Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04-1984 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. 6 2- DATE:Decenber 16, 1983 (January 4, 1984) Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. - • ----------------------------- ----------------- ------ SUBJEC.'T: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL, SDR -1555, GEORGE GERANOIS, AFTON AVENUE Issue Summary 1. This is an expansion of building to an existing family house. 2. All requirements for City Departments and other agencies have been met. 3. All fees have been paid. Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 1555 -02, attached, approving the building site for SDR -1555. • Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachmrnnts 1. Resolution No. 1555 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission (12- 14 -83) 3. Location Man Council Action 1/4: Approved on Consent Calendar 4 -0. • RESOLUTION NO. 1555 -02 • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF GEORGE GERANIOS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The 13,118 square foot parcel shown as Lot 12 on Tract 5991 prepared by Garcia & Henry Inc., and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga be approved as one (1) individual building site. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular a meeting held on the 4th day of. January 1984 , 0 1 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: U CITY CLERK MAYOR • )MAT =NGAr REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 12/5/83 Commission Meeting: 12/14/83 SUBJECT: SDR -1555, George & Alexis Geranios, 18690 Afton Ave., Tentative Building Site Approval - One lot (over 50% expansion) ----------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Tentative building site approval in order to expand an existing 17431-� house to 2763,E (with a 484 �4 garage) OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Final building site approval and building permit PLANNING DATA: • PARCEL SIZE: 13,118 sq. ft. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: R -1- 10,000 Residential Medium Density Single Family (M -10). SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential SITE SLOPE: + 1% NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: A 10" eucalyptus (under ordinance standards) is proposed for removal with the new driveway. PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: HISTORY: Site is adjacent to entrance to the 11 lots on Abdulla Way and Emanuel Court that were created in 1977. Originally an interior lot, the subject lot became a corner lot when the house next to it was razed and a street constructed to a parcel to the rear. SETBACKS: Existing garage is being removed and the new structures will conform to the required setbacks for corner lots: 10' on the interior side and rear; 25' on the front and exterior side. • SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 3247 -� including garage where 3500` is the Design Review Standard. DRIVEWAY & CIRCULATION: The driveway will be moved so that it is further from the corner. Report to Planning Commis ion SDR -1555, Geranios, Aften Avenue 11/5/83 Page Two PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and • all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A Categorical Exemption was prepared relative to the environmental impact of this pro- ject. Said determination date: November 21, 1983. The Staff Report recommends approval pproval of the .tentative map for SDR -1555 (Exhibits "B" 1' & "C" filed November 7, 1983) subject to the following conditions: I'. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, in- cluding without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and require- ments of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Construct driveway approach 16 feet wide at property line flared to 24 feet at street paving (access road). Use double coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base rock. B. Obtain encroachment permit from Community Development Department for driveway approaches or pipe crossing of City street at time of obtaining building permit. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. If during construction any abandoned septic tank or seepage pit is uncovered, it must be destroyed to health department standards. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the loca- tion and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility.e The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site. • 0 • Report to Planning Commiss'��n P 9 SDR -1555, Geranios, Aften Avenue VI. COMMENTS 12/5/83 Page Three A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Approved: Planning Commission Agenda: KK:sue Kathy KerdUs, Planner 1 37 \� • W � 1 I • ��Yz L O G 09 O' ,C CO 4v JO! Ov` O 6 f t KNALI Ap, PA•[O PUEBLO PA•[O LAOO O O[vuN f L Av f I Il 2 t� AVE, Y Y G • i v[ �T •o ,e N L LOCATION MAP SDf� 1555 • O 2 LO ff I >O 12 Q J /C=. A BILL NO. S63 3 DATE: 12/27/83 DEPARTMENT: City Clerk - W-------------------- - - - - -- SUBJECT': ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BEFORE PERIOD FOR FILING NOMINATION PAPERS: Filing Fee; Candidate Statements -- Advance Payment and Permitted Length; Rebuttal Arguments CITY OF SA1I ICCA Initial: • Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. r.- : Issue Summary Municipal election is June 5, and period for filing nomination papers is February 13 to March 9. Certain issues must be decided prior to February 13. Recommendation Filing fee: Do not establish filing fee. Candidate.:statement: Establish charge of $80.00, payable in advance; retain 200 -word length limit. Rebuttal arguments: Authorize acceptance of rebuttal arguments. .7 Fiscal Immacts Filing fee: No impact if none is established. Candidate statement: Advance payment avoids problem of collecting payment after election. Rebuttal arguments: Acceptance of rebuttal arguments would cause additional printing costs to City. E: -h ibi is /Attachments Background memorandum Council Action 1/4: Mallory / Moyles moved to extend permitted length of statement to 400 words. Moyles /Mallory moved to charge no filing fee. Passed 4 -0. eMoyles /Clevenger moved to allow rebuttal arguments. Passed 4 -0. Clevenger /Mallory moved to charge $80 in advance for candidates statements. Passed 4 -0. Passed 4 -0. S M TO: City Council 09,2W o:T 0&Z&'X00& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 FROM: Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: Election Issues ------------------------------------------------- Filing Fee DATE: 12/27/83 :t The Elections Code allows the legislative body to fix a filing fee not to exceed $25. This might discourage frivolous filings were it not for the fact that a candidate may collect additional nominating signatures in order to avoid the filing fee. The cities of Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, Campbell, and Cupertino (hereinafter referred to as "neighboring cities, ")do not charge a filing fee. No fee is reoonuended. Candidate Statement - Advance Payment Kach candidate may submit a statement regarding his education and qualifications for he office he is seeking, to be filed with the nomination papers. The local agency may either bill each candidate for the cost of printing and handling or require.advance pay- ment of the estimated cost. (The City may also absorb the costs itself.) The state- ment is mailed to each voter in the voter's pamphlet. The City billed candidates after the election in 1982, and one candidate refused to pay the charge of $76.89 because the printer made an error in his statement. (The error was not present in the proofs approved by the City.) Other candidates required repeated reminders after the initial billing on July 15, and one did not pay until October. Neighboring cities either absorb the costs themselves or bill afterwards. A charge of $80, payable in advance, is recom- mended. Candidate Statement - Permitted Length The Council is authorized to provide for an increase in the length of the statement from 200 to 400 words. If a candidate chooses to file a statement, the number of words must be between 50 and the specified limit. Saratoga and neighboring cities retained the 200 -word limit for their most recent elections; that limit is recommended for 1984. Rebuttal Arguments The Council should determine whether it intends to accept rebuttal arguments in case any initiatives, referenda, or general.measures are filed for this election. Each such measure would be submitted to the voters along with an argument for and an argument against; rebuttal arguments would be in response to the basic arguments. Saratoga and neighboring cities accepted rebuttal arguments for their most recent elections, and �he same procedure is recomnenlded for the coming election. �v CITY OF SARATOGA _ Initial: f AGENDA BILL NO: Dept. Head: y DEPARTMENT: Maintenance City Atty D: December 28, 1983 City Mgr ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- SUBJECT: Median Master Plan Issue Summary We have, in an effort to fulfill the Median Landscaping priority established for the current fiscal year, selected a consulting Landscape Architect to complete a City wide Median Master Plan. The Parks and Recreation Commission sent out eight requests for proposals, interviewed three firms, and selected Callander Associates as having the best experience, qualifications and the best approach to fill the City's needs for this project. Peter Callander has prepared the attached "Scope of Services" dated December 15, 1983 which itemizes four tasks which he and his associates will perform at a fee of $14,650.00. We will have a formal agreement based on the "Scope of Services" for your approval on Wednesday night. Recommendation Authorize Mayor to execute Agreement for Landscape Architectural Services for the City of Saratoga ' Iedian Master Plan and adopt resolution appropriating $14,650 Fiscal Impact *ough not budgeted, these funds are available from Federal Revenue Sharing. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution Appropriating Funds - 2. '"Scope of Services" from Callander Associates 3, Report to Mayor and City Council Council Action 1/4: Mallory /Clevenger moved to approve aggreenent and adopt appropriations resolution. Passed 5 -0. 