would be added to the $1.39 per minute charge, and would not be subject to the $700 limit. The $1.39 per minute charge is the fee charged in Los Gatos, and the $700 maximum charge is used in Santa Clara. Fiscal Impact: An unknown revenue savings in the Sheriff's budget may result through the recovery of costs for responses to parties together with a possible decrease in the number of par- ties requiring the attention of the Sheriff's Office, and was recommended by the Public Safety Commission. Attachments: 1. Report from the Community Services Director. 2. Proposed Resolution Establishing Fees. Motion and Vote: 2V �s e � e 0 e 0000 00 00 O 0000 June 20, 1990 (4OS) 867-3438 To: City Council From: Todd W. Argow, Community Services Director COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Do n ald Peterson Francis Stutzman Subject: Adoption of Resolution Establishing Fee Structure for Second - Response Public Disturbance Ordinance Pursuant to Section 6- 15.130 of the Municipal Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- Recommendation 1. Hold Public 2. Close Public 3. If desired, Background Hearing Hearing adopt resolution establishing fees In response to City Council direction, the Public Safety Commission has explored the feasibility of enacting an ordinance dealing with social disturbances including but not limited to parties requiring the attention of the Sheriff's Office. Many other State and County cities have enacted other similar ordinances providing for the recovery of costs for second police responses, and establishing regulations for the consumption of alcohol by juveniles. The Ordinance proposed by the Public Safety Commission, which was adopted by the City Council on April 4, 1990, consists of two parts. The first part of the Ordinance focuses on juveniles in possession of alcohol. It would make it a misdemeanor for anyone to serve alcohol to a juvenile on private property unless that juvenile is under the supervision of his /her parent or guardian. Existing law already makes it illegal to serve minors alcohol on public property, or at places open to the public. Therefore, the ordinance actually extends the application of existing law to include private places in addition to public places. The second part of the ordinance sets up a civil mechanism whereby the City can elect to recover its costs for a second police response to a public disturbance (such as a party) if one is required. The ordinance applies to both adult and juvenile disturbances, and makes a finding that officers responding to a disturbance a second time are deemed to be on a special security Printed on recycled paper. l Memo to City Council /Public Disturbance Ordinance Resolution June 20, 1990 Page Two assignment over and above the level of services financed by the general taxpayer. It is for this second part of the Ordinance that the attached Fee Resolution is designed to address. Analysis Staff reviewed the fees charged by a variety of other jurisdictions which have second - response ordinances, and felt the Town of Los Gatos was most similar to Saratoga. Therefore, staff is recommending a charge of $1.39 per minute per officer which is what Los Gatos charges. Charges for injuries to officers and damage to City or County property would be in addition to these charges. Unlike Los Gatos, however, staff is recommending that the maximum charge for police time be $700 (Los Gatos has no limit). This provision is modelled after the Santa Clara Ordinance, which also has a $700 limit. The provision was recommended by the Public Safety Commission in response to public testimony at their public hearing on this subject. Excluded from this limit would be additional charges for the recovery of actual costs associated with damage to City and /or County property, and injuries to Sheriff Officers. Conclusion Although the Ordinance adopted by the Council is technically in full force and effect, the second response provision cannot be implemented until the Council adopts the attached resolution establishing the fee schedule so that residences where public disturbances are occurring can be properly warned and informed of the charges. Todd W. Ar w Community Services Director TWA:jd PARTYRES.RTC Attachment Printed on recycled paper. l RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR SECOND RESPONSES BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO INCIDENTS CAUSED BY PUBLIC DISTURBANCES WHEREAS, on April 4, 1990, the City Council did pass an Ordinance adding Section 6- 15.120 and 6- 15.130 to the City ,.concerning unlawful gatherings and disturbances; and WHEREAS, Section 6- 15.130 finds that a second response by police personnel to a public disturbance determined by the police offi- cer to constitute a threat to public peace, health, safety, or general welfare, is deemed to be on a special security assignment over and above the services normally provided; and WHEREAS, Section 6- 15.130 also finds that the person or persons responsible for the event shall be liable for the cost of provid- ing police personnel on a special security assignment, and that such costs are to be established by resolution adopted by the City Council. WHEREAS, staff has concluded that a $1.39 per minute per officer represents a reasonable estimate of the average costs for provid- ing police support services at such public disturbances over a year's period. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that the fees to be charged for second and subsequent responses shall be $1.39 per minute per officer, and that the total cost per event shall not exceed $700. Over and above these charges will be charges for injury to officers, and damages to City and /or County property, applied on an actual -cost basis, and not subject to the $700 maximum limit. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of It 1990, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR I A Memo to City Council /Public Disturbance Ordinance Resolution June 20, 1990 Page Two assignment over and above the level of services financed by the general taxpayer. It is for,this second part of the Ordinance that the attached Fee Resolution is designed to address. Analysis Staff reviewed the fees charged by a variety of other jurisdictions which have second - response ordinances, and felt the Town of Los Gatos was most similar to Saratoga. Therefore, staff is recommending a charge of $1.39 per minute per officer which is what Los Gatos charges. Charges for injuries to officers and damage to City or County property would be in addition to these charges. Unlike Los Gatos, however, staff is recommending that the maximum charge for police time be $700 (Los Gatos has no limit) . This provision is modelled after the Santa Clara Ordinance, which also has a $700 limit. The provision was recommended by the Public Safety Commission in response to public testimony at their public hearing on this subject. Excluded from this limit would be additional charges for the recovery of actual costs associated with damage to City and /or County property, and injuries to Sheriff Officers. Conclusion Although the Ordinance adopted by the Council is technically in full force and effect, the second response provision cannot be implemented until the Council adopts the attached resolution establishing the fee schedule so that residences where public disturbances are occurring can be properly warned and informed of the charges. Todd W. Ar4Tw Community Services Director TWA:jd PARTYRES.RTC Attachment Printed on recycled paper. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MEETING DATE: SARATOGA N0._�� CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM June 20, 1990 CITY Engineering ORIGINATING DEPT: MGR. APPROVAL_ SUBJECT: Tract 7889 (Gypsy Hill) - Final Acceptance of Public Improvements and Dedications of Streets and Rights -of -Way. Recommended Action: 1. Grant Final Acceptance of the public improvements assoc- iated with Tract 7889 and authorize release of the improvement securities posted for the work. 2. Adopt Resolutions accepting Dedications of Streets and Rights -of -Ways. Report Summary: The public improvements required of the developer of Tract 7889 (Gypsy Hill) have been completed and effectively maintained for the required one -year maintenance period. Even though Construc- tion Acceptance was never actually granted, staff recommends granting Final Acceptance of the improvements at this time so that the streets can be accepted as public streets. This will enable the developer of Tract 8316 (San Marcos Heights) to access that subdivision from Gypsy Hill Rd. and Chester Ave. which, in turn will satisfy certain assurances made to the residents of Crisp Ave. about the amount of construction traffic associated with Tract 8316 which would use Crisp Ave. It is staff's under- standing that construction traffic associated with Tract 8316 should be split between Gypsy Hill Rd. and Crisp Ave. based on the number of lots that will be served from the extension of the two streets into the subdivision. Thus, approximately 80 %bf the construction traffic will access from Gypsy Hill Rd., while the remaining 20% will access from Crisp Ave.. The improvement secu- rity posted for Tract 8316 will cover any damage which may be caused to public streets by any of the construction traffic. The attached resolutions, if adopted, will accept the dedicated streets and rights -of -ways for Tract 7889 previously rejected by the City and also, authorize the release of the securities posted for the required public improvements. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: - Resolutions accepting Offers of Dedications. Motion & Vote: RESOLUTION NO. 36 -B- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS TRACT NO. 7889 It appearing that on or about June 11, 1990 , the street, storm drain and other improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdivision map and on approved improvement plans therefore were completed and thereafter were maintained by the subdivider for a period of not less than an additional year from date of satisfactory completion. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the following described subdivision map: Map of Tract No. 7889 recorded in Book 583 of Maps, at Page 53-55, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on Feb. 26 , 19 88 and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby rescinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the following: N/A and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby declared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby ordered released: That certain Improvement Bond No. V 7616 65 dated Feb. 17, 1913-8, and issued by United Pacific Insurance Company The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the day of , 19 , at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves, as follows: SECTION l: Reference is hereby made to the following Offer of of Dedication to the City of Saratoga covering rights -of -way over portions of streets: a.) Offer recorded on Agqust 2, 1989 , in Book L042 at Page 1298 of Santa Clara County Records. SECTION 2: The aforesaid Offer of Dedication is hereby accepted by the City of Saratoga and the above portions of said streets covered thereby are hereby declared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the following described Improvement Bond is hereby ordered released.: That certain Improvement Bond (Type) N/A No. - Dated: - issued by: - The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the day of , 19 , at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 1 ?Q MEETING DATE: ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Renewal of City Attorney Contract Recommended Motion: Farasyn for legal services. Approval of resolution renewing contract with Atkinson- Report Summary: The City Attorney contract expires on June 30, 1990. The proposed renewal would be on the same terms and rates of compensation, except that the basic retainer for the first 35 hours of time would be increased by $230 from $2,570 to $2,800. This small increase is to simplify the internal accounting at Atkinson - Farasyn by establishing all non - litigation services at the uniform rate of $80 per hour (which is the rate currently being charged for time in excess of 35 hours per month). Litigation services would continue to be billed at the current rate of $85 per hour. Fiscal Impacts: $230 increase in the retainer amount. The renewal contract is within the amount allocated in the 1990 -1991 budget for legal services. Attachments: (a) Proposal for Renewal of City Attorney Contract. (b) Proposed City Council Resolution. Motion and Vote: I r �d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 100 AGENDA ITEM: !Q 131 f MEETING DATE:6 20/90 ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning CITY. MGR. APPROVAL / -��. SUBJECT: Planning Commission Analysis of Senior Development at Oddfellows Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council review the report of the Planning Commission and determine if further study and analysis is required for locating senior housing at the Oddfellows site. Report Summary: The City Council requested the Planning Commission's input regard- ing a master plan of the Oddfellows including the 10 acre, Phase III portion of the San Marcos Heights Subdivision. The purpose of the review was to report on the possibility of relocating senior housing from the approved location at the former Paul Masson Champagne Cellars to the Oddfellows to avoid site conditions in- cluding air quality, economic affordability and proximity to Route 85. The Planning Commission reviewed alternative plans and conducted a publicly noticed community meeting to receive public input. The results of the Planning Commission meeting and their analysis is attached to the report. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Report dated 6/20/90 2. Correspondence 3. Alternatives Motion and Vote: I 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council DATE: 6/20/90 FROM: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Analysis of Senior Development at Oddfellows --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overview The City Council requested the Planning Commission's review of alternatives for locating a full service senior housing project at the Oddfellows property that encompassed the 10 acre portion of the San Marcos Heights,. Phase III. The Planning Commission reviewed three (3) alternative plans prepared by the architectur- al firm of Ogren, Juarez & Givas, a firm specializing in senior projects and is familiar with the Oddfellows site conditions. The review occurred with public notice given to all surrounding property owners. This memorandum will summarize the results of this meeting as well as provide the Council with the Commission's analysis. Background Three alternative plans were prepared and circulated among inter- ested parties: the surrounding- neighborhood and the Senior Coor- dinating Council. All plans encompassed the:. 27 acres of the existing Oddfellow& campus- and- th&-10-_acres,- of ;they Phase III San Marcos Heights development, for a total of. -37 acres,i;_.All access was proposed from the Oddfellows access-. road=- adjacent,rto San Marcos Road. At the hearing, staff presented the significant features of each plan that can be summarized.