Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-07-1984 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: marrh 1. 19R4 (March 7. 1984) DEPARTMENT: Cnmmuni ty Development Initial: Dept. Hd. vv�s C. Atty. � C. Mgr. SUBJECT: HP -1, ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE SARATOGA FOOTHILL CLUB AS A HERITAGE RESOURCE Issue Summary 1. On November 4, 1981 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 66 which allows for certain structures, districts, lanes, etc. that meet certain criteria to be designated as Heritage Resources. The ordinance limits the exterior alterations allowed for structures so designated. 2. The Saratoga Foothill Club is the first group to apply for a heritage resource designation. 3. The Heritage Preservation Commission has determined that the Saratoga Foothill Club meets the ordinance's criteria for heritage resources. Recommendation 1. The Heritage Preservation Commission recommends that the City Council approve an ordinance designating the Saratoga Foothill Club as a heritage resource. 2. The Council needs to make the required finding(s) if it wishes to adopt this ordinance after the first reading of the ordinance. 3. The second reading of the ordinance would occur at the next council meeting and would go into effect 30 days after adoption. Fiscal Impacts None anticipated Exhibits/Attachments 1. Exhibit "A" - Staff Report dated March 1, 1984 2. Exhibit "B" - Application and Commission findings. 3. Exhibit "C" - Ordinance No. HP -1 4. Exhibit "D" - Heritage Resource criteria Council Action 3/7: Read and introduced ordinance 5 -0. 3/21: Adapted ordinance,15 -0. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY C''OUNCIL TNT DATE: March 1, 1984 COUNCIL MEETING: March 7, 1984 SUBJECT HP -1, SARATOGA FOOTHILL CLUB, 20399 PARK PLACE At its meeting of February 15, 1984 the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the application of the Saratoga Foothill Club to designate their structure as a Heritage Resource in accordance with the City's Heritage Preservation Ordinance (Ord. No. 66). Structures must comply with the criteria in Section 5 of the ordinance to qualify for Heritage Resource designation. The Commission made specific findings (attached to the end of the application) indicating that the Saratoaa Foothill Club conforms with these criteria and is recommending that the Council approve the designation. It is the Commission's opinion that the information in the attached application is sufficient documentation for the request. The City Council must now decide to approve, modify or deny the re- quest. To approve the request the Council must adopt an ordinance designating the Saratoga Foothill Club as a Heritage Resource. The ordinance will go into effect 30 days after adoption. Prior to adopting the ordinance the Council must make the following findings: 1. The Saratoga Foothill Club has special historical, cultural, archeaeological, scientific, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value as part of the heritage or history of the City, the County, the state or the nation. 2. The Saratoga Foothill Club satisfies one or more of the criteria set forth in Section 5 of Ordinance No. 66. Once the designating ordinance goes into effect, the Saratoga Foothill Club will be subTect to the regulations of Ordinance No. 66 which restrict changes permitted to the exterior of a designated structure. If the ordinance is adopted a Notice of Designation will be sent to the owners of the Saratoga Foothill Club. Report to the Mayor & City Council 3/1/84 HP -1, Saratoga Foothill Club Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Heritage Preservation Commission has made findings indicating the Saratoga Foothill Club complies with the criteria of the ordinance and is important to the history, especially architectural history, of Saratoga. Therefore, the Commission recommends that the City Council designate the Saratoga Foothill Club as a Heritage Resource. APPROVED: MF /bjc C.C. Agenda 3/7/84 wa' Michael Flores Assistant Planner T ' Date Received x � � �ZL Designation No.__ .14 P -- Meeting Date L_ Fee (No fee for designation only) CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE RESOURCE DESIGNATION /PERMIT APPLICATION FORM I. Identification of Heritage Resource A. Name 1) Common Name Saratoga Foothill Club 21 Historic Name B. Location /Address 20399 Park Place, Saratoga,_ California C. Assessor's Parcel Number 397_92_n3r D. Use of Site Club meetings & "community social and civic events ". 1) Original same E. Present Owner Saratoga Foothill Club (Please attach..documentation of ownership)_ 1) Address P.0'. Box 2233, Saratoga, Calif. 95070 2) Phone Number(408) 867 -3428 3) Public or Private Ownership private 4) Has Owner been Notified of Application? yes II. Purpose of Application A. Application for Designation or Permit? designation 1. If application for permit briefly describe proposal and alterations required. B. Application for Heritage_ Landmark, Lane or District? 1. If application for heritage lane or district please attach required petitions (Section 6(a) Ord. No. 66). 1 .n,�, .�i }•`1't'_..at7�:U,{ J .:.,li' ..1�i .,. �: I ..�.�.. rr .l, 'i Y• ..•1 . Sanwa Hisiori(7} Mucrum Saratoga Foothill Club Axonomelric Draining, Foothill Club Frank 7.aan The Foothill Club in Saratoga was chartered as such an institution in 1907. When Julia Morgan was called in to design their building in 1915, according to club records and local newspapers, she offered four possible plans for their site, and brought in the one unanimously chosen for under $5,000. In the 1970's this building was insured for $150,000, hardly the current cost of replacement. The redwood structure with pergolas and gardens is simple and timeless. That it was up -to -date for its period is shown by Morgan's inclusion of a motion picture projection booth in the original blue - prints, with an opposite alcove where a screen could be pulled down for performances. The open timbers remind us of the rafters of a California barn, but there is an urbanity to the detail of doorways and stage which places it among the distinguished small redwood buildings in the state. III. Description A. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site (including major vegetation features) or structure and describe any existing major alterations from its original condition: Redwood structure with pergolas and gardens The open timbers in the main hall are reminiscent of a California barn.. Main vegetation includes large conifers, wisteria on pergolas, and the low maintenance gardens and patio are sebluded from the street by a high hedge. The building has had no major alterations from its original condition. B. Architectural Style California Craftsman C. Year of Construction_ 1915 - 1916 / D. Name of Architect or Builder Julia Morgan. Architect San Francisc E. Approximate property size in feet (please attach legal description if available) 1) Frontage see 4-H4.cl,ed s;�e t-na_p 2 ) Depth 3) Approximate Acreage F. Condition of Structure and /or Site (circle one): 1) Excellent 2) Fair 3) Deteriorated G. Is structure altered or unaltered? unaltered H. Secondary structures on site. Describe... none I. Is this the original site or has the structure been moved? original site 2 J. Photo (Date Taken: ( I Location Ma I A N (Label site and surrounding streets roads and prominent landmarks) IV, Significance A. Briefly describe historical and /or architectural importance of the resource (include dates, events and persons associated with the site): Early design of Julia Morgan first licensed woman arch ;tart in California. Noteworthy as.one of the distinguished small redwood buildings in California. In 1915 the ladies of the Foothill Study Club solicited contributions from the community (Attach sheet if more space required)for construction. B. List sources used to determine historical value (i.e. books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates): "The Saratoga Foothill C1ub,A History" by Melita Oden (1978) "Saratoga's First Hundred Years" by Florence Cunningham "Julia Morgan in Saratoga" by Sara Holmes Boutelle C. Does this site /structu.re have a county, state or federal historical landmark designation? Designated historic landmark by Santa Clara County Historical Society in 1975. V. Form submitted by: l� 4' 1) Name , - Z ". �; � c6/ U �! •�C� 2) Address.�0,�/ _•�zt tL.cr� 3) Phone Number �� 7— �f�� ,'r �_ 0;96 -5� _/0 11r- 4) or Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission 3 I M P O R T A N T Prior to submitting an application for heritage resource designation or permit application to alter such a resource, the following should be read carefully. I, the applicant, understand that by applying for a permit to alter such a resource that the site of this resource will be subject to the limitations and provisions of Ordinance No. 66. I also agree that these limitations and provisions will be complied with as well as any conditions upon which the application is granted. In witness whereof, I here unto set my hand this day of 19 Signature , , Print Name Liar ! i C E T a rn r/) Addres s f Or Cam/') n t-- 'W Phone: Residence , 4r 7 Business 1- r eS, SGF t-Q( LO ©afh�ll Club VI. Recommendation of Commission to (circle one): City Council Planning Commission /Community Development Department A. The Herita e Preservation Commission is fo /against the proposed designatior /permit application. B. Comrcents: The Saratoga Foothill Club should go down in the history of Saratoga as its first heritage resource designation. 4 HP -1 FINDINGS: 1. The Saratoga Foothill Club exemplifies special elements of the cultural, social, and architectural history of the City. 2. The Saratoga Foothill Club has been identified with persons and events significant in local and state history. 3. The Saratoga Foothill Club embodies distinctive characteristics of a style of construction and is a valuable example of craftsmanship. 4. The Saratoga Foothill Club is representative of the notable design and craft of the architect - Julia Morgan. 5. The Saratoga Foothill Club represents an established and familiar visual feature of the Park Place neighborhood. 6. The Saratoga Foothill Club is significant to the setting and environment of.the area which is one of the oldest neighborhoods of the. City of Saratoga and it contributes to the special character of this neighborhood. Sign Chair - Heritage Preservation Commission 0 9UITCLAII`. DEED THIS QUITCLAIM DEED, made this day of Z,ay 1939, by CHARLOTTE A. WOOD, a single woman, first party, to SARATOGA FOOTHILL CLUB, a corporation, second arty, i 9 I T N E S S E T H That said first party, in consideration of the sum of One($1.00) Dollars, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby remise, release and quitclaim unto said second party, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand, both at law and in equity, as well in possession as in expectancy, of the said first Party of, in and to all those certain lands situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and de- scribed as follows, to -wit: Parcel No. 1: Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly line of Park Place where the same is intersected by the dividing; line be- tween Lots 1 and 2 in Block 2, as delineated and so designated u:;on hap hereinafter referred to; thence Northeasterly along said dividing line 157.94 feet to the Southwesterly line of an alley, thence Southeasterly along said line of said alley, 6 feet; thence Southwesterly and parallel with said dividing line to said line of Park Place, thence Northerly along said line of Park Place to the point of beginning and be- ing the Northwesterly 6 feet of Lot 2 in Block 2, as delineated and so designated upon Map entitled, "Amended Map of Saratoga Park Lots, being part of Quito Rancho at Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California," which. said Map was filed August 17, 1904 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Banta Clara, State of California, in Vol. "0" of Maps, pages 58 and 59. Parcel No. 2: Lot 1 in Block 2 as delineated upon Yap entitled "Amended Map of SarF..toga Park Lots, being part of Quito Rancho at Sara- toga, Santa Clara County, California," which said Map was filed August 17, 1904 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, in Vol. "0" of Laps, pages 58 and 59. -1- w cis QUITCLAIM DEED THIS QUITCLAIM DEED, made this 8th day of 2'ay, 1939, by CLARA P. BELL, a widow, first party, to SARATOGA FOOTHILL CLUB, a corporation, second party, :9 I T N E S S E T H : That said first party, in consideration of the sum of One (51.00) Dollar, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby revise, release and ouitclaim unto said second party, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand, both at law and in equity, as well in possession as in expectancy, of the said first party of, in, and to all those certain lands situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and de- scribed as follows, to -wit: Parcel No. 1: Beginning at a point on the North -' easterly line of Park, Place where the same is intersected by the dividing lire between Lots 1 and 2 in Block 2, as delineated and so designated upon :map hereinafter referred to; thence North- easterly along said dividing line 157.94 feet to the Southwesterly line of an alley, thence South- easterly along said line of said alley, 6 feet; thence Southwesterly and parallel with said di- viding line to said line of Park Place, thence Northerly along said line of Park Place to the point of beginning and being the Northwesterly 6 feet of Lot 2 in Block 2, as delineated and so designated upon Map entitled, "Amended Map of Saratoga Park Lots, being part of Quito Rancho at Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California," which said Map was filed August 17, 1904 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, in Vol. "0" of Laps, paces 58 and 59. Parcel No. 2: Lot 1 in Block 2 as delineated upon Map entitled, "Amended Map of Saratoga Park Lots, being part of Quito Rancho at Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California," which said Lap was filed August 17, 1904 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, in Vol. "0" of daps, pa�:es 58 and 59. -1- b� I I • x• /sss/a 31 Q ORCHARD Ra.r�.cpi o OAA f2„f)." .4C RO. J33 34 ' 35 36 37 47 1 48 39 PCL.A 1 PCL.13 �H X• S ALLEY P M.. ' Y•2e0210 i 44 1 50 ; 5.) 