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2.073. • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1983 -84 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET WHEREAS, it is recommended that the following adjustment by made . increasing the present budget appropriations NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget o.f..the City of Saratoga adopted by Resolution 207.3 be amended as follows: Transfer! $14,650.00 from general ledger account 30 -2900 Revenue Sharing Fund balance available, to general ledger account 30-2940 Revenue Sharing appropriations, Subsidiary: Fund 30- Revenue Sharing Program 940 - Median Master Plan Purpose: To contract for a master plan for landscaping City medians.. • The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a requalr meeting of the Saratoga City Council held-on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: 0 MAYOR .r Callander Associates 877 Cowan Road Burlingame, CA 94010 415 697 -8551 Mr. Dan Trinidad, Jr. Director of Maintenance City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Saratoga Medians Project Dear Dan: December 16, 1983 Jim Carroll and I. sincerely appreciated the opportunity to again review with you and Roy the means, methods, and goals on this particular pro- ject. Pursuant to your request, we have developed the attached "Scope of Services" dated December 15, 1983 for your review and possible inclusion as part of your staff report to the City Council. We are anxious to commence work on the project and would sincerely appre- ciate the opportunity to hear your comments and suggestions. Please feel free to call me at your earliest convenience if you need further informa- tion. Sincerely, er Callander Ca 'fornia Registration #],308 PC:cp Enclosure cc: James Carroll isLandscape Architecture Land Planning Environmental Design Peter Callander, ASLA, Principal Steven T Kikuchi, ASLA, Associate r I I SCOPE OF SERVICES ' December 15, 1983 a i GENERAL: Callander Associates has reviewed the request for proposal, dis- cussed the project in an interview with City staff as well as a subsequent review on the scope of services. The following scope supercedes all such information and constitutes the full scope of services for this project. The confines of this project are shown on the attached "Exhibit A - Project Limits" dated December 13, 1983. The specific area shall be the approxi- mately 8.5 miles of existing medians shown. The general intent of consul- tant services is to assist the City in: 1. preparing a master plan for landscaping the medians 2. preparing estimates of probable construction cost for landscape improvements and for projected annual landscape maintenance costs 3. evaluating various possible sources of funding with emphasis on evaluation of assessment district funding To provide the above services, Callander Associates proposes to retain James F. Carroll and Associates as civil engineer and Wilson, Morton, Assaf & McElligott as assessment district and bond consul. The tasks to be completed shall be: TAKS 1: BASE DATA: a) Provide aerial photography for 8 miles of median to include: b) One half mile of median photography at twenty scale on mylar, 24" x 36" sheets, with title block and a double strip of photo. Each strip will cover 600 feet horizontally and up to 200 feet in width. (1200 lineal foot of median will be covered per sheet.) c) Provide remaining 8 miles in reproducible photo strips at fifty scale. Strips shall cover approximately 1500 lineal feet or ± 30 , d) Provide horizontal control for photography from record data. e) Provide one set of contact prints. TASK 2: DESIGN AND ESTIMATES a) Prepare site conditions b) Prepare conceptual design of 8 miles of median at fifty and pre- liminary design at twenty scale. • SCOPE OF SERVICES December 15, 1983 Page 2 c) Two typical cross sections and elevations of the one -half mile medians. d) Review with staff. e) Revise as necessary and prepare estimates of probable construction cost and annual maintenance costs (with maintenance support data provided by City staff). TASK 3: FINANCING ANALYSIS a) Provide analysis of potential available financing sources to include potential grants associated with Highway Safety Improve- ments. b) Provide analysis of assessment district financing under 1913 Act consisting of:* 1) Estimate of total bond issued. 2) Preliminary boundary of district. • 3) Examples of at least two methods of estimating benefits for typical properties in district. 4) Schedule of actions to be taken for implementations of plan. 5) Examples of at least two methods of estimating benefits for capital construction combined with maintenance assessment for typical properties in district. 6) Repeat of 5) and 6) above with offsets form other identified potential sources of funding. TASK 4: PUBLIC MEETINGS The Civil engineer and landscape architect have included time for presentation and attendance at three public meetings, with the * This is based upon the following assumptions: a) Record data on street centerline distances can be provided by the City b) Zoning and Land Use Information will be provided by the City. c) A set of assessor's parcel maps and property roll will be made available for our use. SCOPE OF SERVICES December 15, 1983 1 ! Page 3 • scheduling and designation to be determined with City Staff FEES (For Tasks 1 through 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14,650.00 The above fee includes two sets of documents at each level of review, mile- age, photography and reproduction charges as necessary to complete these services. All other copies and additional services would be provided in accordance with the attached "Standard Schedule of Fees" dated October 1983. • 0 I � STANDARD SCHEDULE OF FEES October 1983 i • I Callander Associates 877 Cowan Road Burlingame, CA 94010 415 697 -8551 GENERAL The following list of fees and reimbursable expense items shall be used in providing services for hourly fee contracts and providing additional services as outlined in the contract. Landscape Architect Principal $60.00 /hr Associate 44.00 /hr Assistant 32.00 /hr. Draftsman 28.00 /hr. Clerical 15.00 /hr. Civil Engineer Principal $ 60.00 /hr Project Engineer 45.00 Senior Engineer 42.00 Office Survey 45.00 Computer 38.00 Draftsman 36.00 Clerical 20.00 3 -Man Field Party 132.00 • Other Items: Rates for Consultation in Connection with Litigation and Appearance before Courts and /or Commissions $75.00 per hour (4 hrs. minimum) Legal Services: included in lump sum fees quoted. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES '. Mileage .30 /mile plus hourly rates above Postage, special delivery charge, printing, photographic enlargements or reductions, and horticultural soils testing at cost plus 10% • Landscape Architecture Land Planning Environmental Design Peter Callander, ASLA, Principal Steven T. Kikuchi, ASLA, Associate PRELIMINARY. PLAN LIMITS CONCEPTUAL PLAN LIMITS F- -I L -.j EXHIBIT .''A" PROJECT LIMITS DECEMBER 13, 1983 SCALE: 1' - 1/2 mile • ©U { 3 ;1 3t a3kE REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12/27/83 COUNCIL MEETING: 1/04/84 SUBJECT* MEDIAN MASTER PLAN Resolution Number 2082, which establishes priorities for the 1983 -84 fiscal year, includes Median Landscaping as one of the top priorities. The City Council was presented with a timeline from the Director of Maintenance for completion of this priority. Although this timeline has not been strictly adhered to, we are now ready to present to you the first of the tasks on the timeline which is the selection of a Consultanting Landscape Architect. The Parks and Recreation Commission, together with staff, developed a Request for Proposals for the Median Master Plan. Eight of these Request for Proposals were sent out to Bay Area firms specializing in this type of project. Five responses were received and reviewed. Three firms were interviewed by a sub - committee composed of staff and Parks and Recreation Commissioners. These firms were Jack Buktenica Associates, Roberts Associates and Callander Associates. Callander Associates presented a unique approach of retaining Bond Council and Assessment District Engineering which would facilitate the formation of a team to not only do schematic landscape design of the medians but also to investigate the various funding sources available. While the Median Master Plan will concentrate on the high priority locations of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road between Prospect and the railroad tracks and Saratoga Avenue at the northerly City limits, it will also review and plan for all medians currently in existence. While Callander Associates' experience and approach was clearly the most appropriate, the completed project cost of $14,650 was within the limits defined by the other proposals. With City Council approv C, Lander Associates will begin immediately on the project a Lan cap ,-,' dj_ighting Act Assessment District could be establis d prior Ju y:of 1,9 4. •D Trinidad, r. Director of Mainte ance CCITY Or SAR11IOCA AC=A BILL NO. ,S DATE: 12 -22 -83 DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services 0------------------------------- SUBJECT: Housing and Community Development Act Allocations for FY 1984 -85. ` Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty C. Mgr. Issue Sumnary The City will be entitled to receive approximately $175,000.00 in HCDA funds to conduct eligible activities during FY 1984 -85. The City Council shall determine the allocation of these monies to specific projects and applicants. FY 1984 -85 will mark the City's 10th year in the receipt of HCDA funds. In past years the City has funded such.activities as: E1 Quito Park Develoment, Downtown Beautification, Demolition,.Street Reconstruction, Senior Citizens Center Construction, Housing Rehabilitation, Storm Drain Installations, Senior Citizen programs, Landbanking, Historic Preservation and Removal of Architectural Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped. Recommendation Conduct lst Public Hearing on January 4, 1984 to inform the public of the availability of these funds and eligible uses. Receive public input. Continue Public Hearing to Jan. 18, 1984 to review project applications, receive public input and make funding allocations. C7 Fiscal Impacts Receipt by the City of approximately $175,000 in HCDA funds during FY 1984 -85, plus program administration costs. Exhibits /Attachments Project applications received to date. Council Action 1/4: Fanelli /Moyles moved to continue public hearing to 1/18. Passed 5 -0. 0 _,J f Or U R B A N C O U N T Y CITY OF SAPATO ;A U R B A N C O U N T Y • AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 13LOCK GRANT PROGRAM PROJECT PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORM PROGRAM YEAR TEN (JULY I, 1984, rO JUNE 30, 1985 Submit Completed Form by 5 :00 p,m,, APPLICANT LOS GATOS JT. UNION H.S. DIST. December 14, 1983 deadline to: Administrative Services Department Housing & Community Development Coordinator City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 ALL PROJECT PROPOSALS MUST BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN AND TYPED. USE ONLY SPACE PROVIDED. INCOMPLETE FORMS WILL BE REJECTED. Call Stan Carnekie lat (409)8A7_-1A10 ' f 17421 Road Jest Los Gatos, CA 95030- FUNDING REQUESTED: 10thyear $ 20,050 11th year ...$ 10,400 i you have any questions. 