-'as'-follows: Plan A * Construction of a 155 unit, 2 and.3 story- congregate..,care facility-in place�of the existing Oddfelloww home.for communi- ty wide use.. * Construction of a,90 -unit congregate.care facility east of the Oddfellows access.road and adjacent to =the: California Villas for exclusive use of the Oddfellow% members. .1 * Conversion of the California Villas into a 70 unit Assisted Living Facility. * Construction of 80 single story attached units for independent living on portions of the Oddfellows site and on the 10 acres of the San Marcos Heights Phase III development. Advantages: Provided identity for each the Oddfellows and the community facilities, provided one -story independent units facil- itating senior accessibility. Disadvantages: Independent units were located within views of the adjacent neighborhoods. Access to independent units was adjacent to the westerly property lines common to existing single family homes. Inadequate open space buffers were provided be- tween the neighbors and the independent units and the congregate care facility. Project included removal of the existing Oddfel- lows home. Plan B * Construction of a 186 unit 3 -story congregate care facility in place of the Oddfellows home to be shared between the Oddfel- lows members and the community. • Conversion of the California Villas into 70 units of Assisted .Living Facility. • Construction of a Skilled Nursing Facility with a 120 bed capacity. • Construction of 66 single story units on both Oddfellows and San Marcos. Advantages: Provided open space and preserved existing trees in the picnic area. Disadvantages: Created the need to combine Oddfellows and commu- nity services. Proposed a 3 -story congregate care building. Independent units were within views of adjacent residences. Inadequate buffers were provided between senior facilities and the neighborhood. Required removal of the existing Oddfellows home. Plan C * Construction of a 2 and 3 -story 161 unit congregate care facility in place of the Oddfellows home. * Conversion of the California Villas to a 70 -unit assisted living facility. * Construction of a skilled nursing' facility with a 120 -bed capacity. 2 * Construction of 8.8 independent units arranged in two -story four -plex structures. Advantages: Provided significant buffers to existing residential areas. Did not require access roads near neighborhoods. Pre- served substantial trees in the picnic areas. Disadvantages: Two -story independent units required elevators to ensure senior access. Three -story congregate care facility required joint use of congregate care by both Oddfellows and the community. Following the presentation of master plan alternatives, the Planning Commission opened the meeting to general questions and comments. Several Oddfellows members expressed their extreme concern that the existing home was proposed to be replaced. Others questioned the intentions of the City in pursuing a master plan that was not acceptable to the members. Oddfellows residents also stated their concern regarding the amount of traffic that would be generated from the increased density of the site. Neighbors were unified in their opposition to the proposed master plans. The overriding concern expressed by neighbors was the fact they had relied on General Plan policies to ensure Oddfel- lows development was compatible with their neighborhoods and that the high density housing was inconsistent with these policies. Other reasons neighbors opposed the master plan alternatives included increased traffic, noise and congestion, the loss of trees that currently provide natural screening, loss of open space and destruction of views. Further, several neighbors objected to the use of City resources in the preparation of these alternatives. Representatives of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council were in attendance to express their impressions of the purpose of this meeting. The Coordinating Council presented written com- ments that are attached to this report for reference. In sum- mary, the Coordinating Council is supportive of considering the Oddfellows location for the community's senior housing needs, but an acceptable plan to all parties must be developed. Representa- tives indicated that the Planning Commission should recommend the formation of a Task Force to examine the feasibility of this location and pursue analysis of the complex issues involved. Lastly, the developer of the senior project approved for the former Paul Masson Champagne Cellars site was in attendance and expressed his observations regarding the minimum density required in order to attract quality, operations for the facility. He stated that a minimum of 300 units is necessary in ordet to at- tract a suitable operator. 