1 5J I s0 I 50 1 50 , 50 405 -M- 41 dh~P 1 2 i 9 i 1 1 4 I 5 6 i 7 I 8 I 9 "0 31 3p "o'i 29, 1 28 m� 27 , u` �1 v,l PI o1 52 IOWNER,' . ,4" `` 6Tx�• I m1 of �l Afp /ES ) I 1 • -1 I I ?? 1 IbL M4TOSGA PARK LOCK-Z so o6 �, ,o •�• 58 8'17 -l4 O �� 57. P �� e° 44 �a4 7 b% 1 A 5.56 F 8 9 'k'•` 15 o %9 n7 ti 31rA /7o.els� 99_.a4S & o 'r C r:< lil o _ _� �� s.aa . o� 3+ 14 1 v o s 5� t I C 1` 4 4 �. F co - 1= , : F1- � ° ...: L74o. 134c a i I2 j� 13 s Gam, ��, /I �� ° "S � 1 SP 503 �8 o.os Qty 2 ti M CITY OF ••�:. -. � 1 � '.id^ �h :I ' � h 1 ��• _" SARAT06A L ;-Z.14 1-44 4° so 11� 0.58 A C. 76.36 1 1 •� 5T5 OF CALIF R.ESUBDIVISION BLOCK-4 F-3 6.31-16 a� �ooi� lc 12213 SARATOGA- LOS GAT OS S. , PM* 507 - M -36 t`- so 5 50 5 50 6 60 60 60 - - - -5 14.76 L�32 s �H X• S ALLEY P M.. ' Y•2e0210 i 44 1 50 ; 5.) 1 5J I s0 I 50 1 50 , 50 405 -M- 41 dh~P 1 2 i 9 i 1 1 4 I 5 6 i 7 I 8 I 9 "0 31 3p "o'i 29, 1 28 m� 27 , u` �1 v,l PI o1 52 IOWNER,' . ,4" `` 6Tx�• I m1 of �l Afp /ES ) I 1 • -1 I I ?? 1 IbL M4TOSGA PARK LOCK-Z so o6 �, ,o •�• 58 8'17 -l4 O �� 57. P �� e° 44 �a4 7 b% 1 A 5.56 F 8 9 'k'•` 15 o %9 n7 ti 31rA /7o.els� 99_.a4S & o 'r C r:< lil o _ _� �� s.aa . o� 3+ 14 1 v o s 5� t I C 1` 4 4 �. F co - 1= , : F1- � ° ...: L74o. 134c a i I2 j� 13 s Gam, ��, /I �� ° "S � 1 SP 503 �8 o.os Qty 2 ti M CITY OF ••�:. -. � 1 � '.id^ �h :I ' � h 1 ��• _" SARAT06A L ;-Z.14 1-44 4° so 11� 0.58 A C. 76.36 1 1 •� 5T5 OF CALIF R.ESUBDIVISION BLOCK-4 F-3 6.31-16 a� �ooi� lc 12213 SARATOGA- LOS GAT OS S. , PM* 507 - M -36 t`- G R I T�fL I A xt}l r ' �� D heritage resource. Such voluntary advice and guidance shall not impose any regulation or control over any property, (i) Participate in, promote and conduct public informa- tion and educational programs pertaining to heritage resources. (j) Perform such other functions as may be delegated to it by resolution or motion of the City Council. Section 5. Criteria for Desi nation as a Heritage Resource, The Heritage Commission may recommend to the City Council designation of a proposal as a heritage resource if it satisfies any one or more of the following criteria: (a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the t cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the county, the state or the nation; or (b) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or (c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftmanship; or (d) It is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; or (e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or (f) It represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or (9) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural -7- setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. Section 6. Procedure for Designation of a Heritage Resource. The procedure for designation as a heritage resource shall be as follows: (a) Applications for Designation. Applications for designation as a heritage resource may. be submitted to the heritage Commission by any of the following: i (1) The owner or owners of a building, improve- P,ri��i -�^- - ment, structure, natural feature, site or area of land, G•:.:. �n:?,:� ,;Y�;';; ( requesting designation of their property as a historic landmark. (2) The owners of at least sixty percent (608) of SC�k -1 all recorded lots abutting a street, road, avenue, boulevard, pathway or trail, or portion thereof, requesting designation as a heritage lane. (3) The owners of at least sixty percent (608) of ({ r i-ro all recorded lots within a specific geographic section . of the city, requesting designation of the entire section as a historic district. Applications for designation as a heritage lane or historic district shall be accompanied by a filing fee to cover the . Jr'..{. i. h.• ri:• i, yV A-;:{ .:!. /' ✓•��i.l:�r..::- �•;....::� administrative cost of handling the designation proceedings. The City Council or the Planning Commission may also, by ��wlcvtlSl�^� P�� °5f` 7hsL&U4A,Tipr( 04 1 OGW4 resolution or motion, refer a proposed designation to the Lrl-tLA,-ilV*- Heritage Commission for its recommendation and the heritage Commission may consider a proposed designation upon its own initiative. (b) Study of Proposal. The Heritage Com.'nission shall conduct a study of the proposed designation, based upon ti CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO ,j � % Dept. Hd. DATE: February 29, 1984 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Donations for Saratoga Community Library Issue Summary The Council has requested to be able to review and accept..all donations to the Saratoga Community Library. Attached is a letter from Lois Thomas, Head Librarian, outlining various gifts to the Saratoga Community Library from the Friends of the Saratoga Library and Santa Clara Valley Chapter, California Native Plant Society. Recommendation Accept donations to the Community Library as indicated on attachment, and request letters of acknowledgement be sent. Fiscal Impacts None f Exhibits /Attachments Letter from Lois Thomas, Head Librarian Council Action 3/7: Accepted 5 -0. J ' County of Santa Clara California Mr. Wayne Dernetz, City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Calif. 95070 Dear Mr. Dernetz, Saratoga Community Library 13650 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 -5099 867 -6126 Area Code 408 February 22, 1984 RECEIVED FEB 2 4 1984 CITY MANAGER Following are gifts received by Saratoga Community Library during the period July 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983: 7/7/83 A check in the amount of $150.00, used to purchase a microfiche $ 150.00 reader. From: Santa Clara Valley Chapter California Native Plant Society John A. Gamon, President 3311 Alameda de las Pulgas Menlo Park, Calif. 94025 7/21/84 A check covering the cost of sending out letters soliciting donations 38.56 toward the purchase of periodicals for the library, letters signed by the President of the Friends of the Saratoga Libraries. 9/14/84 A check covering projected programming and supplies costs for the children's department for the fall period to January 1, 1984. 10/5/84 3M book desensitizer. 11/10/84 Gaylord paperback displayers. 11/21/84 Cost of repotting library plants. Paid to Banyan Nursery. 12/7/84 Repair of answering machine. Paid to Automatic Telephone. 12/27/84 Check, money to be added to the budget for new books. From: Friends of the Saratoga Libraries Martha Beverett, President P. 0. Box 2642 Saratoga, California 95070 -0642 393.00 186.38 811.72 34.80 20.00 5,000.00 Total from Friends of the Saratoga $6,484.46 Libraries TOTAL GIFTS $6,634.46 ® An Equal Opportunity Employer County of Santa Clara California M Saratoga Community Library 13650 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 -5099 867 -6126 Area Code 408 May I thank you in advance for agendizing the acceptance of these gifts by the City Council and for sending letters of thanks to the groups who have donated them? As Library Supervisor, I am most grateful to our wonderful Friends and to other groups, such as the Native Plant Society, who give us their support. This is a great community in which we live. Sincerely, Lois Thomas, Community Library Supervisor An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY Or SARIYiCGA AC=. A BILL NO. Sq o DATE: FP nia* 4 23 1984 DEpAxamE�Tr. Administrative Services r Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Authorization to appropriate HCDA funds for the Senior Center Issue Sumrnary Subsequent to completion of the Senior Center, a balance of $5,117.20 remained. During the past fiscal year, $4,419.25 was expended for construction of the Senior Center Administration and Saratoga Volunteer offices,'draperies, storage, and additional electric work. A current HCDA balance of $697.95 remains. These funds are riot allocated to a current City program. The Seniors have requested that this balance be appropriated to the current budget for the addition of storage space ($112.95.materials only), the installa- tion of an industrial dishwasher (Health Department requirement), and.other similar improve- ments should funds remain. Recommendation Appropriate the remaining balance of $697.95 in HCDA funds to Senior Center improvements. Fiscal Impacts None Lxh ibi is /Attachn-en is Council Action 3/7: Approved Resolution 2073.9 5 -0. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. �C/ Z Dept. Hd. DATE: Feb. 22, 1984, (March 7, 1984) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: C ommun i fy D ve l opment C. Mgr- SUBJECT: QUITO AREA STORM DRAIN PROJECT Issue Summary On September 7., 1983 the City Council awarded to Ernest E. Pestana, Inc. the Contract for the Quito Area Storm Drain Project for the bid amount of $86,714.00. The construction took place between November 14, 1983 and the end of December, 1983. The final contract cost was $89,762.00. (The 3.5% increase was due to a change in the original design - due to utility conflicts) Although the 3.S% exceeds the original contract, the project is considerably under the budget amount of $114,325. Recommendation Approve the final acceptance and file the Notice of Completion on the above project. Fiscal Impacts None to the City - Project cost of construction and Engineering funded by HCD. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Notice of Completion Council Action 3/7: Approved notice of completion 5 -0. F Name Street Address City 8 L State RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO —II SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE 'Nottre of (Iun PIrfion Notirr is hereby given that ........1 ............. . the undersigned, 'b WaY,ne..Dernetz .................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................... ............................... /the agent of]* the owner....... of th............. certain lot............ piece..............., or, parcel ............. of land situated in the ........Gy of„ Saratoga ........................................... County of ............................................... .......••••••................., State of California, and described as follows, to -wit: QUITO AREA STORM DRAIN PROJECT That.................. t....of Saratoga............................................. ............................... ............ ...................................... ............................... , as owner...... of said land, did, on the . ,,.,,,,,,., fifth ................. day of ............ October ...., 19 , enter into a contract with ......Ernest ... Pestana, Inc. ................................ ............................... for ............................................... ............................... Quit6 Area Storm Project .... ...... .... ...................................... ............................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................... ...................;.............................................................................................................. ............................... upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the ......... ............................... county of .................................. ............................... , State of California, on the................. ............................... day of That on the.... Twen -. Second day of FebryarY 19.Q4 ...... the said contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ................... Ernest E. Pestana, Inc. ..................... ................................................................... .............................., That the name ...... and address...... of all the owner...... of said property are as follows: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 . and the nature of ........ ............................... title to said property is ........................................................ ................................................................................................................................. ............................... ................................................. ............................... ................................................. ............................... City of Saratoga Owner............ STATE OF CALIFORNIA " " " " " "..... "" ss. By ............... ............................... County of ...... Santa Clara J. Wayne Dernetz Agent ................................................................................................................................. ............................... being duly sworn, ........ J....FIaYn�..R�x>i� 2 ................................................ ................................ says: I am ........ [the agent of]* the owner...... of the property described in the foregoing notice. I have read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge. Subscribed and sworn to before me this .......................... day of ...................... 19 ....... ................................................. ............................... ............................................................ ******'* ) ................................................ ............................... * Delete words in brackets if owner signs. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. `j ? 3 DATE: February 27, 1984, (March 7, 1984) DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT. AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS Issue Summary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. The City of Saratoga and,United States Postal Service, on May 8, 1981, entered into an agreement to improve a portion of Allendale Avenue. This improvement is located at the intersection of Fruitvale Avenue and to the west thereof, making connection to the existing improvements on both the north and south sides of Allendale Avenue. Since the time of the original.agreement and the present; a number of items have been refined necessitating a Supplemental Letter of Agreement. Recommendation Approve the Supplemental Letter of Agreement and authorize going to bid on said project with the bid opening to be on Wedenesday, April 11, 1984. Fiscal Impacts The cost of this project is estimated to be about $42,420 (incl. 100 contingency). Of this amount the City's share would be approximately $12,000.00 with the remaining share being borne by the Postal Service. The City's share would come from 45- 4522 - 942 -72. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Supplemental Letter of Agreement 2. May 8, 1981 Agreement 3. Cost Estimates 4. Location Map Council Action 3./7: Approved and authorized.5 -0. fr WHEREAS, the U. within the City of -way known as WHEREAS, said d includ-in avin fron age; and S. Postal of Sarato Allendale avelopment AGREEMENT Service la, said Avenue; project ter a_m is developing a project fronting and requires certain si wa• cs a _ i2w post office on land on a city - owned right - street improvements, - ne-posfal"`Sef—vice owned WHEREAS, as a resu uc dg el pment project-,, other street improvements of similar nature, � ��afii _n of � IFr gn at the corner of Allendale Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue arerequ red to mitigate the impact af"�ai odect; d WHEREAS, the Cit of Saratoga desires to coincidently provide certain changes in the curb ;ine and paving a ong the nortlTSl e en a v e e in erseczion o, rr r, CH a WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to agree upon the proportionate share of costs and to thod of payment~ or say c �s; WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga is willing to prepare the engineering drawings and estimates, and to contract for completion of all work in accordance with the standards of the City. NOW THEREFOR:, in consideration of mutual benefits, the parties hereto agree as fol l o-:ys : 1. Upon the signing of this agreement by both parties, th„e�Postal Service shall -D-3V to th Ci t of Saratoga the sum of S 3 900.00 an tip Ci i s al l im iedi a e y egi n p epa zi o engineering draw- ings, specifications and bid documents for the work. 2. As part of the design work, specified in paragraph 1 above, the City shall prepare final cost estimates for all ;cork to be included--ir7'the approve oroJec Sai*o es ima shah be orepa e'd" -�h a unit base To showing trtion'r ;1 is the Posta Service shall assume the cos ,and that pop'' iE o `� or w is he �y s. ^.a assume ie casC: Only that o Lion necessary to comp e e e wor- a ong the po tr ai"- owned``' �rontage, an t a wor ree ui rte'" o m i gam ne`-ef e — t- he`Pbstal rvice aje`'c£; as agree -d �o y e osta� Service, shall be allocated to Postal ervice costs. Page 2 3. U�ponna proval of cost estimates, as described above by Postal Service an City, s a S sh,11_ 1 b, Supplementary,,Letter�of Agreement, commit to pay to City, its portion o 0 1.e*c cos s a' f"o-Tl ows : A. 40% upon tendering Supplementary Letter of Agreement to City.A? B. 40% upon receiving written notification from City that the project i.s 50% completed. C. 200%, upon completion of all project work and written notification from City of acceptance ol; the completed work. 4. The encineerin 5. b the _-P o st al Prior to City done unaer th claim deed --ac Cit"ty. F,e SL nand design phase, as described in par�.graph 1, above for each area to"be de ca e o City Service and /or the�Sara_toc as Unifie S hoo District. o p v �n a,ard of a con ract for`4 e a,or to be s pr oaec±, Postal Service shall submit a copy of a quit �y gable to City o �ti suc area to be--de t2t "ta lementar vx ,g agreement, as ted deed or e s wi b_e_cT_abov, shall en ered_10 City i ty. Ponta om the Tc- `ool U1-1)0,1UL; d.11y UCCU 1CL{U11CU IU1 L:ic Ur:_-Jk_i IuCu 1111JJ1 _'J._ City shall proceed with project - --work with due diligence and Postal Service agrees to cooperate with respect to its obligations, with the objective of completing said improvement project prior. to the completion and occupancy of the new Post Office, currently scheduled for approxi- mately August 1 ,. 1981. In witness whereof, the fgrgoing agreement is here accepted and agreed to on this '``� day of 1981. CITY OF SARATOGA BY: i /t L l-ry �1to0nC7 Title UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ov��S,iJ »�Q Title '�'i4`= =-c REAL EST !', 30" U.S.P.S.... SAN PK . . `.' CITY OF SARATOG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CE= ARTMENT ENGINEER'S EST/ WA TE ALLENDALE AVENUE, SARaTOG =, CA. Date: December 14,I9g By: Arjan DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRIG AMOUNT Clearing & Grubbing Lump Sum 4200 4200 --z-- C-radi ng Talmo Sum. 1 1200 1200 3. Curb & Gutter (including cushion) 430 L.F. 9.00 3870 5. qi ° i Driveway (Incl. Cushion) 2 3 0 S.F. 350 s.11. 2.50 3.50 .5075 1225 Conform 900 S.F. .40 1360 7. 10 "•A.B.M. Base 7,950 S.F. .90 7.15.5 " A. C. 7 110 S.F. .60 4266 _ 9. 6" A. C.. 165 S.F . 1.00 165 10. Headerboard (21.' X 611) 32 J.F. 3.00 96 ' 13 • 15.. 16. ' + Di. ti n Arrows white. Stripes _ .. (2' X 3' base) ' ate S SIlaI Remove & Relocate- Signal(2`w6 "x6'.' ba Relocation of Sign 270 J.F. 5 Each 410 J. F . e) Lump Suz 1 EA. 1.50 50.0& .7o 3000 200 405. •••250 -287 - _ 3000 -• " 200 - 17. Nonreflective finite Buttons 11 20 Eac^ 3 18. Remove Existing Striping - Lumn S•-- ?9. 20. Instal 6' Install 6' X 40' type C Dector .� 3 Each ` 600 QQ� 2.1. "ONLY" P 2 Each 15 '_2. Textu ;n q-r- Subtotal 5% Contingencies 1,928.'20 - o LCL 0!.49.2.. 20:; �.;.;.r�•: 4. ' CITY OF SARATO::.: S.F. 2.5 1820.0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C-=ARTMENT ENG /NEER'S ES T /;,'A T E Driveway "ALL CE SHARE) Asphalt Conform 900 Date. Dt c umhar_4, 1983 Sy: A. I. 360.0 DESCRIPTION QUAIN1 ITY UNIT UNIT gp,�OUNT 10 " . B 1a r PRICE 1. Clear & Grub L.S L.S 2200 2200.0 9. Headerboard 2" x 6" 2. Grading In,- i L.S L.S 7nn inn n 4. Sidewalk (Inc Cushion) 728 S.F. 2.5 1820.0 Driveway 6 Asphalt Conform 900 S.F. 360.0 7, 10 " . B 1a r A.0 5500 S.F. .6 3300.0 9. Headerboard 2" x 6" 32 F In,- 11. 12 Direction Arrows White Stripes - 5 410 EA L .F.' 50.0 0'..70 250.00 y 2.8'7•.00-_ -- 13-. 14. Remove & Relocate Sicrnal Remove- & Relocate Signal' 2.5' X 6' L.S- L.S L.S L.S 1300 3000 1800:00 3000-00. _.. 15.• Relocatibn -of '-Sign' - - 1 EA 200 -, 2.00.00 16. Install Nonreflective Nhite Button 20 EA 3.0 60.00 17. Install 6' X 6' ,- Type 1 De�ector 1 EA .S ac:, Er0-170 800 000.00 800.00 18. — Remove Existinc Stri in L.S 2 EA 150 300.00 20. "ONLY" Painted 21. Textured Concrete Walk 5 F 5 25 Subtotal 27 814.00 Contingencies 1,390.70 Total 29 204.70 •�• CITY OF SARATOGA a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEER'S EST 1;11A TE ' ALLENDALE AVE. IMPROVEMENTS (CITY SHARE) •� Date: December 14jgg 3 gy; Arjan EM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT PRICE Lear & Grub L.S L.S 2000 2000.00 L.S 500 500 On 3. Curb & Gutter (Including Cushion) 186.0 L.F 9.0 1674.00 5. Concrete Driveway (Cushion) 1302.0 240.00 S.F. 2.5 3255.b0 S.F 3.5 840.00 6. 6" A.0 165.00 S.F 1.0 165.00 1610.00 S.F .6C nn 966.00 10,750.00 537.50 . _Subtotal 5% Canti2nc2rcies Total -... ;: =Sheet of �� ey VICINITY MAP No Scale CITY OF SAR rOGGA G=- A BILL M. S DATE: February 24, 1984 , OIrPARTMENT: Administrative Services SUBJECT. Award of Contract - Classification Study Issue aminary Initial: , Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. The City of Saratoga has not undertaken a major review of all job classifications and associated pay levels since'.the early 1970's. Included in the 1983 -84 budget was an appropriation to have such a study conducted on all non - management classes during - 1983 -84. A Request for Proposal was sent out in December, 1983,`and three responses were received in January, 1984. i2eccmnehdation Authorize execution of a contract with the Intergovernmental Employee Relations Service for preparation of a Classification and Pay Study for all miscellaneous classifications. Fiscal Impacts None. 1983 -84 budget appropriated $10,000 for this purpose. c �.hibits /Attachrrents Background Memorandum Proposal from Intergovernmental Employee Relations Service Request for Proposal Council Action 3/7: Authorized not to exceed $10,000, 5 -0. r t� �0 REPORT TO MAYOR, AND CITY COUNCIL DATE COUNCIL MEETING: SUBJECT' Award of Contract - Classification Study BACKGROUND Feb. 24, 1984 The City of Saratoga has not had a major review of job classifications and associated pay levels for the miscellaneous employees since the early 19701s. Since that time there have been reductions in the number of employees, several major reorganizations, a few individual reclassifications, and new classifications added. During the development of the 1983 -84 budget, several department heads expressed an interest in having specific positions studied for the potential of reclassification. There were too many positions to be reviewed for the project to be done in house so staff recommended,during the budget process,that a Classification and Pay Study be undertaken to review all classifications and associated pay levels for all employees other than management. The City Council appropriated $10,000 in the 1983 -84 budget for this purpose. In December, 1983, three companies who have experience in this field were sent a Request for Proposal. On January 31, 1983, three proposals were received. RECOMMENDATION Following a review and evaluation of the three proposals, staff is recommending the contract be awarded to the Intergovernmental Employee Relations Service. The proposal cost is estimated at $7,408, with reimbursement for mileage and meals. There may be some additional nominal costs as the study progresses if we request additions and /or changes once the preliminary draft has been completed. The firm recommended has completed similar projects for cities of Palo Alto, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Mountain View, Menlo Park, and others. Criteria used to evaluate and select a proposal included cost, experience, knowledge of local government departmental operations, work plan, schedule, and appropriateness of the proposal to Saratoga's needs. The two proposals not being recommended were of a higher cost (one at $10,000, the other at $8,700 plus expenses) and were not as geared to the needs of Saratoga. Following award of the contract, staff will begin immediately to work with the consultant to begin the study., Staff will be working closely with the consultant and will be monitoring the study as it progresses. It is anticipated the Council will be involved as the final draft is developed and, following the report, with evaluation and any necessary implementation. r �C� Patricia M. Aviles Administr- a- t- ive - -- Services Director jm:B:memol Attachments: Proposal from Intergovernmental Employee Relations Service Request for Proposal Employee Relations Service PRnPnSAL CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION AND PAY STUDY January 30, 1984 Scope: To conduct a classification and pay study encompassing approxi- mately fifty (50) full -time and part -time positions allocated to the thirty -one (31) classifications in the City's Miscellaneous Employees Unit, as set forth in the attachment to the City's Request For Proposal dated December 16, 1983. Components: The study shall consist of the following elements: 1. A determination of the current duties of each position by means of completion of duty statement by each incumbent and the conducting of on -site interviews with up to 32 of the incumbents. Individual employees shall be selected for interview so as to include at least one position in each active, covered classification and any employ- ee who requests an interview. Selection shall be made subsequent to the Service's receipt of all the questionnaires and will also take into account variations in duties caused through utilization of a classification in more than one department or division. Should the number of employee requests for interview cause the aforementioned limit to be exceeded, the additional time entailed in conducting such interviews shall be charged in accordance with the Cost provisions of this proposal. 