1. PROJECT TITLE: HANDICAPPED ACCESS TO SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL • 2. PROJECT LOCATION: CENSUS TRACT SaratO a High School 1 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION NARRATIVE: a succinct description of your project. The de Please provide description should mention each separate component or activity included in the project, e.g. acquisition, demolition, removal, construction, relocation, etc. The description should indicate specific location, time factors, physical dimensions, etc. The description should also convey the general nature, magnitude and extent of the project.) .Saratoga High School is a focal point of the community at large. The facility is used on a continual basis not only as an educational facility but also by the Community at large. The campus, being built prior to June 1977, is not readily accessible to handicapped citizens. Therefore, handicapped citizens who wish to participate in community activities and /or the use of the facility are significantly hindered due to the current inaccessability. Participation in a cooperative pro- ject with the city would assist in implementation of modifications required to modify the campus for handicapped. The goal would be to achieve as many items as the allocation allows and within the current projected estimates. Competent con- sulting has been secured for the purpose of estimating costs. The school district realizes HUD funds are limited and needs are great. Therefore, we have divided the needs into two years. The estimates do not include district maintenance personnel or supply cost which would be paid by the district in addition to the dollar allocation. The project's major requirement deals mostly with construction modifications to the existing facility as outlined in the following items: • 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION NARRATIVE - (cont.inkwd) Use additional space (attachment) -if necessary. See attachment 1 4. IDENTIFY SPECIFIC MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES TO BE ACHIEVED BY THIS PROJECT: Completion of the total project will enable handicapped citizens accessibility throughout the campus. Therefore, handicapped citizens will be able to attend, with individual ability, many individual and public affairs. Completion of each individual item reflects a measurable part.of the total goal, "Handicapped Accessibility for,Saratoga High School." • 5. IDENTIFY PROJECT BENEFICIARIES: • 29,261 (+ or -) a. Total number of persons in service area. 9,065 b. Number of low and moderate income persons in service area. C. % of low and moderate income persons to total number of 48.1% persons in service area. 3,649 d. Number of elderly persons. Over 60 613 e.: Number of handicapped persons. Over 60 (Source item 1 ) 608 (Source item 4) f. Data sources 1. Calif. Dept. of Aging Area 10 1980 Census 2. Santa Clara County Transit Data 3 -82 3. 1980 Census Data • 4. 1975 Census 2 = l Attachment 1 PROJECT PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORM 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION NARRATIVE: Year 1 1 F Restroom Alterations: A. Gym Lobby -Men's Room B. Gym Lobby - Women's Room C. Men's Locker Room D. Women's Locker Room E. Administrative Wing, Women's restroom in N.W. corner............... ............................... $ 8,000.00 2) Add metal transitions at door thresholds exceeding 112" and wood transitions at Bldg. "P 2,800.00 3) Add handrails to existing ramps between 100 and 300 wings, 500 and 700 wings, wing 900 and between music and shop wings ..... ............................... 6,000.00 4) Drinking Fountain modifications ......................... 5,350.00 5) Campus Handicapped Signs . ............................... 400.00 ^'T� —Total Year 1.... $ 22,550.00 K, 1: ' S z Crm ski'. Year 2 —1 )—Accessible work stations at Labs and Shops. ..°— : ° —.... $ 3,500.00 2) Add turnout to exiting ramp at east side of Central Courtyard ................ ............................... 2,500.00 3) Construct new ramp with handrails between 500 and 700 wings ................ ............................... 7,500.00 4) Modify athletic field gates .............. 900.00 e0VVCrs1u0 —Total Year 2.... $ 15,400.00 i WX 0 Contact Person: Dorothy J. Diekmann TITLE: Business Manager • Phone: (408) 354 -2520 F J 6 • ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF PROJECT: IN ONLY IF MULTIPLE YEAR FUNDING IS A PROJECT NECESSITY 10th CDP,G S UM— IER $ 11th - - -ir 12th year 1. Desiqn/engineering $ 2,500 CDBG $ C111 ER $ CDE3G $ $ 2- Property acquisition - 3- Construction cost 17,550 $ 5,000* $10,400 $ 5,000* 4. Salaries a. personnel b. benefits 5. Office expenses Goal is t complete he project as a, rent quickly a possible. However, the b. telephone district ecognizes he limite HUD dollars a d the.dema d for nee Js city - c. postage wide. We have, ther fore, divided the d. printing projects nto two ye rs and ar willing to work c(operatively c(operative)y with the city e. supplies ' to achiev one commo goal. f. travel I *The esti ates do no include istrict g. utilities maintenan a personnel or suppli costs h- equipment which wou d be paid y the dis rict in additi n to the dollar allo ation. i. dues & subscriptions 6. Other expenses - a. accounting services b- contract services c• insurance • d. conferences e. miscellaneous TOTAL $ 20,050 $ 5,000 1 $10,400 $ 5,000 $ $ Estimated Budget prepared by _ Dorothy J. Diekmann telephone (408) 354 -2520 7. IDENTIFY ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE OCCURED TO THIS PROJECT AND IDENTIFY IN PRIOR YEARS WHICH RELATE THE SOURCE AND AMOUNT(S)'OF FUNDING: Architectural fees, ramps, p portables 5, 6, 7, library carrel, adjust public phone, provide hap icappe par ing spaces wide facilities the auditorium, football IL a oga �g c t- field 15,000 has been expended from Educationa and restrooms. Approximately fun s or -wi dditi nal mounts up t $47,164 are to be istric e mo I ica ons. expended on a cooperative project with the Town of Los Gatos to include additional 'at Los Gatos High School. district facility mo i ica ions 8. GOVERNMENT UNIT OR ORGANIZATION SUBMITTING Name: SaratoQa THIS PROJECT PROPOSAL: High School/ os Gatos Jt Union High School District _ Address: 17421 Farley Road West, Los Gatos, CA 95030 -3396 Contact Person: Dorothy J. Diekmann TITLE: Business Manager • Phone: (408) 354 -2520 All activities to be completed within the year as student schedules and weather permits. Can this project be incorporated into the on -going work load of the applicant and successfully be implemented according to this schedule? X_ Yee No 1.. • T 1 T I e 9.1,1(o POSED THPLEHEN"rATION ACTIVITY T1HE SCHEDULE List in detail the major activities to be undertaken to implement the project Program Year 1984 -85 and the scheduled time they Will begin and be completed. Once approved, projects Date Prepared 12 -12 -83 Will be closely monitored during implementation according to this time schedule: Revisions Name Saratoga High School Final Approval Project Implementor Same Approved Revisions Title 11 o n t h s E n d i n g of sC Activities 7/31 8/31 9,30 10/31 11/31 12/31 1/3-- 1 2/28 3/31 4130 S/31 6/30 All activities to be completed within the year as student schedules and weather permits. Can this project be incorporated into the on -going work load of the applicant and successfully be implemented according to this schedule? X_ Yee No 1.. • T 1 T I e ILJ L� • U R B A N C O U N T Y C� . I `r n CI'T'Y OF SARATOGA U R B A N C O U N T Y AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PROJECT PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORM PROGRAM YEAR TEN (JULY I, 1984, f0 JUNE. 30, 1985 Submit Completed Form by 5 :00 p•m., December 14, 1983 deadline APPLICANT Saratoga — g Area Senior to: Administrative Coordinating Council Services Department Housing & Community Development P.O. Box 3033 Saratoga C Coordinator FUNDING REQUESTED: 9507 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale 10thyear $20,000 plus unexpended Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 balance 1983 from fiscal year ALL PROJECT PROROSALS MUST BE COMPLETELY -84 balance less unexpended to the subsequent FILLED IN AND TYPED. USE ONLY SPACE year. PROVIDED. INCOMPLETE FORMS WILL BE REJECTED. Call Stan Carnekie at (408)867-34,38 if you have any questions. I. PROJECT TITLE: Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SA- 82• -32) 2. PROJECT LOCATION: CENSUS TRACT Saratoga (City -wide) NSA N/A 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION NARRATIVE: a succinct description of your project. The description should men Please provide ti component or activity included in the project, e,g, acquisition, demolition, removal, construction, relocation, etc. The description should indicate specific location, time factors, physical dimensions, etc. The description should also convey the general nature, magnitude and extent of the project.) Since the opening of the Senior Wing in December 1981, and the promo- tion of-club and class activities, formal programs have expanded considerably. These have been geared to the needs and requests of the older adult target population. There has been no'duplication with other community services, and an organized effort has been made to collaborate with.neighboring senior centers, including Campbell, Los Gatos, and Cupertino, to strengthen programs in each respective location, to reduce the cost of operations, and to maximize resources. Such effort continues in class instruction, recreation, health educa- tion, meal programs, and coordination of services. Retention of a part -time coordinator of senior center activities has continued to develop new programs, promoted community -wide visibility of the center, increased the active membership, and stimulated broader volunteer participation in the programs of the center. Community outreach efforts to older adults are currently focused on the frail elderly who are underserved andlthe lower fixed income persons who 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION NARRATIVE - (continued) Use additional space (attachment) if necessary. .7 must combat rising costs of medical care, living expenses, transportation and socialization. Time schedule and program goals are expressed in attachment. 4. IDENTIFY SPECIFIC MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES TO BE ACHIEVED BY THIS PROJECT; Increase the number of older adults in the Saratoga area who use the center to the extent of building and program capacity. To provide both educational and wellness promoting activities, iu.addition to socialization. To reach out cooperatively with other community organizations to take some of the center services into the homes of older frail adults. 5. IDENTIFY PROJECT BENEFICIARIES: ' 29,261 a. Total number of persons in service area. b. Number of low and moderate income persons in service area. 14.065 C. % of low and moderate income persons to total number of 48.1 persons in service area. d. Number of elderly persons. over 60 30 649 613 e. Number of handicapped persons. over 60 f. Data sources California Dept. of Aging sta s for PSA area agency censn. Saratoga Senior Citizen Housing Ne edsAnalysis Saratoga Social Needs Assessment Community Forum, Public Hearing, Saratoga Council on Aging, Santa Clara County Transit Assist follow -up data 3 -11 -82 Public Hearings conducted by Citf of Saratoga, January 1983 • 6• ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF PROJECT: 10 th year I CDBG s_CM 1. Design/engineering 2. Property acquisition 3. Construction cost 4. Salaries;; Coo rdinatoz Of Services a. personnel- -Other Q b. benefits S. Office expenses 10, 000` art) FILL IN ONLY IF MULTIPLE YEAR FUNDING IS A PROJECT NECESSITY 11th year 12th Year CDBG $ 1 OTHER $ j CDBG $ I ��,q $ 10,000a 3,775 4,325 a. rent in kind in kind b. telephone 1,000 1,10 0 C. Postage, 200 300 . d. printing 750 8 0 0 e. supplies 200 2 0 0 f. travel g. utilities in kind h. equipment i n kind Furnish- �_ ( urnish- , i. dues & subscriptions �� ing s Fund) -- ing s Fu d) 6. Other expenses a. accounting.services b. contract services c. insurance 225 2 2 5 d. conferences e. miscellaneous p= a m' 10,000 0 0 0 8 5 0 110,000 1,550 TEAL S .1 2-0'000 a $79000 20,000 $8,500 $ $ Estimated Budget prepared by telephone 8 6 7 - 2 011 Olga S. MacFarlane Coordinator of Senior Activities aPlease ste explanation'of other :.funding needs and requests on separate pag 7. IDENTIFY ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE OCCURED IN PRIOR YEARS WHICH RELATE TO THIS PROJECT AND IDENTIFY THE SOURCE AND AMOUNT(S)'OF FUNDING: 19$1 and Fall 1982 Public Hearings. 