3 Planning Commission Analysis In responding to the Council's request for review of the Oddfel- lows site, the Planning Commission understands the Council's concern that the Paul Masson Champagne Cellars site has environ- mental and economic characteristics not conducive to the creation of a quality senior facility. Namely, the proximity of the project to Route 85 causes the Council to be concerned regarding air quality and its effect on infirm senior citizens. Secondly, the limited project area results in an institutional appearance. And lastly, the high land costs result in exceedingly high cost for units.that may not be attractive to Saratoga residents, the precise community need this facility was intended to fulfill. The following points were identified by the Commission in re- sponse to the presentation of master plan alternatives: 1. While there are certain economic and environmental conse- quences of the former Masson Champagne Cellars site, this site should not be abandoned as the primary location for Saratoga's much needed senior housing. 2. The density indicated on all conceptual master plans is excessive. Further economic and feasibility analysis would be imperative in order to assess the acceptable range of units suitable for this site. 3. The Planning Commission felt that the benefits of the Odd - fellow location warranted discussion of specific concepts but extensive study of land use and economic issues would be required if the Council requested continuation of Planning Commission's consideration. 4. The extensive footprint proposed for the building replacing the existing Oddfellows Home is extremely large and is not adequately setback from neighbors' property lines. 5. Since major obstacles in overcoming the economic feasibility of the former Masson development has been the apparent need for a building height which is in conflict with the City's development code, the Oddfellow's, master plan also includes three -story structures in a similar environmentally sensi- tive area. 6. The Planning Commission determined that the existing General Plan policies were in conflict with conceptual master plans. Should the City Council decide to proceed with analysis of the Oddfellows site, the General Plan policies will need to be revisited at an initial stage of review. 7. The traffic generated by the increased development of the master plan is a Planning Commission concern. Because of the proximity of the Oddfellows'access road to the private San Marcos Road, increased traffic would not be acceptable 4 until the intersection at Fruitvale Avenue can be resolved. 8. The compatibility of the senior.housing within the R -1- 40,000 neighborhood was a major concern. The Planning Commission felt that many neighbors have relied on the existing policies of the General Plan to ensure compatible usage of the Oddfellows property and that the City land use policy should continue to reflect this commitment. In conclusion, the Planning Commission is concerned about the intensification of the Oddfellows site but recognizes the possi- bility to improve upon the location for the much needed senior facility. However, only proposals that are significantly reduced in density and do not conflict with the quality of life for the surrounding neighbors and.the Oddfellows residents should be considered. Further, the Planning Commission feels that the approved senior development at the former Masson Champagne Cel- lars should not be abandoned. Karen Tucker Chairperson Attachments: 1. Correspondence from Coordinating Council 2. Correspondence from 3. Correspondence from Saratoga Area Senior dated 4/6/90 Jeffrey A. Schwartz Vic Monia 5 Saratoga Area SAS SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL CC P. O. Box 3033 • Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Ext. 57 April 6, 1550 TO: Members of the City Council, City of Saratoga Members of the Planning Commission, City of Saratoga City Manager, City of Saratoga Planning Director, City of Saratoga Rogers and Brook 2251 Grant Road Los Altos, CA 94022 Dividend Development Corporation 3600 Pruneridge Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95051 Executive Director and Board of Directors Odd Fellows Home of California 14500 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 APR 1 19�4u PLANNING OEPT Subject: Long Term Senior Care Facilities - City of Saratoga On April 24 the City Council and Planning Commission will hold a joint study session in which they will further consider questions relating to a prospective senior retirement center to be located on property known as the Odd Fellows property. We believe it is appropriate at this time to give you a current update on the position of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council on this matter. A statement and explanation of our position are attached. We appreciate the strong support given by the City Council, the Planning Commission and the staff, and we would be happy to answer any questions you may wish to ask. A. Beverett, Chairman Betty akeldaon Housing Committee President STATEMENT AND EXPLANATION OF POSITION 4/6/90 SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL Our statement gives recognition to certain background information which is stated briefly below. On October 25 we sent the City Council a letter explaining the position of the Senior Coordinating Council at that time. We recommended that the existing plan for development of a retire- ment center on the "Paul Masson Champagne Cellars" property remain in effect but be held in abeyance