2. Development of a salary survey utilizing from fifteen (15) to twenty (20) of the thirty -one (31) covered classifications. Selec- tion of survey classes shall be made using the primary criterion of the probable existence of generally comparable classes among the survey agencies. The City may approve additional survey classifications in excess of twenty either at its initiation or upon recommendation of the Ser- vice. Such additional time shall be charged in accordance with the Cost provisions of this proposal. The Service shall provide the City Manager with the specific classifications recommended for in- clusion in the survey prior to its commencement. It is proposed that eleven (11) survey agencies be used, which may include any or all of the jurisdictions named in Section III -C of the January 1982- August 1983 Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Saratoga Employees Association. These are: Campbell Mountain View Cupertino Palo Alto Los Altos San Jose Los Gatos Santa Clara Milpitas Sunnyvale County of Santa Clara Proposal - City of Saratoga Classification Study - Employees Assoc. Page 2 1/30/84 Alternate survey agencies could include any city within the coun- ties of San Mateo and Alameda having populations of 50,000 or less. The inclusion of larger agencies is not recommended due to the frequent incompatibility of their classification structures with those of smaller jurisdictions. Additions to or reductions in the total number of jurisdictions to be surveyed shall be charged for or credited on the basis of two hours per agency. 3. A review of the information collected from employees with appro- priate department managers. 4. A determination of the most appropriate classification and salary level for each position in the study. This determination shall take into account the salaries for generally comparable work as collected through the survey and internal salary relationships and alignments. 5. The development of new and revised class specifications reflecting current duties and the foregoing classification determinations. 6. Preparation of a preliminary report containing all classification and pay recommendations, the results of the salary survey and the proposed class specifications. 7. A meeting with the City Manager and any management representative he may deem appropriate to discuss the report's findings. 8. Preparation of a final report. Schedule: Classification questionnaires shall be provided to the City Manager within two weeks from the Service's receipt of the contract award; the on -site interviews shall be conducted in March and, if necessary, in April; and the salary survey undertaken in April. The complete preliminary report shall be submitted to the City Manager by June 1, 1984. Cost: The cost for completion of the first seven elements of the study shall be $7,408. This amount incorporates a reduction of 15 hours of professional staff time based upon service allotments unused by the City as of this date. Preparation of a final report and the undertaking of any additional task as referenced in this proposal or as subsequently agreed to by the City and the Service shall be charged at the rate of $55 per profes- sional staff hour and $20 per secretarial hour. Reimbursement for automobile mileage and meal expenses incurred in con- nection with this study shall be 29¢ per mile and actual reasonable costs for meals. Proposal - City of Saratoga Classification Study - Employees Assoc. Page 3 1/30/84 Experience: The Employee Relations Service has been in operation since 1974. During that time, it has conducted a variety of classification studies which have included these cities: South San Francisco Millbrae Mountain View Los Gatos Milpitas Menlo Park Saratoga Palo Alto Cupertino These studies have encompassed a variety of occupational groups, in- cluding many of those in the subject Unit. In addition, the Employee Relations Service conducts continuous compensation studies for both non - management and management classifications on behalf of its thirty member agencies. These projects dictate the Service maintaining, cur- rent relevant documents such as pay schedules, memoranda of agreement and class specifications. This type of information is maintained for a minimum of fifty local public jurisdictions. Project Staff: Mr. John C. Obenhuber will serve as project manager. He will personally conduct the on -site interviews and develop the recommendations and class specifications to be contained in the study. Mr. Obenhuber has twenty -three years of experience in public and pri- vate sector industrial relations, and for the past nine years has been the Director of the Employee Relations Service. As part of this func- tion, Mr. Obenhuber has been the primary individual involved in the aforementioned classification studies. Other members of the Service's staff will assist in the conduct of the salary survey. The individuals so assigned conduct varying types of compensation surveys on a regular basis and are familiar with the or- ganization and compensation structures of virtually any survey group which could be selected by the City. Manner of Payment: One -third of the stated cost of the study will be payable upon completion of the on -site interview phase, with the bal- ance payable upon submission of the preliminary report to the City. This proposal shall remain open to acceptance by the City of Saratoga until February 17, 1984. The Employee Relations Service reserves the right to amend this proposal or withdraw it should significant modifi- cations be made to its scope by the City of Saratoga. 1516f County of Santa Clara California January 31, 1984 Ms. Pat Aviles Administrative Services Director/ Deputy City Manager CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Ms. Aviles: County Executive - Office of Employee Relations County Government Center, East Wing 70 West Hedding Street, 8th Floor San Jose, California 95110 299 -3617 WAM�gArea Code 408 In accordance with your Request For Proposal of December 16, 1983, we are enclosing our proposal concerning the classification and pay study for the Miscellaneous Employees Unit. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this proposal. Thank you for considering the use of our services on this project. Sincerely, J hn C. Obenhuber irector EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SERVICE JCO:csm Enclosure 5) An Equal Opportunity Employer • (0 N7 k" Tw @,T i �' ;•,6 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 OFFICE: Administrative Services COUNCIL MEMBERS: - December 16, 1983 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL r%n TLIOTITIM Linda Callon Martha Clevenger Virginia Fanelli John Mallory David Moyles The City of Saratoga plans to undertake a Classification and Pay Study of its Miscellaneous Employees Unit. SCOPE OF WORK - The sco e of work i 1 d p nc u es a review of thirty -one classifications, involving approximately fifty positions. A list of classifica- tions to be reviewed is attached. TASKS 1. To review the accuracy of existing class specifications and revise the descriptions where necessary. 2. To advise and recommend appropriate classifications and salary ranges for positions based on the data collected for each classification, appropriate external comparisons and internal salary relationships and alignments. SCHEDULE t The study shall be concluded within sixteen weeks of the award- of the contract. FACTORS FOR AWARD OF CONTRACT Responding firms should include the following information in their proposals: - Project work plan including methodology for completing the tasks. - Schedule for completing tasks. - Project cost, including reimburseable expenses and work tasks.. - Experience of the firm specifically related to this study. - Experience of the firm regarding departmental operations in local government. - Principals who will complete the tasks and their qualifi- cations; project manager designation. 2 PROPOSAL DEADLINE Three copies of the proposal should be submitted no later than January 31, 1984 to: Patricia M. Aviles Director of Administrative Services City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga; CA 95070 The City of Saratoga reserves the right to amend the scope of the Request for Proposal. It further reserves the right to reject all proposals. DnCTTTnM Account Clerk Administrative Assistant Administrative Secretary Assistant Civil Engineer Building Inspector I Building Inspector II Civil Engineering Tech II Clerk Typist II Clerk Typist III Code Technician Community Service Officer Custodian Deputy City Clerk Facilities Reservation Clerk Housing & Community Development Coord. Japanese Garden Caretaker Japanese Garden Specialist Maintenance Clerk Maintenance I Maintenance II Parks & Landscp. Mtc. I Parks & Landscp. Mtc. II Parks & Landscp. Super. Planner I Planning Aide Planning Assistant Recreation Supervisor Secretary I Secretary II Street Supervisor. Switchboard Operator /Receptionist CITY OF SARATOGA r Initial: �--- AGENDA BILL NO: S q S Dept. Head�� DATE: February 28, 1984 City Atty DEPARTMENT: Maintenance City Mgr ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- SUBJECT: Traffic Signal Agreements Between the City of San Jose and the City of Saratoga Issue Summary There are currently five traffic signals which are under the joint jurisdication of Saratoga and San Jose (see listing on Exhibit A attached). For the past several months the staffs of Saratoga and San Jose have been working out the details of formalizing the Agreement to cover the maintenance costs for these signals. The Agreement is needed to formalize the practice we have been operating under for many years. The Agreement identifies the locations and the proportionate share for which each agency is responsible. "Costs of Maintenance" and other terms and responsibilities are also defined. In addition to and subject to the terms of the "Joint Signal Maintenance Agreement ", another Agreement for the sharing of costs for modification of the existing traffic signal at Quito Road and Bucknall Avenue is attached. This Agreement is needed to replace the malfunctioning signal controller and cabinet. It requires us to pay $2,350 which represents 25% of the estimated cost of the new equipment. Recommendation 1. Approve and authorize Mayor to execute "Agreement Between the City of San Jose and the City of Saratoga for maintenance of traffic signals under Joint Jurisdication". 2. Approve and authorize Mayor to execute "Agreement Between the City of San Jose and the City of Saratoga for Sharing of Cost For Modification of Traffic Signal at Bucknall Road and Quito Road ". 3. Adopt Resolution No. appropriating $2,350 to fund our cost share in Number 2 above. Fiscal Impact 1. Agreement Number 1 will increase our annual operating cost by approximately $1,200 for future fiscal years. Cost will be included in our Traffic Control Maintenance Program. Increase is caused by the recent addition of one traffic signal and correct and formalized accounting system in San Jose. 2. The $2,350 for Agreement Number 2 will be funded by Revenue Sharing. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Agreement for Maintenance of Traffic Signals Under Joint Jurisdiction 2. Agreement for Cost Sharing and Modification of Traffic Signals at Bucknall and Quito 3. 