1979 Public Hearings, Senior Center Construction with CDBG funds of $244,370 in 1980. 1981 Foundation and community fund - raising efforts which generated 3 ,0 for urn shings. Revenue of $7.noo from donations fund-raising efforts and membership duES. CDBG funds for program and administration 1982 -83, and 19 3 -84 20,000 each'vear) 8. GOVERNMENT UNIT OName: Saratoga Address: P. 0. Contact Person: Phone: (408) 1 t\1. - OR ORGANIZATION SUBMITTING THIS PROJECT PROPOSAL: Area Senior Coordinating Council Box 3033, Saratoga, CA 95070 Mildred Cord TITLE: President 367 -3763 Please see footnote from Summary of Total Project Costs In addition to the costs as projected herein, two other urgent funding needs have been identified as described below and for which Revenue Sharing funds • will be requested from the City's 1984 -85 Budget allocation of such revenues. 1. There has been a very significant growth in the need for and use of Senior Coordinating Services, particularly in areas of outreach with the frail and elderly of the area. In response to these needs an increase in program activity has strongly suggested increasing the retained services of our Coordinator of Senior Activities from one -half time (20 hours per week) by 25% to 25 hours per week and a modest (4%) increase in her salary rate to $10.00 per hour for fiscal year 1984 -85. This is on a retainer basis with no other benefits or perquisits. Concurrently a salary increase is proposed for the office assistant from $6.25 per hour to $6.50 per hour without increase in hours (currently half time or 20 hours per week.) This is also on a retainer basis. Our staffing needs are thus increased by $3,260 and we will be respectfully requesting Revenue Sharing funds for this. We believe the strong presence of our program activity in Saratoga with an increasing senior population now warrants this increase in our staffing. Our volunteer efforts by our Board members and throughout our program activity has increased sharply and is increasingly effective. Moreover, funds raised from other sources (membership dues, contributions and from special fun* raising events) are also increasing annually and are accommodating very sizable increases in other administrative costs such as telephone, printing and mailing our monthly publication, and other office and program costs which are not funded by CDBG funds nor covered by our request for Revenue Sharing funds. 2. A second category of funds for which we anticipate requesting a Revenue Sharing allocation is for kitchen improvements. A very small and inadequate kitchen was provided in the limited funding for the building program when it was designed in the late 1970's. Most urgently the dishwasher must be replaced, a larger range is required and the ventilating system needs replacement to meet safety standards. A total of $7,000 is needed for these improvements but we can provide $2,000 from our own Furnishings Fund which has already provided well over $30,000 of furnishings and equipment to the facility. We would greatly appreciate an allotment of the remaining $5,000 from Revenue Sharing Funds. We will be pleased to enlarge on this request at any time. NARRATIVE OF PROGRAM ACTIVITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984 -85 $3,400 • Nutrition and Health 1,500 Nutrition Education: Includes limited meal program with educational component to serve 40 persons who are identified to benefit from this service. Some catering service is contemplated with food service upgraded at semi - monthly luncheons and a quarterly theme luncheon with dietician and assistants making the presentation. Project funds assist in subsidy for low - income persons. 1,4 00 Health for Fitness, including a health screening component, designed to promote wellness. (Professional fees, classes, materials, lecturers, and limited equipment.)" These programs are directed to and especially 4 esigned for older adults. Special Health Programs directed at low to moderate income individuals. (Direct service and health screening costs included.) 200 Emergency services: Accidents, catastrophes, limited respite care. 300 Other Health Education Activities: • CPR, Vial for Life, Alzheimer's Disease, Arthritis, and other specified illnesses, and Safety and Protection of Older Adults. $1.50 Other Service Programs 19000 1. Continuation of outreach :efforts to identify homebound and frail elderly adults through organizations proved less effective than anticipated. One -to -one contact will be made to bring identified individuals to the Senior Center and to consider especially designed program activities for them. Some respite care may be needed when not available,from other sources. Transportation, Medicare and health insurance counseling are also part of this effort. The Widows /Widowers Support Group is a result of direct outreach effort to this population. 500 New outreach efforts to the older adults of the Saratoga area will focus on socialization, promotion of fellowship, and main- taining or improving the quality of life for the target population. • $2,000 $1,500 $1,500 $600 2. Job Finding and Placement A need unique to older Saratoga area adults is part -time employment • to supplement fixed income and to use leisure time effectively. Retirement Jobs, Inc. does not fill this need for most persons with professional and managerial backgrounds. The business com- munity is reluctant to "employ" older adults who don't fit into the benefit structure. Efforts to find a volunteer to take on this task have been unsuccessful. Individual assessments, job development, and cooperative placement efforts in creative employment are components of this activity. Career counseling and screening of persons who wish to work for other older adults will also be part of this program activity two half days weekly. 3. Consumer Education and Counseling 1,000 Continuation of a most successful series on money management for older adults is geared to educating and helping persons on fixed incomes stretch their funds most effectively. Recognized experts in the areas of health insurance, estate planning and asset management will be offering seminars, and project funds will assist in purchase of materials and fees /stipends for the professional instructors in modest sums. 500 Other consumer education efforts will deal with scams, encroach- ment on older adults by the sales community, automobile repair • problems, fraud prevention and protective services, with elderly abuse a concern. Information and referral services offered by the Center are also a focus of consumer awareness. 4. Transportation Reimbursement to local organizations and individuals who offer older adults transportation privately or by special vehicles is a vital component of total program and Senior Center utilization. The local area resources are not sufficient to meet the need, particularly on short notice, or for transportation outside specified geographic limits. 5. Unallocated for Emergencies $10,000 - -TOTAL An amount is allocated for unforeseen expenditures, arising from emerging program needs and to provide some flexibility for adjustments throughout the year. 50 • 9•PROPOSED IHPUMENTATION ACrIVITY TINE SCHEDULE List In detail the major activities to be undertaken to implement the project Program Year* 1984 -85 and the scheduled time they will begin and be completed. Once approved, projects Date Prepared 12/19/83 will be closely monitored during implementation according to this time schedule: Revisions Name .Saratoga Area SenjQr Coordinating Council Final Approval Project Implementor Olga S. MacFarlane, Coordinator Approved Revisions of Senior Activities Title Months End i n of Activities 7/31 8/31 9/30 1 10/31 1 11/31 12/31 1/31 2/28 1 3/31 4/30 1 5/31 1 6/30 1. Nutrition & Health $2,900 . 1,500 Nutrition Educatici 1,400 Health Activities 2. Other Service Programs $1,500 1,000 ;`Continuation of Outreach 5,00 New Outreach 3. Job Finding & Placemen $2,000 150 4. Consumer Education and Counseling $1,500 5. Transportation $1,500 100 6. Unallocated for Emergency $600 50 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 140 140 140 140 140 .140 140 140 ' 140 140 00 TOTAL 350 35.0 865 865 965 990• 965 965 965 915 915 890 Can this project* be incorporated into the on -going work load of the applicant and successfully be implemented according to this schedule? __ Yes No 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 100 150 175 175 175' 150 175 173 175 175 175 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 .150 150 100 100 100 150 200 150 150 150 100 100 100 50 50 50 50. 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 00 TOTAL 350 35.0 865 865 965 990• 965 965 965 915 915 890 Can this project* be incorporated into the on -going work load of the applicant and successfully be implemented according to this schedule? __ Yes No Title of Activities Administration 10,000_TOTAL H o n t h s E n d i n S 7/31 8/31 9/30 10131 11/31 12/31 1/31 2/28 3/31 4/30 5/31 6/30 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 1833.37 Can this project' be incorporated into the on -going work load of the applicant and successfully be Implemented according - to this schedule? - Yes No Schedule prepared by Olga MacFarlane.. 9'_ ppoposco IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY TINE SCIIEDULE List in detail the sutler activities to be undertaken to Implement the project Program Tearl984 -85 and the scheduled titre they will begin and be completed. Once approved, projects Date Prepared 12/19/83 will be closely monitored during implementation according to this•time schedule: Revisions Name - SaratoQa_Area Senior Coordinating Council Final Approval Project Implementor - Olga S. MacFarlane, Coordinator of Approved Revisions Senior Activities ' Title of Activities Administration 10,000_TOTAL H o n t h s E n d i n S 7/31 8/31 9/30 10131 11/31 12/31 1/31 2/28 3/31 4/30 5/31 6/30 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 833.33 1833.37 Can this project' be incorporated into the on -going work load of the applicant and successfully be Implemented according - to this schedule? - Yes No Schedule prepared by Olga MacFarlane.. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. J Dept. Hd. DATE: December 22. 1983 (January 4, 1984) C. Atty. V PARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. ---------------------------- - - - - -- X SUBJECT:* APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION RESOLUTION FOR A TWO ACRE PARCEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER FORMED BY GLEN UNA DRIVE Issue Summary 1. LAFCO has forwarded a resolution approving the annexation of the property referenced above to the City of Saratoga. 2. The property owner proposes to demolish 4 existing dwellings and construct a new dwelling. 