until the City and other interested parties could evaluate the feasibility and desirability of locating a retirement center on the Odd Fellows property. The City Council and Planning Commission asked that such an investigation be undertaken by the City Staff, the developers concerned, and a representative of the Odd Fellows. In response to the assigment, the task group conducted a study and produced for the City's consideration tentative plans and drawings which provide 36 acres for a complex. The complex would include both the presently contemplated "market rate" facility and the Odd Fellows retirement home, each independently owned and operated. Joint use of skilled nursing and inter- mediate care facilities would appear feasible through con- tractual arrangements. the Odd Fellows site is larger than the Masson site and is located in a serene setting a considerable distance from the junction of the Route 85 Freeway and Saratoga Avenue. Because of this it would appear (at least at this point in time) to have some distinct advantages. a. More allowable greenspace and lower density. b. A higher quality residential appearance. c. More freedom from the negative impacts of traffic congestion, noise and air pollution. d.. Greater flexibility in the planning of individual resi- dential units- -with size. quality and the amount of greenspace better suited to the needs and financial resources of the various prospective residents. e. A greater market appeal. f. Possible economies of scale and a higher level of service in the skilled nursing and intermediate care facilities (if joint usage could be achieved. One of the advantages associated with the Paul Masson location is its closer proximity to churches, shopping centers, medical centers and bus stops. However, our inquiries at similar complexes in suburban locations indicates that typical resi- dents do not make great use of public transportation such as buses, particularly on cold, windy or rainy days. Those too old of physically unable to drive their own cars tend to 1 prefer portal -to- portal van service provided by the complex. It would appear that such portal -to- portal van service would probably be required at either the Paul Masson or Odd Fellows location. It would initially appear that the impact of the prospective complex on surrounding neighborhoods would not be great, particularly when a retirement institution is already located there. However, we certainly recognize that occupants of these neighborhood deserve the right to make their views known. We are well aware, of course, that the principals involved (the pity, the developer and the Odd Fellows) would require further investigation and public inputs before making any commitments. We are-also aware that a number of issues that relate to either location (such as the third -floor issue, the traffic congestion issue and the air pollution issue) would need to be addressed and resolved. If the potential advantages of the new location could be realized, a well thought out senior facility there might not only well serve the needs of senior citizens but, in addition, be a Saratoga asset to which all citizens could point with pride. All factors considered, we believe that present evidence adequately supports our present recommendation. The recom- menaation is that the City: (a) continue to hold both the Odd Fellows option and the Masson option under active considera- tion; and (b) pursue the Odd Fellows study to a point that will permit a decision between the two options. The latter decision will of course require an updated assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each:" If the decision is in favor of the'Udd Fellows option, we would urge that the Paul Masson option not be abandoned until the City has an absolute guarantee that the Odd Fellows Life Care Facility will be built in a timely manner. If you pursue this course, we present for your consideration four needs that we consider important. The first is the need to minimize future procedural delays with the goal of• reaching a decision as soon as practicable between the two basic options. Not much forward motion can be attained until this decision is made. The second is the need to review the design and size of the proposed market rate congregate care complex as these factors would be viewed by operators. We have heard informally that some reliable operators (such as Presbyterian Homes) believe 2UU residential units to be a minimum size from the standpoint of operator economics (compared with 165 units in the present plan). There are great risks associated with marginally qualified operators. Sufficient investigation to insure that 2 design and size are acceptable to reliable operators would appear to be an imperative. The third is the need to introduce into the study as soon as practicable an analysis of ownership and financing factors as they will affect prospective residents. We are anxious that the facilities be as affordable as practicable to present Saratoga residents. The fourth is the need to include in the City's conditions a requirement (if the Udd Fellows option is decided upon) that the duplex component can not be completed without concrete assurances and guarantees that the congregate care component will also be completed. The Senior Coordinating Council appreciates the City's past willingness to allow the Senior Coordinating Council to parti- cipate in the development of significant steps in planning. We feel that any future comments we may make, whether pro or con on a given matter, will be more useful and less likely to cause problems if the comments can be presented on a before - the -fact rather than an after- the -tact basis. 