'Resolution No. appropriating $2,350 for fund number 2 above Council Action 3/7: Approved agreements and Resolution 2073.10 appropriating funds, 5 -0. s JFB:GDT:sbk 12/14/83 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN JOSE AND THE CITY OF SARATOGA FOR MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS UNDER JOINT JURISDICTION THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of , 19 , by and between the CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal corporation of the State.of California, hereinafter called "San Jose ", and the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter called "Saratoga ". W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, there exists one or more streets which lie partly in the jurisdiction of San Jose and partly in the jurisdiction of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, San Jose and Saratoga desire to pay their proportionate share of the maintenance costs of traffic signals and safety lighting connected with such streets of joint jurisdiction. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 1. Definition of "Traffic Signal" As used in this agreement, the term "traffic signal" shall include: (a) All traffic signals, controllers and cables used for con- trolling traffic at street intersections which lie partly within San Jose and partly within Saratoga; and (b) All safety lighting at signalized street intersections which lie partly within San Jose and partly within Saratoga. 2. Definition of "Maintenance" As used in this agreement, the term "maintenance" shall include all repairs, replacements or inspections of traffic signals necessitated J for any reason whatsoever, including, but not limited to, ordinary and extraordinary wear, vandalism, traffic accidents and acts of God. "Maintenance" shall not include the modification of traffic signal equip- ment or operational characteristics. 3. Definition of "Costs of Maintenance" As used in this agreement, the term "costs of maintenance" shall include: (a) The cost from the supplier of materials utilized for perform- ing maintenance on traffic signals; and (b) The reasonable rental value of equipment employed in perform- ing maintenance on traffic signals (during the period the equipment is so utilized); and (c) Labor costs (including normal and overtime salary and fringe benefits) for the maintenance; and (d) Traffic signal energy costs; and (e) Direct overhead costs (only to the extent that such charges include expenses directly incurred in the execution of work). 4. Allocation of Maintenance Responsibility The traffic signals covered by this agreement are shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, hereby referred.to and made a part hereof, and main- tenance responsibilities therefor shall be delegated in accordance with said Exhibit "A ". The party to whom maintenance responsibility for a particular traffic signal or signals has been delegated, in accordance with Exhibit "A ", shall be the administering agency for said traffic signal or signals and shall possess all powers necessary to effectuate the pur- poses of this agreement (subject only to the manner of exercise of these powers provided in this agreement and the restrictions imposed by law upon such party in the exercise of these powers as to such traffic signal or signals). The party to whom maintenance responsibility for a particular V!P -2- ' P —,,. .7 h, J traffic signal or signals has been delegated, in accordance with Exhibit "A ", shall and agrees to perform all maintenance work reasonably necessary for such traffic signal or signals. 5. Sharinq of Costs of Maintenance The costs of maintenance for each traffic signal subject to this agreement shall be shared by the parties hereto in accordance with Exhibit "A ". The party having maintenance responsibility for a traffic signal shall bill the other party for the share of maintenance costs owed by that other party on a semiannual basis, and the bill shall be paid within thirty (30) days after receipt. The party having maintenance responsibility for a traffic signal shall notify the other party prior to commencing any item of work for which it is estimated that the other party's share of expenses is in excess of Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars. 6. Claims Against Third Parties The party having maintenance responsibility for a traffic signal shall pursue claims for traffic signal damage against responsible third parties. Recovered claims from third parties shall be distributed between the parties to this agreement in the same ratio that maintenance costs are shared at the intersection where the damage occurred. 7. Liability Neither Saratoga nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by San Jose under or in connection with any work, authority or ..jurisdiction delegated to San Jose under this agreement. It is also under- stood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code 895.4, San Jose shall fully indemnify and hold Saratoga harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code 810.8) occurring by reason of any- thing done or omitted to be done by San Jose under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to San Jose under this agreement. -3- d ) r, 1 Neither San Jose nor any officer or employee thereof is respon- sible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Saratoga under or in connection with any work, auth- ority or jurisdiction delegated to Saratoga under this agreement. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code 895.4, Saratoga shall fully indemnify and hold San Jose harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code 810.8) occurring by reason of any- thing done or omitted to be done by Saratoga under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to Saratoga under this agreement. 8. Term of Agreement This agreement shall take effect on the date of execution hereof and shall continue in force unless and until terminated by either party hereto. Either party may terminate upon giving the other party thirty (30) days' prior written notice at any time. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective officers, duly authorized, the provi- sions of which agreement are effective as of the date, month and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF SAN JOSE APPROVED A B S TO FORM: A Municipal Corporation Y Deputy City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk City Clerk -4- CITY OF SARATOGA A Municipal Corporation By Mayor EXHIBIT "A" TRAFFIC SIGNAL DESIGNATION AND COST ALLOCATION r The following signals shall be subject to this agreement. Maintenance responsibility shall be delegated and the cost for maintenance shall be allocated as shown: MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE COST SIGNAL LOCATION RESPONSIBILITY SAN JOSE SHARE SARATOGA SHARE Bucknall Road & San Jose 75% 25% Quito Road Blaney Avenue & San Jose 66 -2/3% 33 -1/3% Prospect Road Miller Avenue & Saratoga 50% 50% Prospect Road Johnson Avenue & San Jose 33 -1/3% 66 -2/3% Prospect Road Lyle Drive & San Jose 66 -2/3% 33 -1/3% Prospect Road CITY OF SARATOGA ./ AGENDA BILL NO DATE: 2/27/84 DEPARTMENT: Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. -- C. Mgr. -------------------------------- A -920 & V -629, Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Rd., Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial SUB A-920 Variance, V -629 and Condition #2 of Design Review, A -920 Requiring Removal of the _— ______— _ ----------------------------------------- Issue Summary - The applicant is appealing the denial of a Variance for balconies already con- structed on the north and south side of the residence, which yo not meet the required sideyard setbacks. The appeal is also on Condition #2 of the Design Review Approval which requires re- moval of the balconies prior to final building approval if the Variance were denied. The applicant maintains that there was insufficient evidence to support the denial, that the Planning Commission's decision was an abuse of discretion and that the ordinances pertaining to the issue are unconstitutional. The balconies and the second story of the residence were constructed without building permits or Design Review Approval. Recon nendation 1. Determine the merits of the appeal and uphold or reverse If the Variance denial is reversed, determine the merits of Design Review, A -920 and retain, delete or amend this denial is upheld, the balconies cannot be approved with 2. Staff recommended denial of Variance, V -629 and approval to Conditions #1 -8. Fiscal Impacts Exhibits/Attachments Council Action 1. Appeal Letter 2. Staff Reports for A -920 & V -629 3. Resolution No. A -920 -1 4. Mnufes dated 1/17/84,& 1/11/84 5. Exhibits B, C and D 6. Correspondence on Project the denial of Variance, V -629. of the appeal on Condition #2 condition. If the Variance Design Review. of Design Review, A -920, subject 3/21: Denied variance; findings could not be made to approve, 5 -0. Upheld Planning Commission decision removal of balconies and all other conditions, 5 -0. ADLESON, HESS, CHRISTENSEN & PEIZKINS January 27, 1984 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Appeal Application Dear Sir or Madam: JOHN S. PERKINS EVE M. AGIEWICH This office represents Mr. Ralph R. Renna with regard to this appeal of the denial of variance application V -629, and the appeal of the condition of the design review resolution requiring removal of balconies and windows on the north and south sides of the Renna residence on Sobey Road. The grounds for the appeals are as follows: 1. There is insufficient evidence to support the denial of the variance application. 2. There is insufficient evidence to support the condition of the design review resolution requiring the removal of balconies and windows on the north and south sides of appellants residence. 3. The denial of the variance application was an abuse of discretion. 4. The requirements and conditions of the design review resolution with regard to removal of the balconies and windows.on the north and south sides of appellant's resi- dence was an abuse of discretion. 5. The City of Saratoga ordinances pertaining to the balconies and windows, including but not limited to design review and set back requirements, and /or an application to applicant's residence, are unconstitutional under California and United States constitutions. I would appreciate it if any notices concerning this appeal ATTORNEYS AT LAW ASSOCIATED ATTORNEYS PHILLIP M. ADLESON TWO NORTH SECOND STREET RANDY M. HESS SUITE 1340 BARBARA B. CHRISTENSEN SAN JOSE, CALIFOI?NIA 95113 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION (408) 297 -6605 - OF COUNSEL PATRICJ . KELLY January 27, 1984 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Appeal Application Dear Sir or Madam: JOHN S. PERKINS EVE M. AGIEWICH This office represents Mr. Ralph R. Renna with regard to this appeal of the denial of variance application V -629, and the appeal of the condition of the design review resolution requiring removal of balconies and windows on the north and south sides of the Renna residence on Sobey Road. The grounds for the appeals are as follows: 1. There is insufficient evidence to support the denial of the variance application. 2. There is insufficient evidence to support the condition of the design review resolution requiring the removal of balconies and windows on the north and south sides of appellants residence. 3. The denial of the variance application was an abuse of discretion. 4. The requirements and conditions of the design review resolution with regard to removal of the balconies and windows.on the north and south sides of appellant's resi- dence was an abuse of discretion. 5. The City of Saratoga ordinances pertaining to the balconies and windows, including but not limited to design review and set back requirements, and /or an application to applicant's residence, are unconstitutional under California and United States constitutions. I would appreciate it if any notices concerning this appeal City of Saratoga January 27, 1984 Page Two would be sent to my office. Thank you for your courtesy in this matter. Very truly yours, ADLESON, HESS, CHRISTENSEN & PERKINS Randy M. Huss . L--� RMH:jw 0 (.-I MASI! Id nWr REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSI ®N * Revised: 1/17/84 DATE: 12/29/83 Commission Meeting: 1/11/84 SUBJECT: A -920, V -629 - Mr. Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road REQUEST: Design Review Approval to exceed the 6,200 sq. ft. Design Review Standard and add a second story to a single family residence and accessory structure.- Variance appro- val for balconies which do not maintain the required 20' sideyard setback. PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 42,776 sq. ft. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - ZONING: R -1- 40,000 Very Low Density Single Family SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential SITE SLOPE: 15% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 7% NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The residence is located on a double frontage.lot with steep downsloping topography from the roads and a fairly level building area in the middle. The site has been cleared of trees and grasses. SETBACKS: Front: 40 ft. Rear: 150 ft. Right side (measured to balcony : 17 ft. (20 ft. required) Left side (measured to balcony): 16 ft. (20 ft. required) HEIGHT: Main residence: 22 ft. Accessory Structure: 19 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Single Story Residence: 5,624 sq. ft. Accessory Structure: 980 sq. ft. Total Existing Floor Area: 6,604 sq. ft. 2nd Story Addition to Main Structure: 1,730 sq. ft. Loft Addition to Accessory Structure 318 sq. ft. ,� Total Additional Floor Area: 2,048 sq. ft. Report to Planning Commission 12/29/83 A -920, V -629, Ralph Renna, Sobey Road Page 2 TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 8,652 sq. ft. (6,200 sq. ft. Design Review Standard) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 36% (35% maximum allowed) COLORS AND MATERIALS: The exterior will be finished in "Navaho White" stucco with dark brown wood trim. Roofing will be red Mission Style tile. REALTIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: The property is bordered by roadways on two sides and vacant parcels- the north and southwest. To the southeast, is the Hexem residence which is located at a higher elevation and in front of the subject residence. BACKGMINn- PREVIOUS APPLICATION: Applicant received Design Review Approval for a 5,630 sq. ft. single story residence and single story accessory structure in October, 1981. In June, 1983, Variance Approval was granted for fencing that exceeded 6 ft. in height and solar panel to be located in the required sideyard setback. (Staff Reports are attached). SECOND STORY ADDITION:. The applicant has completed most of the construction on the proposed, second story addition without obtaining building permits or the required Design Review Approval. This attic space conversion includes the addition of three (3) dormer windows, skylights, and double glass door and balconies on the north and south end of the residence. Additionally, a second story loft and upper level win- dows have been added to the accessory structure. BALCONIES: The applicant has constructed two small 3 ft. balconies on the north side of the house and a 4 ft. balcony on the south side. Both balconies intrude into the required 20 ft. sideyard setback and require Variance Approval. Staff first became aware of this setback problem when exhibits showing the second story addition were submitted for this Design Review, which was originally scheduled for the November 9th Planning Commission Meeting. The applicant was then contacted concerning the required Variance Application and the Design Review Application was continued until both applications could be considered at the same meeting. ADDITIONAL CHANGES: It was the applicant's desire and also staff's preference to hear all the necessary applications at one Commission Meeting. However, the Variance site plan which was filed December 21st differs from the Design Review site plan submitted earlier for this application. On the Variance site plan, the applicant has increased the impervious coverage, de- leted a required turnaround, added retaining walls in the front and rear yards, in- creased the swimming pool size and indicated walls in setback areas which exceed 6' in height. Additionally, the size and location of the swimming pool has been modi- fied from the original Design Review Approval. These modifications are explained on Page 6 of this report. Some will need further Planning Commission approval if the applicant does not want to modify the proposed construction. Report to Planning Commission 12/29/83 A -920, V -629, Ralph Renna, Sobey Road Page 3 PROCEDURE: The Commission should consider the Variance for the balconies first. If the Variance is approved, the impact of the balconies should then be reviewed as part of the Design Review Application. If the Variance is denied and the Design Review Application is approved, a condition should be added requiring removal of the balconies prior to issuance of building permits. Report to Planning Commissfo 12/29/83 A -920, V -629, Ralph Renna, Sobey Road Page 4 V -629 - VARIANCE PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: The balconies are cantilevered approximately 10 ft. from natural grade. The balcony on the south elevation is 36 sq. ft. and extends 4 ft. into the required setback. The two small balconies side by side on the north elevation, extend 3 ft. into the required setback and are approximately 27 sq. ft. There are french doors leading to each of these balconies. FINDINGS: 1. Strict Interpretation/Unnecessary Physical Hardship The objective of setback requirements in the R -1 Zoning Ordinance is to insure pri- vacy and appropriate open space in each zoning district. Because the residence extends across the full width of the lot and the balconies would reduce both side - yard setbacks, the reduced setbacks would not be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance objectives of maintaining open space and privacy. Additionally, there is no practical difficulty which would result from not having balconies. Staff cannot make this finding. 2. Exceptional Circumstance There is nothing extraordinary about the topography, vegetation or use of this pro- perty which would differentiate it from other residential properties in the R -1- 40,000 zone. The shape of the subject property is unusual, however the lot width in the building area is 150 ft., which is the minimum width standard and is similar to many other properties in the zone. Staff cannot make this finding. 3. Common Privilege Many residences in the zone do have 2nd story balconies or decks. The strict in- terpretation of the sideyard setback requirement does not deprive the applicant of the privilege to have 2nd story balconies, which could be constructed on the rear - elevation or even the front elevation, where there would not be a setback violation. - Staff cannot make this finding.. 4. Special Privilege Because there are no exceptional circumstances concerning the subject property or denial of a common privilege, the granting of this Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. Staff cannot make this finding. 5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare The granting of this Variance will not be detrimental to the Public Health, Safety or Welfare. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial having been unable to make Findings 1, 2, 3 and 4. If the Commission wishes to approve the Variance, the necessary findings are required and Staff would recommend the following condition: Report to Planning Commiszf 12/29/83 A -920, V -629, Ralph Renna, Sobey Road Page 5 1. A landscape plan shall be submitted with the building plans for review and approval by the Permit Review Division prior to issuance of building permits. This plan shall indicate landscaping along the northern and southern property lines to minimize tije , impact of the balconies and should include a minimum of two 15- gallon trees on each side. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy or a $400 bond may be posted. i Report to Planning Commissioo 12/29/83 A -920, V -629, Ralph Renna, Sobey Road Page 6 A -920 - DESIGN REVIEW SITE PLAN CHANGES: There have been numerous incremantal changes to the original Design Review Site Plan (Exhibit "B ", A -789). Some of these changes have already been constructed and some are proposed. These changes include; increases in impervious coverage, increases in the number of retaining walls, changes in the driveway configuration, changes in the acces- sory structure and the addition of solar panels, addition of a second story to the resi- dence and accessory structure and the addition of balconies on the north and south eleva- tions. The cumulative effect of these changes is that construction on and use of the site has been dramatically intensified from the original Design Review Approval. Some of these changes, such as the solar panels and modification to the accessory struc- ture, were approved through a Variance and Design Review procedure. Other changes, such as the 2nd story additions and additional retaining walls, were not approved through Design Review or authorized by building permits. Along with the primary issues of the 2nd story additions and the increased floor area, there are other changes indicated on the site plan which will require further action or should be noted for this review. These include: I. Two to three ft. retaining walls terracing the slope along Sperry Lane. Action Required: Retaining walls over 2' in height require a building permit. Retaining walls under 2' are considered a landscaping treatment and do not require permits. 2. An 8' retaining wall off the pool patio area. Action Required: Most of this wall is in the rear yard setback area and will require Use Permit Approval for a height exceeding 6 ft. 3. An 8' slump stone wall defining a storage area along the northern property line. Action Required: Most of this wall is in the sideyard setback area and will require Variance Approval for a height exceeding 6 ft. _ 4. The new site plan submitted with the Variance Application indicates changes in_ impervious coverage which results in a total coverage on site of 36 %. There has been deletion of the turnaround off the driveway and of the patio area off the back of the house and the addition of impervious coverage on the north side of the house and to the pool patio area. (Note: Impervious coverage figures indicated on Exhibit "B ", A -920, do not include these changes and are incorrect). Action Required: The impervious coverage must be reduced to the 35% maximum allowed by Ordinance or Variance Approval is required. 5. Deletion of the turnaround required by the Central Fire District. Action. Required: The applicant must construct the turnaround as required by the Central Fire District and approved on previous building permits. The pavement is to be included in the impervious coverage calculations and shall not exceed the 35% maximum allowable. If gates are installed across the driveway, they must have keys and locks approved by the Central Fire District. 6. Slumpstone retaining walls in the front yard area and along the driveway. Action Required: The height and intent of these retaining walls is unclear as crossection AA is not consistent with the revised driveway configuration. Report to Planning Commis in 12/29/83 A -920, V -629, Ralph Renna, Sobey Road Page 7 Within the required setbacks, the height cannot exceed 6-ft. 7. The size of the swimming pool has been increased from 18' x 40' to 28' x 50' and the location has been changed. This has resulted in only a 9' sideyard setback, where originally the setback was 26'. Action Required: The pool must be moved out of the required 20' sideyard setback or Variance Approval is required. PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: Setback, Height and Floor Area: With the Exception of the balconies and a large "chimney" projection, the setbacks and height of the residence and accessory structure are unchanged from the previous Design Review Approval. The "chimney" has been expanded to 15 ft. in length and projects 3 ft. above the roofline. The total proposed floor area on the .98 acre site is 8,652 sq. ft., which exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. Design Review Standard for the zone. Design Considerations: Because of the irregular shape of the lot, the structures on the site appear more massive than they might on a rectangular site. The addition of the 2nd story windows does accentuate the height of the structures and creates an appearance of additional mass, even though, with the exception of the dormer windows, the actual mass is unchanged. Appropriate landscaping could help minimize this effect.