3. The proposed annexation is consistent with the goals and policies of the General-Plan. ti Recommendation Approve the resolution ordering the annexation of the subject property. Fiscal Impacts Small increase in property tax revenues will be offset to some extent by street maintenance costs for that portion of Glen Una Drive to be annexed to the City. Overall economic impacts will not be significant. No adverse impact anticipated on existing public services. Exhibits /Attachments Exhibit "A" - Resolution ordering Glen Una 1983 -3 annexation Exhibit "B" - Staff Report dated 12/22/83 Council Action 1/4: Fanelli /Clevenger moved to adopt Resolution 2111. Passed 5 -0. • • • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ORDERING ANNEXATION (UNINHABITED TERRITORY - ALL LANDOWNERS CONSENT) WHEREAS, on October 12, 1983, pursuant to petition and consent by all the owners of the land hereinafter described, which land is uninhabited within the terms and meaning of the Municipal Organiza- tion Act of 1978, the Local Agency Formation Commission of.Santa Clara County passed and adopted Resolution 83 -54 approving the hereinafter described annexation, a copy of which'resolution being attached hereto as an exhibit and incorporated herein by reference, and which resolution designates this City as the conducting authority for said annexation proceedings, and authorizes the same to beheld without notice and without hearing,�:and without an election, pursuant to Government Code Section 35221_, and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is contiguous to the City of Saratoga and is uninhabitied as determined by the Commission in its resolution, and is designated as "Glen Una 1983 -3" attached hereto, and there are no terms or conditions to which said annexation need be made subject by this City and this Council is desirous of proceeding with approval of said annexation without the necessity of notice or hearing, and without any election. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby approve and order the annexation of the territory hereinafter described to the City of Saratoga, and does hereby declare that said territory to be annexed to said City. The territory, the annexation of which is hereby approved, is all that certain real property sit- uated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, more parti- cularly described in Exhibit "A" attached to LAFCO Resolution 83 -54 attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. The above and adopted by the City meeting hereof held the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: • CITY CLERK foregoing resolution was regularly passed and Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular on the day of , 1984 by Mi. . • • • V k 1 01 C REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 12/22/83 COUNCIL MEETING: 1/11/84 SUBJECT' ANNEXATION OF A 2+ ACRE PARCEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER FORMED BY GLEN UNA DRIVE On October 12, 1983 the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) adopted a resolution approving the annexation of the subject property to the City of Saratoga. The annexation was requested by the pro- perty owners -- Ken and Gloria Levy. They propose to demolish the existing 4 single family units on the site and replace them with a single family dwelling. General Plan goals and policies relative to annexation requests are as follows: LU.1.0 Adhere to the adopted Saratoga Sphere of Influence Plan. LU 1.1 Lands shall not be annexed to Saratoga unless they are contiguous to the existing City limits and it is determined by the City that public services can be provided without unrecoverable cost to the City and dilution of services to existing residents.' LU.1.1 (Imp) Annexation proposals shall be carefully studied to determine their economic and urban service impacts on the City. The site is contiguous to the City's southern boundary line. The City will receive some property tax revenues because of the annexation but it will also acquire the County portion of Glen Una Road which would be maintained by the City. The City may require some street improvements. Due to the small size of the project it is not anticipated that the annexation would have an adverse economic or urban service impact on the City. The proposed land use is less intense than the existing land use. LAFCO indicates that the pro- ject can be provided with appropriate levels of service. The site will also be annexed to Evergreen Soil Conservation District, Central Fire District and the Saratoga Cemetary District. Report to the Mayor and City Council Annexation of 2+ Acre parcel on Glen Una 12/22/83 Page 2 Section 18.13 of the zoning ordinance states that all territory annexed to the City and designated Slope Conservation (now Hillside Conservation Single Family) shall automatically be classified (zoned) HC -RD. This section would apply to the subject property so that at the time of annexation the property will be zoned HC -RD. With that zoning only one dwelling unit would be permitted on the site. The specifics of any project would be reviewed at the time of Building Site Approval. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution ordering an of the subject property since it is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. APPROVED ZV MF /bjc M.C.C. Agenda 1/4/84 • '`Michael Flore Assistant Planner i • y l00% i -9 83 RESOLUTION NO. 83 -54 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY, DESIGNATED AS: GLEN UNA 1983 -3 RESOLVED, by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, that WHEREAS, a petition /resolation for the proposed annexation to the Ciry of Saratoga, to Evergreen Soil, to Central Fire District and to Saratoga Cemetry, consisting of 2+ acres, south side of Glen Una Drive at /between Glen Una Drive and Canon Drive. in the County of Santa Clara was heretofore filed by landowner and accepted for filing on August 31, 1983 by the Executive Officer of this Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to- T7 tle-6;-0ivision-j;tomm7errctrmrwtth SestaAR -56900 /Part 2 of Title 4, Division 2, commencing with Section 35000 et seq. • of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer, pursuant to Government Code Section 54794, has reviewed this proposal and prepared a report including the Executive Officer's recommendations thereon, and has furnished a copy of this report to each person entitled to a copy; and WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of this Commission that all owners of land included in said proposal consent to said proceeding; and WHEREAS, this Commission on October 12, 1983 , heard from the interested parties, considered the proposal and the report of the Executive Officer, and considered the factors determined by the Commission to be relevant to this proposal, including, but not limited to, factors specified in Government Code Section 54796; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 54774.3 this commission makes the following findings: 1. A portion of the County of Santa Clara's agricultural preserve -iths not within the area which could be considered the sphere of influence of a public agency affected by this proposal. l:rK •, 78 -10a (Rev: 83/07) 2. This proposal (mark /complete appropriate box): O will not result in conversion of prime agricultural land to non - agricultural use; • Q will result In conversion of prime agricultural land to nonagricultural use and the Commission therefore makes the following written findings to explain the reasons for its determination herein: WHEREAS, this Commission has reviewed and considered the Environmental Impact Report /negative declaration, NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Santa Clare DOES HEREBY RE5.01LVE, DETERMINE and ORDER as follows: Section 1. This Commission so certifies it has reviewed and considered the Environmental Impact Report /negative declaration. Section 2. (Insert Environmental Findings "The Commission has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, class #15119(b) ". • Section 3. Subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter specified, said proposal is approved. Section 4. The boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed , as set forth in the proposal or as amended by condition, are hereby approved as described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said territory is found to be un inhabited, and said territory is assigned the following distinctive short form designation: Glen Una 1983 -3 Section 5. Any resolution ordering such annexation shall provide that such annexation • ERELI shall be made subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) None (b) Section 6. The City of Saratoga designated as the conducting dietriet /author ity and the legislative body thereof is hereby directed to Initiate annexation proceedings in compliance with this resolution. Section 7. Proceedings of the governing board of the conducting district /authority may be held without notice and hearing, without an election, or both, pursuant to Section 56M2k56439A/35221/35312 of the Government Code. ' Section 8. Any election called upon the question of confirming an order for (annexation /detachment) shall be called, held and conducted upon such question only within the territory ordered to be annexed /detached. (Applies to special district annexations or detachments only). Section 9. The Executive Officer is hereby authorized and directed to • mail certified copies of this resolution in the manner and as provided in Section %23305159 of the Government Code. In addition, said Executive Officer shall also mail to said conducting district /authority a copy of the petition or resolution accompanying said proposal. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission this October 12, 1983 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners LOFGREN, PODGORSEK, SANCHEZ, WILLIAMS, WILSON NOES: Commissioners NONE ABSENT: Commissioners NONE Chairperson, Local Agency Formation Commission ATTEST: .eLdm� Deputy Cl 6k of the Board of Supervisors • EXHIBIT A ATTACHED cc: City District Petitioner • • 0 EXHIBIT "A" Annexation to City of Saratoga Name of Annexation Glen Una 1983 -3 Date 8 -15 -83 Description Beginning at a point in Lhc Northerly line of Glen Una Drive 40.00 feet wide,(runninq Easterly and Westerly) also being the City Limits Line of the City of Saratoqa distant thereon North 89 °48' East 55.84 feet from point of intersection of said Northerly line with the centerline of Pepper Lane, formerly Chemin Des Dames 40.00 feet wide; thence leaving sa:d Northerly line of Glen Una Drive running South 0 '05' Wcst 293.95 feet to the Southerly line of Lot 17, as said lot is shown upun the recorded map hereinafter referred to; thence running along said lino of Lot 17, South 89`21150" West 298.70 feet to the Easterly line of Glen Una Drive (running Northerly and Southerly) thence alonq said Easterly line of Glen Una Drive, North 0`50' East 296.74 feet to said Northerly line and the City Limits line of the City of Saratoga of Clen Una Drive (ru :using Easterly and Westerly); thence alonq said Northerly line of Glen Una Drive, North 89`56' East 119.30 feet and North 89 "48' East 179.35 feet to the point of beginninq and beinq a portion of Lot 17 as shorn upon Map No.2 of the W.S. Clayton, Jr. Chase, E. Shillingsburq and J.P. Durbncu Subdivision of Part of the Glen Una Ranch, which,said map was filed 'or record in the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County, California, February 9, 192' in Book "P" of Maps, Pages 53 and 54 and eontain:nq appr(-,,e:nately 2.03 aer_s. THE FC)Rl GOING INSTRUMENT 1;. A CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGIN.. ATTEST: DONALD M. RAINS CLERK, B ARD OF SUPERVISORS BY Deputy Clerk /� J.M.H. /!2571 DATE: 2 Kenneth E Gloria Levy September 19, 1983 Revised Q i D j Z - •Iw Q RA N': A,, 0:jr PEPPER__� LANE _i i APN 510 -26 -029 2 03 ACRES I 1 TINSLEY Z PORTION LOT 17. O ` I NAP NO2 -H SCLAT TON J, CH ASE.E SHILLINGSRURG and i00 JP DORANCE SU801VISION u - I Be 'P* of YAPS, PAGES 53431 _ '•^ OJ O i =N ' JO o Ou. `20 20I 1 I NO')OC t)i 11 HUME DRIVE - GLEN UNNT DRIVE 1,' cuvNrT OF f.Nr. [EXIT w O F- W Z U] In N VICINITY MAP 1- • 1000' SITE t LEGEND EXHIBIT B' PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA ENTITLED SARATOGA -1983- �.. -- ice• su[[ AUGUST 19e3 il:: s AGL. A BILL M. Y(__ G% DATE:_ 12/29/83 DPARTMaTr: City Manager CITY OF SjVZN1CGA Initial: • Dept. Hd. C. Atty:-__.. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Contract for Analysis of Public Improvement Requirements in the NHR District Issue Summary The Northwest Hillside Specific Plan and Current General Plan call for certain improvements to be made in the circulation and other facilities in the Northwest Hillside area. Damage and hazardous conditions resulting from the recent series of winter storms accent the need for these improvements. The policy dobuments . also indicate that the cost of such improvements is to be distributed equitably within the development area. " .. Projections are needed of the costs of the improvements, along with alternatives for spreading the costs equitably and collecting sufficient revenues. It is timely now to obtain these projections. The urgency and complexity of the effort required to perform the work place the project beyond the ability of current staff. Recommendation 1. Retain the firm of Jennings- McDermott -Reiss to prepare an engineering report providing the information needed. 2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement for the work on a time and materials basis, with total cost not to exceed $35,000, within 60 days. 3 Appropriate the amount needed for the project from the city's current budget 0rating reserves with the provision that the City is to be fully reimbursed 0m revenues resulting from the analysis. Fiscal Imoacts Sufficient funds are available in the current year operating reserve to finance this project. Based on the completion of the work and subsequent action by the - City, it is believed that all of the cost will be fully recovered within one year. Furthermore, the fee structure contemplated by this project will generate sufficient funds for completion of the public facilities deemed to be needed at no cost to the City -at- large. Substantial future long -term savings should result. The sooner the program is completed, the better will be the fiscal impacts. Exhibits /Attachmcnts 1. Letter Proposals from Jennings- McDermott - Heiss, dated 12/20 and 12/27/83. 2. Report from City Manager. Council Action 1/4: Fanelli /Clevenger moved to approve contract with conditions. Passed 5-0. • `V� JE T��I ; S - �IcDER� UFT - i �L ISS, Ti \J C. t i SUITF _'i)0 256 -4555 --� �- 925 REGENT STREET —SAN LOSE, CA. 95110 0 Civil Engineering Land Planning Land Survey'i1tg December 20, 1983 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Honorable Council: Our office has been requested to submit a proposal for preparation of an engineering report regarding the implementation of the circulation portion of the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan. Additionally, the report is also to include commentary regarding an assessment district for the Quarry Road /Quarry Creek improvements. After meeting with Mr. Dernetz and Mr. Shook and after reviewing Measure "A ", we have evolved the following scope of work for preparation of this engineering report. I. CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS a. Southwest /Northeast Road Connection from Mt. Eden Road to Star • Ridge Court. b. Interconnection between Star Ridge Court cul -de -sac and Parker Ranch Court cul -de -sac. C. Modification of Star Ridge Court between Picea Court and Comer Drive to eliminate through road and provide emergency access road connection. d. Pierce Road widening and overlay. e. Pierce Road /Calabazas Creek Bridges (two) II. COST ESTIMATE i Preliminary quantity and engineering cost estimates are to be prepared for each of the above items. The estimates to be based on present construction costs utilizing the preliminary routes previously established by the City. Methods of construction are to be based upon available Geotechnical information presently on file with the City and utilizing available topographic data on file with the City. Portions of the circulation plan outlined in the Specific Plan have already been constructed through Tract Nos. 6526, 6528, 6628 and 6665. Based upon available information, the costs for constructing the existing required circulation streets shall be determined to aid in the evaluation of future fees in the Specific Plan area. To aid in the evaluation of construction techniques and cost estimates, a visual inspection shall be made of the proposed construction routes and /or existing streets. is December 20, 1983 Page 2 III. FINANCING METHODS • Having completed the required cost estimates, a series of recommendations shall be provided for possible funding of the necessary construction work. The following concepts.shall be evaluated: a. Subdivision Fees b. Construction Tax (Building Permit) c. Assessment District Review of previously approved subdivisions and their conditions will be completed in order to determine methods of assessing costs against previously approved and /or recorded subdivisions. Future possible subdivisions will be evaluated, based upon input from the City Planning Department to ascertain the relationship of the proposed circulation work to the new subdivisions and how /or when conditions would be appropriate to be levied upon said subdivisions to participate in the circulation construction and /or financing. Included within this section will be method of assessing fees for past or future subdivision lots, credits to be allowed for existing construction by past subdivisions, extent of the area to be assessed and /or charged fees for the circulation work, suggested methods for accomodating inflation within the fee and /or financing method and possible circulation fees relating to annexation of urban service areas. Spread sheets shall be prepared illustrating the various possible charges based upon different combinations of lot or subdivision fees, credits for past construction and similar variations which might have an effect on the ultimate fee and /or financing method. • IV. ADDITIONAL SUPPORT DATA A policy dealing with utility installation in SW -NE road shall be recommended. This shall consider coordination of construction particularly the anticipated water system. Recommendation regarding future subdivision conditions shall be provided. This would entail specific wording considering the intent of the circulation concepts in the specific plan. Utilizing the City's 1" = 200' topographic maps plus available supplemental data, a grade analysis shall be completed of the SW -NE road. This shall include profile plotting and cross - sections at critical locations. OUARRY ROAD 1. QUARRY ROAD /CREEK CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS a. Quarry Road construction with dedication from Vaquero Court westerly to future subdivision street. b. Quarry Creek restoration and stabilization. • JENNINGS - WDERNIOTT - HEISS, INC. C] December 20, 1983 Page 3 II. CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES Cost estimates and preliminary quantities shall be prepared for construction of Quarry Road as a public road from Vaquero Court westerly. The estimate shall also include costs for land acquisition. Additional estimates will be prepared for reconstruction and stabilization of 0_uarry Creek as it affects the adjacent properties and existing roadway. A series of alternates for the construction shall be considered based upon the preliminary geotechnical review completed by the City Geologist and Staff. .III. METHOD OF FINANCING It is anticipated the financing method for Quarry Road and Quarry Creek construction shall be assessment district. Various methods of spreading the assessment shall be evaluated along with the extent of the assessment district boundaries. Spread sheets shall again be prepared illustrating at least two benefit analysis, and the probable fee for each of the individual properties within the District shall be computed based upon the different methods of spreading the costs. ITEMS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY • To aid in the preparation of the subject engineering report, various items must be provided by the City. Existing Tentative Maps and conditions for subdivisions previously approved must be made available. In order to prepare the necessary drawings illustrating the layout and profiles, etc., it will be necessary to obtain mylars of the City's ortho photos for the specific plan area along with mylars of the previous aerial contours utilized for the City's drainage study. The City had previously completed a circulation study for the area plus Copies of any soil and geotechnical studies completed by the City and or City Staff must be provided along with any known agreements or documents that might have an affect on the studies, such as previous estimates, circulation studies, road maintenance agreements, etc. In addition the City must provide information regarding the number of existing lots within the area being studied along with estimates by property of the possible future lots. The future lot analysis should also include those lots within the adjacent urbal service area. is Our office will work closely with the Staff as we proceed through this analysis and generate information, costs, etc. It will be our goal to provide the City Staff with data as we generate it for their review and approval so that when the final report is prepared it should represent the collective thoughts of both our office and the City Staff regarding the recommendations and conclusions. JENNINGS - IWDERNtOTT - HEISS, INC. December 20, 1983 Page 4 It is anticipated that 60 to 0 days will • 9 Y 11 be required for preparation of this report. We feel it is difficult to set an exact cost for this report due to it's many variables. Therefore, we suggest that our fee be based on time and materials, but not to exceed $35,000.00. This would include preparation of the report and providing the City with 12 copies. We appreciate being given the opportunity to provide proposal to the City for this work. Since we have done considerable work in the Specific Plan Area on previous projects, we feel qualified to prepare this particular report. We look forward to working with the City in achieving the ultimate goals and policies delineated in the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan. Very truly yours, ILLY HEISS • JENNINGS - i4cDERIMOTT - HEISS, INC. JENNINGS - i'� DERMOTT - HEISS, INC. M H SUITE 200 28< -4555 925 REGENT STREET —SAN JOSE, CA. 95110 0 Civil Engineering City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Honorable Council: Land Planning Land Surveying December 27, 1983 DE 281983 i On December 20, 1983, our office submitted a proposal to the City of Saratoga for preparation of an engineer's report dealing with the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan Circulation and with Quarry Road /Quarry Creek