3 SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL P. 0. Box 3033, Saratoga, CA 95070 May 22, 1990 NOTE TO STEVE EMSLIE, CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR Subject: Draft - Summary of 4/24/90 Odd Fellows Study Session References: (a) Yours of 5/18/90 (b) Prospective Draft to City Council You indicated that'comments from the floor on Reference (b) would not be appropriate on April 24, since neither a public hearing nor work session is scheduled. This letter is in response to your invitation to send you informal comments to use at the meeting. Our letter will comment only on items of major interest at this point in time. 1. The last sentence in Reference (b) appears ambiguous to a number of us: "Further, the Planning Commission feels that progress should continue toward constructing a senior facility at the former Masson Champagne Cellars ". If this comment says or implies that construction should be continued without any regard for giving the Odd Fellows location a fair chance to compete on its merits, we would Protest it vigorously. If the intent is that both location options should be held open until each can be given a fair assessment based on its merits prior tg g decision to proceed with either, then we believe you may wish to change the language of the sentence. 2. We believe that any of the three concepts shown would require substantial revisions if it is to properly address the concerns of those interested, including the Odd Fellows, the neighbors and the seniors. Based on early stage discussions, we have high hopes that differences can be eliminated or substantially reduced. If the response from the Odd Fellows Grand Lodge meeting of May 25 is sufficiently positive, we suggest that the next step should be the appointment of a working task group to develop broad recommendations for re- visions, using inputs from the parties concerned. 3. It is evident that the retired Odd Fellows residents who spoke at the April 24 meeting had not been properly informed of the plans of Odd Fellows management, viz., to construct a new congregate care facility for their own seniors regard- less of whether a market rate facility is developed. It is our impression that this is being corrected. A. Y. Beverett *.: Df = a.ratoaa 1 17 r r !1tvale A,,,9nue C,ear RI- Anninq Commi=sioners: I am gut of the country and I have asked one of my neighbors `c read this letter. The plans being presented fop, the Odd Fellows property are an autrage. Thev are an affront to the commission and to the city. I ask that you deny them resolutely, and not encourage •'ar•iations on these themes and months and months of meetings snd neit3hborhiood turmoil. These are not technical development issues. They are not philosophic issues about land use. They are not litmus tests of whether you are for or against senior citizens. These are very simple questions. The Odd Fellows lied to you and to us. They did so repeatedly and intentionally. They presented their master plan as though they had no intention of an expansion of this sight. These plans are an e:;alosion of square footage and of units. They said they had no plans for what to do with the main building and they would replace it with two smaller buildings. Now the plan calls for three large buildings. They said, the earthquake made them decide to tear down the main building, but it is still safe enough to be occupied today, and the plan to replace it predates the October earthquake. These are not errors, or misunderstandings, or' semantic problems, they are lies. And isn't this the same organization that last year packed the commission and council meetings with elderly residents who pleaded with us not to subject them to any new traffic on their property, because of their need for quiet and safety? To use their own elderly residents and members in pursuit of development dollars and now approach the city with these plans is beneath contempt. It is a real pity that an organization that was for a long time a model neighbor has been dishonored by bad local leadership. The neighborhood question is also quite simple. People run for city council and apply for planning commission with promises about neighborhood integrity and sensitivity to residents. Any increase in density on the Odd Fellows sight in total number of living units and residents, will be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. It is that simple. We already have large delivery trucks, emergency vehicles, and round the clock employee traffic to a sight that is not well screened from surrounding low densityC0 JD I