improvements. Mr. Shook has requested that we provide additional information regarding the proposal particularly as to cost breakdowns and rates. Our proposal envisioned a time and materials schedule, but with a limiting fee of $35,000.00 for the two basic reports. It is estimated that $9,000.00 of the total $35,000.00 would be related to the Quarry Road /Quarry Creek project should you care to segregate that particular entity from the Northwestern Hillside Circulation Study. It would then leave a fee of $26,000.00 for the Northwestern Hillside Study. This fee could be broken into two basic elements relating to the primary construction programs envisioned. • The first element would consist of items la, b and c on our December 20th letter which is essentially the Southwest /Northeast road connection with it's required appurtenances. Should the report be segregated to include only this element, while still including all of the basic concepts outlined in the report such as cost estimate, financing methods and support data, we estimate that the limiting fee would not exceed $18,000.00. A portion would also include analysis of the existing work that has been done within Tract Nos. 6526, 6528, 6628 and 6665. The remaining segment of the constriction element would deal with Pierce Road including the widening, overlay and the two bridges. A seperate report for this portion of the circulation plan including again the cost estimates, financing methods and support data would be a fee not to exceed $9,000.00. Our office is prepared to proceed on one or all of these various segments of work based upon the scope of work outline above. The Pierce Road segment is dependent upon completion of the Southwest /Northeast Road element since some of the data compiled for that particular segment must be used for the Pierce Road analysis. Please advise us of how you would 1 i ke to proceed. Very truly yours, WILL lAf1 E HEISS • • C7 .8i3FF%y 64 l O ? rye P o t 4 REPORT CITY SUBJECT TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL DATE COUNCIL MEETING 12/29/83 1/4/84 _Contract_for_ Analysis of- - Public_Improvement - R-eq NHR District uirements _in - --t-h- e Summary Both the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan and the City's General Plan specify that certain improvements be made in the Northwest Hillside area. These improvements include the development of a pub- lic road connecting Mt. Eden Road with Parker Ranch Road and certain modifications to Pierce Road to improve its safety. Other policies in both the Specific and General Plans indicate that the cost of these improvements is to be borne equitably by new development and not place added burdens on existing residents. In order to accomo- date these policies it was anticipated that additional fees would be established on new development within the area sufficient to cover the cost of improvements. The need for the improvements con- templated in the plans is further highlighted by the damage and hazardous conditions resulting from the recent series of winter storms. It is both timely and necessary to undertake a projection of the costs of the improvements identified in the Specific and General Plans and to determine an equitable manner and distribution of their costs. Recommendation 1. Retain the engineering firm of Jennin s- McDermott -H g eiss, Inc. to prepare an engineering report on the improvements identified in the Specific and General Plans to include cost estimates of these improvements and alternatives for financing these improvements. 2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement for these services in accordance with the letter proposal from Jennings - McDermott - Heiss, Inc. dated 12/20/83 and 12/27/83. The contract to be based on actual time and materials costs not to exceed $35,000 and to be completed within 60 calendar days from date of contract. m Public Improvement Requirements in NHR District 12/29/83 Page two 3. Appropriate the amount of $35,000 for this purpose from the City's Operating Reserve, with the provision that the actual cost incurred is to be fully reimbursed from revenue generated from the Hillside area as a result of fees to be established. Analysis and Background The Engineering Report will provide two sets of data. The first will consist of cost estimates for each of the major improvements in the circulation element and other facilities of the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan. The second set of data will analyze the alternatives for financing these improvements through assessment districts, development fees and other means sufficient to gener- ate required revenues from development in the area. With this data, it is anticipated that the city may establish fees and pursue other actions to secure the financing needed to provide for the public improvements in the area. The financing program should be put in place as soon as possible with the advent of the 1984 construction season. • The Northwest Hillside Specific Plan calls for several major improvements to be accomplished including safety improvements to Pierce Road, a new road connecting Mt. Eden Road to Parker • Ranch Road, drainage and erosion control measures along Calabazas and Quarry Creeks and other specific features. Many of these improvements are not within areas subject to develop- ment and may not be provided through the City's normal sub- division review process. In addition, many of these improvements are of area wide benefit and the burden of financing should not be borne by certain individual property owners. Unless the costs of the improvements needed are known in advance and provi- sion made for financing them, the opportunity to raise revenues through development process will slip away and the City will be left facing the burden for securing adequate financing in the future. Measure A and the Northwest Hillside Specific Plan anticipated the need to plan comprehensively for the improvements and to secure adequate financing without added burden upon the City and its residents generally. In order to achieve these objec- tives it is necessary to undertake this kind of analysis. The time urgency and complexity of the tasks involved put the effort of doing the analysis with current staff beyond our reach. Current staff are now fully involved with other priorities and day -to -day responsibilities. The use of a consulting engineer to perform the work is seen as time and cost - effective and pro- vides objectivity in the process. • .J • Li Public Improvement Requirements in NHR District 12/29/83 Page three Proposals were sought from the firm of Jennings- McDermott -Heiss for this project because of the firm's familiarity with the Northwest Hillside area, its knowledge of the development history involved, its non - involvement with current developers and the City's satisfaction with prior work performed both for the city and previous developers. We believe this firm is the best qualified to perform the work. Moreover, the contract will be performed on a time and expenses basis, using standard prevailing rates and a not -to- exceed limit with guaranteed completion. J.rayn-11 Dern e Ci Ma 'ager sh c AGENDA BILL NO. S / 3 DATE: 12/22/83 DEPARZ"=: Community Development CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. C. C. Mgr. SUB, =. : Proposed Revisions to Fee Schedules for Geological Deposits, Planning & Engineering -------- Fees and Building Permit Fees (Energy ---- Calculation -- Review ------ Fees). ------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Issue Surnnary Attached are resolutions which would (1) revise geological deposits intended to cover normal cost of geological review in order to avoid future. billings of applicants after project has a permit; (2) add in fees for subdivision design review, arterial fencing fper the new General Plan), appeal fees, and landscaping review deposit for an outside consultant on non - residential projects; (3) raising the fee for review of the one lot final map and placing a minimum fee on final map plan checking and inspection in case there are no improvements in order to cover costs; (4) placing in a resolution the reroof and solar permit fees the City has been charging for over 3 years and (5) adding in fees for review of State - required energy calculation fees as required by the consulting plan checkers contract. J Recomnendation Adopt Resolutions No. 780- and 780- Fiscal Impacts These fees are required to cover the costs of the reviews involved and meet the Community Development Department goal of recapturing 80% of development processing costs. Exhibits /Attachments Resolutions No. 780- and 780 - Memorandum to City Council, dated January 9, 1984 Council Action 1/18: Fanelli /Mallory moved to adopt resolutions 790.23 and 780.24. Passed 5 -0. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: SUBJECT Kathy Kerdus uguw @a 0&UL/AUQX5&' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 DATE: 1/9/84 Proposed Revisions to Fee Schedules for Geological Deposits, Planning & Engineering Fees and Building Permit Fees (Energy Calculation Review Fees) Attached are the proposed revisions to the current fee schedules for planning, engi- neering and building permits in the City of Saratoga. The revisions are: 1) Geological Deposits: The minimum deposit is revised to $500,00. In a meeting with the City Geologist, this minimum was determined since recent billings have exceeded the current $200 -$350 deposits. This fee is still a deposit against the Geologist's billings. If the billings are less, the balance will be refunded. The administra- tive fee is proposed to remain the same. 2) Subdivision Design Review: Current design review fees do not include an option for submitting concurrent applications for residences within a flatland subdivision which, since they are being processed together, would take less staff time than single and /or hillside residences. This proposed fee would reduce the fees for concurrently sub- mitted flatland residential design review applications. 3) Arterial Fencing: The latest General Plan calls for review of arterial fencing. This process is not yet in place but is anticipated to be by staff review, per Commission policy standards. Thus, a $50.00 fee,is proposed to be in place when the process is established. 4) Appeal Fees: Per the recent Council decision, an appeal fee is proposed in these revisions at $50.00 plus a $50.00 deposit for a public hearing (with any additional hearing cost to be borne by the City). 5) Landscaping Review Deposit for all Project Other Than Single-Family Residential Projects: This new deposit is intended. to allow for expert review of all projects other than single - family residential landscaping with respect to its visual and low maintenance qualities. Staff anticipates this will improve landscaping review for subdivision, multi - family and commercial /industrial projects. 6) Improvement Plan 'Checking & Inspection Fee for the First $10,000: A minimum fee of 200.00 is proposed to cover staff time for those Final Maps which do not include improvements. These Final Maps still require an engineer's time to check the Ten- tative Map conditions as well as staff time to process the Final Map through the City Council. Memorandum to City Council 1/9/84 Proposed Revisions to Fee Schedules Page 2 7) Reroof and Solar Permit Fees - The respective $35.00 and $40.00 fees have been charged by the City for at least three (3) years to cover inspection and clerical time in their issuance and review. Instead of locating them in a policy document, they are proposed for your approval and placement in the fee schedule. 8) Energy Calculations: The proposed energy calculation fees are taken from the pro- posed contract of the City's Consulting Plan Checker. There are no administrative fees proposed in the schedule, although the City would gain those energy calculation fees on the plans which it checks inhouse. Energy Calculations are now required (as of July, 1983) by the State for all projects which include conditioned space (additional square footage, as opposed to replacement of windows). 4.- ' Kathy Kerdus / Planner KK /dsc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SUBPARAGRAPH (C) OF TABLE 1 OF THE SARATOGA SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, RELATING TO SERVICE FEES FOR GEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: This resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 4 of Article One of Ordinance NS -60, the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, which permits the fees set forth in Table I attached to said ordinance to be modi- fied and changed from time to time by resolution of this City Council. SECTION 2: Subsection (C) of Table I of the appendix of Ordinance NS -60 and and Resolution 780 are hereby amended to provide as follows: (C) SERVICE FEE - GEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Where the subdivision comes within the provisions of Section 13.9 (Hillside Subdivision) of this ordinance, or is located wholly or in part in an HC -RD zoning district or NHR zoning district, a fee shall be paid representative of the actual cost to the City of a Consulting Engineering Geologist Investigation and Report concerning the development, consisting of a partially refundable deposit as listed below, together with such addi- tional funds, as required, to fully reimburse City for all such expenses. Said payments and regulations relating thereto shall be as follows: (1) Subdivision in areas not geologically mapped by City: Type Application Deposit Site Modification $ 500.00 Single Lot Site Approval $ 500.00 Minor Subdivision (1 -4 lots) $ 750.00 Major Subdivision (less than 20 lots) $1,000.00 Major Subdivision (more than 20 lots) $1,500.00 Administrative Fee $ 40.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 300.00 (2) Subdivisions in areas geologically mapped by City: Type Application Deposit Administrative Fee Single Lot Site Approval $ 500.00 $ 30.00 Minor Subdivision (1 -4 lots) $ 750.00 50.00 Major Subdivision (5 or more lots) $1,000.00 75.00 *And in addition, $100.00 per lot to reimburse City for cost of preparation of its geologic map. In addition, any actual charges by City Geologist for review of the subdivision in excess of the above deposit amounts. (At cost) (3) Partial Refundability In the event the cost to the City shall be less than the initial deposit by more than $25, City shall in that event reimburse such excess to the subdivider. (4) Payment (a) Deposits as above prescribed shall be paid at the time of application for tentative approval. (b) Additional charges shall be paid upon billing by City and not later than Final Map Approval. (c) Any refund in excess of $25.00 shall be determined at time of final map approval. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at at regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ALTERING & ESTABLISHING FEE SCHEDULE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The following schedule of fees is hereby established for payment to the City of Saratoga on application for each of the following enumerated applications, and no delivery to nor acceptance by the City or any of its officers, agents or employees of any of the following enumerated applications shall be considered as filing thereof, until said fee has been paid in full. This fee schedule shall become effective immediately and shall be applicable to all applications filed from and after its effective date. TYPE CHANGE IN ZONING DESIGN REVIEW Residential Single family (1 -4 lots) (building greater than 22')* (hillside lots)* Condo /Multiple Family Subdivision (5 or more lots submitted at once) with a slope less than 10% Non - Residential Modification of Approved Application Signs Sign Program Arterial Fencing /Structure Review *PUBLIC HEARING CHARGE (First hearing. Additional charge may be necessary for any requested continuance.) APPF41 r, CC APPLICANT REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FEE FEE $ 1,000 $ 400 /lot $ 500 /lot $ 1,000 plus $50 /lot $ 700 /lot $ 150 /lot $ 100 $ 200 $ 50 /lot $50 + $150 deposit* $50 + $50 deposit for a public hearing $ 100 LANDSCAPING REVIEW FOR NON- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL $50 + $150 deposit PROJECTS *If the actual cost of the consultant's noticing is less than $150, the difference will be refunded to the applicant. If the cost is greater, an additional deposit will be required before the noticing is done. TYPE Residential (single - family districts) Tennis Court Multi- Family Non - Residential PD (General Plan Description), Temporary ($200 cleanup deposit in addition) VARIANCE Residential Non - Residential ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Report Admini- strative and Handling SITE APPROVAL Single Family Residential Building Site Approval up to and including 4 lots Building Site Approval for all other types Single Family Residential Subdivision Approval first 10 lots - each lot over 10 Multiple- Family Building Site Approval Lots of 1 acre or less Lots of 3 acres or less Lots of more than 3 acres Modification of Site Development Plan Lot Line Adjustment Preliminary Tentative Map Reversion to Acreage (Public hearing cost additional) FEE $ 250 $ 200 $ 1,000 $ 500 $ 1,000 $ 100 $ 250 $ 300 $ 75 $ 500 $250 /lot plus noticing fee for 2 or more lots $ 500 /lot $ 1,500 $.50 /lot $ 600 /lot $ 1,200 /lot $ 2,000 /lot $ 100 $ 150 $ 200 $ 125 /lot TIME EXTENSION TO APPROVED APPLICATIONS $ 100 TYPE FEE FINAL MAP 1st Lot $ 250 2nd and above $ 50 /lot GENERAL PLAN CHANGE $ 1,000 ANNEXATION $ 100 Plus LAFCO Fee LAFCO Fee ENCROACHMENT PERMIT Fences, walls and hedges Non -fence r Tr%KI of n \ITT MINISTERIAL PERMIT (i.e., horse) STORM DRAIN FEE "All II Ri -1- 10,000 R -1- 12,500 R -1- 15,000 R -1- 20,000 R -1- 40,000 Planned Development RM & PA District C & M Districts Churches, Schools, etc. Public Utilities and other quasi - commercial *IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECKING & INSPECTION FEE For the first $10,000 For the next $30,000 For the next $60,000 For all improvements over $100,000 Deposit of 25% at time of submission. $ 200 Actual Cost ($50 Minimum) $ 50 $ 25 $ 11100 /lot 600 /lot 650 /lot 72011 o 850 /lot 1,100 /lot Same as fee for District with which P.D. is combined $ 2,400 /gross acre $ 2,800 /gross acre $ 1,425 /gross acre $ 2,400 /gross acre 15% (Minimum $200 /fee) 12% 8% 6% *Where slopes are greater than 10 %, increase fee by 1% above fee percentage shown. SECTION 2: The portion of Resolution 780 -20, "Altering and Establishing Fee Schedule" is hereby rescinded and pursuant to Section 3 -3, 3 -19, 3 -41 and 6 -2.2 of the Saratoga City Code, as amended by Ordinance 38 -83, the following schedule of fees elaborated in Exhibit "A ", "B ", "C ", "D", "E ", and "F" is hereby established for payment to the City of Saratoga on application for each of the enumerated applications, and no delivery to nor acceptance by the City or any of its officers, agents, or employees of any of the following enumerated applications shall be considered as filing thereof, until said fee has been paid in full. This fee schedule shall become effective immediately and shall be applicable to all applications filed from and after its effective date. SECTION 3: Except as above - modified, the schedule of fees heretofore adopted by Resolution 780, as amended, shall be and remain in full force and effect. The above and foregoing resolution was adopted at a Regular. Meeting of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 19_, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR EXHIBIT "A" BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION $1.00 to $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $100,000.00 and up Reroof Permit Solar Permit FEE $55.00 $55.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $170.50 for the first $25,000.00 plus $4.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $283.00 for the first $50,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $433.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof $35.00 $40.00 Plan Check Fees shall be 65% of the Permit Fee W EXHIBIT "B" PLUMBING PERMIT FEES 1) New Single Family Dwelling 3.0C /S.F. 2) Commercial /Professional 3.00 /S.F. 3) Institutions, Multiple Residential 3.5fi /S.F. 4) Additions of more than 1000 S.F. 3.0t /S.F. 5) Additions of less than 1000 S.F. $30.00 6) Remodels, residential. $35.00 7) Remodels, commercial $50.00 B) Swimming Pools (with pump & heater) $30.00 9) Misc. Structures $30.00 10) Misc. permits without associated $30.00 building permit �I EXHIBIT "C" HEATING & COMFORT COOLING PERMITS 1) New single family dwelling 1.5C /S.F. 2) Commercial /Professional 1.7C /S.F. 3) Institutional, Multiple Residential 1.7C /S.F. 9) Additions of less than 2500 S.F. $30.00 5) Additions of more than 2500 S.F. 1.2C /S.F. (Minimum $30.00) 6) Remodels, residential.. 1.5C /S.F.(Minimum $30.00) 7) Remodels, commerical 1.7C /S.F.(Minimum $30.00) 8) Misc.. Structures $30.00 9) Misc. permits without associated $30.00 building permit Plan check fees shall be 25% of the permit fee Plan check fees shall be 25% of the permit fee EXHIBIT "D" ELECTRICAL PERMITS 1) Single family dwelling 3.0C /SF 2) Commercial /Professional 3.0C /SF 3) Institutional, Multiple Residential 3.5C /SF 4) Additions less than 1000 SF $30.00 5) Additions more than 1000.SF 3.0C /SF 6) Remodels, residential. $35.00- 7) Remodels, commercial $50.00 8) Swimming Pools, etc. (with pump & $30.00 heater 9) Misc. Structures $30.00 10) Misc. permits without associated $30.00 building permit Plan check fees shall be 25% of the permit fee PLAN CHECKING FEES EXHIBIT "E" GRADING PERMITS -'s- 6 Grading Permit Fee GRADING PERMIT FEES - 50 Cubic Yards or 'Less $30.00 50 to 100 Cubic Yards $45.00 -. 101 to 1000 Cubic Yards $45.00 for the first 100 Cubic Yards plus $15.00 for each additional 100 Cubic Yards or fraction thereof. 1001 to 10,000 Cubic Yards $180.00 plus $12.00 for each additional 1000 Cubic Yards or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 Cubic Yards $288.00 plus $50.00 for . -.,_ _ ____ _ each additional 10,000 Cubic Yards of fraction thereof. ` 100,001 Cubic Yards or more $738.00 plus $30.00 for ����?1=;.:: =•< ..�r:;: =` =• - •.:. -. , ,.: each additional 10,000 Cubic Yards of fraction thereof. ;i:k�`1iF�^i =. .v:'•i3!4J„= ici.r-i:�c',"�,: = n.:li:1,�,.,i, EXHIBIT "F" ENERGY CALCULATION REVIEW FEES FEE 1) Addition, alteration or repair of residential building $ 35.00 2) New residence valued at less than $100,000.00 $ 85.00 3) New residence valued at more than $100,000.00 $100.00 4) Non - residential structure valued at less than $200,000.00 $150.00 5) Non - residential structure valued at more than $200,000.00 $300.00