- Privacy Impacts: The proposed 2nd story addition to the main residence has three (3) dormer windows facing the rear yard and glass double doors and balconies on the north and south elevations. The dormer windows will not have a privacy impact as they face Sperry Lane and are at a lower elevation. The privacy impacts of the french doors and balconies on the north elevation cannot be fully assessed, as a residence has yet to be constructed on the adjacent site. However, because of the close setback and the probable location of the adjacent residence, staff is suggesting landscaping along this property line in order to mitigate future impacts:_. - Additionally, because the balconies on the north elevation do not maintain the required setback and are likely to have a privacy impact, staff does not recommend their approval. The french doors and balcony on the south elevation will not impact the residence on the adjacent site as they face the back of that lot and are some distance from the residence. The additional windows in the loft area of the accessory structure also will not have a privacy impact. FINDINGS: 1. Interference with Views and Priva With appropriate landscaping and deletion of the balconies on the north elevation, the proposed second story additions will not interfere with the views or privacy of adjacent sites, due to the lower elevation of the property and the distance to adja- cent homes. Report to Planning Commissiuri "` 12/29/83 A -920, V -629, Ralph Renna, Sobey Road Page 8 2. Preserve the Natural Landscape The 2nd story additions do not result in additional grading or tree removal. Most of the grading on site has been approved through previous applications. The retaining walls on the rear slope and the slumpstone retaining wall indicated in the front yard do further alter the natural landscape. In order to make this finding -, staff is recommending landscaping to blend the retaining walls into the slopes and that the retaining walls in the front yard be limited to 4' in height and be altered to follow the natural contours of the site. 3. Perception of Excessive Bulk The second story additions do accentuate the mass and height of the structures, given the perimeter wall and the minimum sideyard setbacks. The balconies, in particular, add to a perception of bulk as they do not maintain the normal sideyard setback. Staff can make this finding only if the balconies are deleted and if land- scaping is installed to soften the appearance of mass along the side property lines. 4. Compatible Bulk and Height The proposed residence does exceed the Design Review Standard for floor area, however, the actual height and bulk of the structure is unchanged from the original Design Review Approval. Therefore, the size and height is generally compatible with other residences in the zone. The project will not impair the solar access of adja- dent properties. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the staff report dated 12/29/83, Exhibits "B, C, D, E, F and G ", subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of the building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for the review and approval of the Permit Review Division. The plan shall indi- cate landscaping to blend the retaining walls into the slopes and landscaping along the sides of the residence, which should include a minimum of two 15- gallon trees for each side. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy or a $400 bond may be posted. _ *2. The balconies indicated on the north and south elevations are not approved with this application and if the Variance is denied must be removed and the french doors con- verted to windows which are 1/2 the size of the doors prior to final occupancy. The second story windows on the north elevation shall have opaque glass. 3. The slumpstone retaining walls indicated in the front yard area shall be limited to 4' in height and shall be altered to follow the natural contours of the slope. Re- taining walls indicated in the "slope easement" area shall not exceed 3' in height. 4. No wall in a required setback area shall exceed 6' in height, without Variance Approval, except those perimeter walls already approved in Variance, V -609. The 8' walls indi- cated in the pool patio area and in the storage area are not approved. 5. Impervious coverage shall not exceed 35 %. 6. The swimming pool shall be located out of the required 20' sideyard setback. *7. The applicant shall construct a turnaround as required by the Central Fire District. If gates are installed across the driveway, locks and keys will also need approval by the Central Fire District. The turnaruunu riiay be deleted only -if apnruved by the Central Fire District and if any other fire protection requirement by the District is installed prior to final occupancy. Report to Planning Commis 0A 12/29/83 A -920, V -629, Ralph Renna, Sobey Road Page 9 8. Design Review Approval constitutes approval only for the 2nd story additions to the main residence and accessory structure and for those items discussed in this staff report under Site Plan Changes, which do not require additional Planning Commission Approval. Approved: JUL-,- c L hda Lauzz ee Planner LL /dsc P.C. Agenda: 1/11/84 -D SIC:1 lU '1 E7,,! RESOLUEON ti'0. A-920-1_ _1 .FIL% h,D: A -920 CITY OF &VATCGA PI11'�"VItiG Ca_^�IISSICN STATE OF CALIFORNIA �7t .EAS, the City of Saratoga Planning COnrTlission has received an application :for Design Review Approval of a second story addition to a single family residence at 15041 Sobey Road and -W- EREALS, the applicant -(has) - xxc ) met the burden of roof r - .. P equired to --support—his said application, 5'l, T - REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that _ after careful consideration of the site —plan, architectural drazrirgs, landscape plans and other exhibits sub—nutted/In cennec- tion kith this matter, the application of RALPH RENNA - _for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby (granted) Cj=dmr . subject to -the follot,r ng conditions: .Per the amended Staff Report dated December 29, 1984 and Exhibits . "B" ��C�� ��D� !'E" "F" and "G" �ASS= A"M OPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning CCT Tldssion, State of :California, this 17th day of January ,1984 -by the follolring roll call vote: t AYES: Commissioners Hlava, Nellis and Schaefer -MES: Commissioner McGoldrick :.ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther and Siegfried ABSTAIN: Commissioner Peterson 1 —4— 1.rn�n, arLlung Lcii� us'5ion :C:rctar�', La::iusslon 0 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNfNG COMMISSTON MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, January 17, 1984 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Meeting Room, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I20UTTNE ORGANIZATION Present: Commissioners Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Peterson and Schaefer (Commissioner Peterson arrived at 7:40 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners Crowther and Siegfried PUBLIC HEARINGS la. V -629 - Ralph Renna, Request for Design Review Approval for a second lb. A -920 - story addition to a single family residence and Variance Approval for balconies which do not maintain the required sideyard set- back at 15041 Sobey Road in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district; con- tinued from January 11, 1984 Staff stated that they have not been able to verify the comments made by Mr. Francis at the last meeting as they relate to various projects of b4r. Renna being previously denied but constructed anyway. Commissioner Nellis noted that he is not concerned about the balcony on the southern end. He indicated that he felt there was a great distance between the I -lexim home and the balcony, and Landscaping has been suggested. He commented that he had a problem with the northerly end, since he has a concern with the possible privacy impact of the balcony on a future home on that lot. Staff discussed the location of the windows and the French doors. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she would like to see the balconies and the French doors removed, and noted that the size and impervious coverage are also problems. Commissioner I-Ilava stated that the I-lexims may want to subdivide their lot in the future and would be completely constrained on what they could put on that lot because of the balcony. She indicated that she did not have a problem with the house itself in terms of the two- story. She commented that if these plans had been submitted ori- ginally to the Commission for the accessory struc- ture, she would have voted against it. She added that it is an expensive building and is already built; however, the applicant constructed it without permits and she does not see why the Commission should make an exception. Staff explained that the accessory structure, as a single story structure with a high roof, has previously been approved. They indicated that the matter before the Commission, relative to both structures, is the conversion of the second story space, and the bulk of the two structures is there by previous approvals. They noted that one option would be to require that the second story in both structures be removed, Commissioner Schaefer suggested that another option would be to remove all of the windows on the second story. Discussion followed on the option of removing the windows. Commissioner McGol- drick commented that she was concerned about the extra 2,000 sq. ft. and she could not justify approving that. Commissioner Nellis stated that he has con- cerns regarding the privacy impacts on the northern side; however, he feels that the extra 2,000 sq. ft. will have no privacy impact on the people around it. Discussion followed on setting a precedent. Staff noted that the Planning Commission has varied from the 6200 sq. ft, guideline substantially at differ- ent times. Commissioner Schaefer commented that this home is down in a valley and there will be no invasion of privacy except from the two balconies and French win- dows. She added that she feels it is aesthetically pleasing to have the dor- mers, since they break up the roof line. She noted that the geography of this land is different than the normal lot. Staff described the accessory structure. They indicated that the Hexim property is not large enough to subdivide. T'he public hearing was opened at 7:18 p.m. Mr. Patric Kelly, the attorney representing the applicant, discussed the find- ings regarding the balconies. He .indicated that the neighbors on the northern s.ide have stated that they have no concerns, and in addition perhaps landscaping could be added on that side. He submitted letters from the neighbors in support N lanning Commission 1 Page 2 Meeting Minutes 1/17/84 of the project. He reiterated that the Central Fire District has indicated that it would be a benefit to have the balconies. Mr. Kelly added that the Staff Report maintains that privacy will not be an issue as far as the Hexim property is concerned. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff commented that they had been in contact with Mr. Gaub of the Central Fire District, and he indicated that the district is looking at other options for fire safety other than the turnaround. They added that one of those options might be a permanent stairway leading down from Surrey Lane to access the accessory structure in the rear yard. Therefore, the Planning Commission may want to amend the condition requiring the turnaround to allow for other options that would be approved by the Central Fire District. Commissioner Hlava commented that she cannot make the findings for the bal- conies on either side, and noted that the current owner of the empty lot does not live there and may sell it. She stated that, regarding the balconies, it is not a design review. She stated that the balconies have to be considered from the point of view of what privacy impacts they have and variance findings have to be made. Commissioner Nellis stated that he might feel differently about the variance if the property on the northern side were developed and the owners of the property were living there. He explained that if that were the situation and it looked like there was no privacy impact, then perhaps he could make the findings. However, he cannot make them at this time. He moved to deny V -629, per the Staff Report dated December 29, 1983. Commissioner 1 -I1ava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4 -0. It was noted that this can be appealed to the City Council within ten calendar days. The City Attorney clarified that the items listed 1 through 7 in the Staff Report for the Design Review are items that Staff noted on the latest drawing submitted in connection with the variance application. Fie commented that they were put in the report for two reasons: (1) to advise the applicant of these things in the hope that they can be worked out at the Staff level, and (2) the concern that if the Planning Commission approves the Design Review as recommended by Staff, it should not be interpreted as an approval of everything on the drawing. He added that, as stated at the last meeting, the Planning Commission is only approving those items that are subject to Design Review, even though some of these other things may be on the drawing. Discussion followed on the impervious coverage on the lot. Staff noted that there is a condition in the Staff Report stating that the impervious coverage shall not exceed 3S %. The size of the windows were discussed, and it was suggested that the windows on the northern side should be opaque glass. Commissioner Nellis moved to approve A -920, per the Staff Report dated Decem- ber 29, 1983 and Exhibits "C" "D" "E" "F" and "G" with the addition to Con- dition 112 that the French doors shall be converted to windows which are one - half the size of the doors, and the windows on the northern elevation shall be opaque glass, and an addition to Condition #7, reading: "The turnaround may be deleted only if approved by the Central Fire District, and if any other fire protection requirement by the District is installed prior to final occupancy." Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 3 -1, with Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting and Commissioner Peterson abstaining. The 10 -day appeal period was noted. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hlava moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. RSS:cd Respectfully submitted, tavvRobert � S. 'Shook Secretary Planning Commission Page 9 Meeting Minutes 1/11/8 SDR -1559 (cont.) just behind the existing pavement which would then have to be moved. He questioned if it is appropriate to widen this road additionally. Discussion followed on the requirement for widening Fruitvale. Staff noted that there are 60 KV lines running down Fruitvale Avenue. They stated that those are not required to be undergrounded by anyone, even if the pole have to be moved. However, in the past where there is a combination of 60 KV lines which are not distribution lines to the fronting properties, and also 12 KV lines on the same poles, the City has required that those 12 KV lines be undergrounded. After further discussion it was the consensus to leave the condition in the Staff Report as written. Mr. Heiss asked for consideration of having to underground the existing overhead utility line that crosses Fruitvale Avenue and serves properties on the eastern side of Fruitvale. After further discussion it was the con- sensus of the Planning Commission that the applicant did not need to under- ground that particular overhead line. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve SDR -1559, per the Staff Report dated December 29, 1983 and Exhibit "B -111, with the proposed changes in Conditions II -E -2 and III -C -2. The motion was carried 6 -1, with Commis- sioner Schaefer dissenting. She commented that she was in favor of the Proposal but is against widening Fruitvale. 16. V -629 - Ralph Renna, Request for Design Review Approval for a second A -920 - story addition to a single family residence and Variance Approval for balconies which do not maintain the required sideyard setback at 15041. Sobey Road in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district Staff explained the applications. They indicated that they could not make the findings for the variance and recommends denial. They commented that they can make the findings for the Design Review with the elimination of the balconies. Commissioner McGoldrick referenced the letter from Mr. Hess and asked for clarification of the role of the inspector. The City Attorney commented that they have addressed this subject in prior correspondence to Mr. Renna's counsel. I-Ie stated that, as far as he is concerned, it is not the duty or obligation of the inspector to look for areas in which someone may have modified the approval plans without benefit of obtaining approval. by the City for the modifications. He stated that Rich Harison, the Senior Inspector, has indicated that there may in fact be some question as to whether the inspector was back out there after the initial :framing inspection was done. He added that it has also been dis- covered that there has not been a final signoff on the drywall. If that argument is accepted at face value, the effect would be that an inspector, by not noticing some unauthorized change, in effect amends our Zoning Ordi- nance. Whether the inspector saw it or not seems to be in some dispute; whether he was out there or not is something that has not been determined, but he would take the position even further and say that even if he was, that doesn't legitimate an unauthorized change in the plan. He added that as far as he is concerned, the argument does not excuse the modification of the plan, and his recommendation would be to ignore it and treat the vari- ance on its merits. lie commented that he is not sayi.ng that the Commission should not grant the variance; he is saying that the variance should not be granted based solely on that argument. He stated that the Commission should handle this like any other variance and an independent decision should be made on it. Rich Harison, Senior Inspector, gave the history of the project and the inspections. He stated that it was the recollection of the inspector, when he did the frame inspection, that the balconies and French doors were not installed at that time. Patric Kelly, attorney for the applicant, discussed the findings in the Staff Report. He reference letters from Mr. and Mrs. Janovich and Mr. and Mrs. Inman, in support of the project. He described the balconies and stated that Mr. Gaub of the Central Fire District had commented that he was in favor of the balconies being there for the question of safety and getting out of the second story in the event of a fire. Mr. Kelly stated - 9 - 77 .,1 1, Planning Comm:iss:ion f / Page 10 Meeting Minutes 1/11/84( V -629 and A -920 (coat.) that Mr. Gaub had also indicated that a stairway in the rear area of the home would be sufficient and a turnaround would not be necessary. Chairman �— Schafer noted that the applicant should get this in writing. Mr. Eugene Francis, the adjacent neighbor, spoke against the applications. lie commented that the applicant has been denied permits in the past for all of the things that he has gone ahead and constructed. He questioned the granting of the variance at this time. The City Attorney commented that the six items on pages 6 and 7 of the Staff Report are not before the Commission under the Design Review applica- tion. He indicated that these had been discovered as modifications when Staff was reviewing the drawing in connection with the variance. Fie stated that they are listed in order to advise the Commission, as well as the applicant, of further modifications that were made that would require further approvals unless they are addressed now in some fashion. He added that it would appear from comments made by the applicant's attorney that many of these things can be resolved. Fie stated that he wanted to emphasize that if the Commission gives an approval now and these other things are taken care Of, the Commission is only approving those items that are the subject of the Design Review. He added that he does not want the Commission's approval of a drawing to constitute approval of anything other than the subject of the Design Review. He indicated that if there is anything else on the drawing that is not specifically addressed in this particular application. it is not being approved, and the Commission is assuming it is previously approved. Fie added that if there is some modification that has not been caught, the Commission is not approving that either. It was directed that this matter be continued to an Adjourned Regular Meet- ing at 7:00 on January 17, 1984. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Mr. Nobriga dated December 20., 1983, concerning the development of Lira Drive. 2. Letter from Mr. J. Rosenfeld, dated December 26, 1983, re Parking District #3. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on January 17, 1984. The motion was carried unanimously. The meeting ended at 11:35 p.m. Rasp ctfully s. bmitt d, It Bert S. Shoo�C Secretary RSS:cd c� r C-. ADLESON, HESS, CHRISTENSEN & PERKINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ASSOCIATEO ATTORNEYS PHILLIP M. AOLESON TWO NORTH SECOND STREET RANDY M. HESS SUITE 1340 BARBARA B. CHRISTENSEN SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95U3 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION (4061 297 -6605 OF COUNSEL PATRIC J. KELLY January 26, 1984 David Moyles City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga,, California 95070 Re: Appeal of Variance Application and Appeal of Design Review regarding Balconies on Ralph R. Renna's Sobey Residence Dear Mr. Moyles: JOHN S. PERKINS EVE M. AGIEWICH i� DEVELO '':: =NT This law office represents Mr. and Mrs. Ralph R. Renna with regard to the appeal of the planning commission's decision to require that Mr. Renna remove balconies and replace windows at those balconies at his Sobey Road residence. We are aware of your very busy schedule, but we would appreciate it if you would take a moment to view the home and the balconies prior to the appellate hearing. To our knowledge., all of Mr. Renna's closely located neighbors, with the exception of the Hexems;, favor the balconies and do not want them removed. You will find enclosed with this letter,, copies of letters from neighbors including Mr. Walia, Frances Janovich,, Mr. and Mrs._Roszkowski,, and Mr. and Mrs. Inman. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to view the home, or you can contact my client,, Mr. Ralph Renna, at 267 -6700 directly. Thank you again for your courtesies. Very truly yours•, ADLESON., HESS,, CHRISTENSEN & PERKINS ORIGINAL SIGNED 13V By: RANDY M. HESS RMH /np Enclosures �cc: Mr. Robert Shook Mr. Harold Toppel Client (�ad>3sV -a 93i 4FO L9 v Lug- �G�✓�,_- -� � (�U�J 6 CG�L..� C C 0986 ClIeStIlLIt Gilroy, t.'Lilklbrnia 950-20 (408) i' C � Mr. Ralph Renna 1114 Branham Lane San Jose, Ca., 95118 ! January 4 -, 1984, Dear Mr, Renna: As owner of Property on abbey and Sperry, Saratoga, I have no objections to Balcony, Second Story, and block wall. I have no objections to landscape my piece running -: behind your lot, and plant trees in front of wall. - Sincerely yours, I Frances Ja ovich C i � t a 3 � t : `S'o 7 o:.- . _ _ 15040 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 January 11, 1984 City of Saratoga Planning Commission 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We have no objection to the Renna residence under construction at 15041 Sobey Road. Since we are directly opposite, and facing, this residence, we are the most affected by any building on this site. We have no reason for complaint and hope these questions can be resolved so that almost 2 years of construction on our doorstep can be ended. Very truly yours, Charles Inman Grp Mildred Inman PHILLIP M. ADLESON RANDY M. HESS BARBARA B. CHRIS.TENSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OF COUNSCL PATRIC J. KfZ LLY C C ADLESON, HEss, CHRISTENTSE \T & PERKI \S ATTORNEYS AT LAW ASSOCIATED ATTORNEYS TWO NORTH SECOND STREET SUITE 1340 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 05113 (408) 297 -6605 December 12, 1983 Harold S. Toppel Attorney at Law P. O. Box 279 Mountain VieW, C::,.lifornia 94042 Re: Our file: 83 -240 15041 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California Dear Mr. Toppel: CF AaF JOHN S. PERKINS EVE M. AGIEVJICH This letter is written in response to Mr. Shook's letter of December 2, 1983 to my client. My client and I are extremely dis- tressed at the way the City is continuing to handle the enforce- ment procedures concerning my client's Sobey Road residence construction. To make the record clear, the new requirements for design review approval and variances were only "discovered" by the City after my client had appealed the City Planning Commission's decision regarding his fence to the City Council, and threatened further court action. You must agree that such things as the balconies and windows, as well as work done on the second floor were not only visible to city inspectors for well over one year prior to your request that these applications be made, but that these structures were reviewed and inspected at various times by.your city inspectors. Now, when my client is close to completing construction on his home, and after he has asserted his constitutionally protected rights concerning appeals on the fence, you are requiring him to submit variance applications and design review approvals. This is notice to you that while we will submit to the new design review application which has already been filed, and will submit a variance application concerning the balconies, this is done without a waiver of any rights my client may have against the city. Further, any filing fees, including the fee for variance filed at this time, will be followed by a request by my client for a. refund based on the city's actions which have caused my client to file Harold S. Toppel December 12, 1983 Page Two two duplicative noticing procedures. This will also confirm that I discussed with Ms. Linda Lauzze, on or about November 15, 1983, that all other variances or design review modification applications be heard on the Planning Commission agenda at one time. Otherwise, it is clear that the city can continue to force my client to file variance applications and design review applications ad infinitum as imagined discrepancies are discovered. As I told Ms. Lauzze, we request and stand ready to allow city inspectors to review the house and resolve any discrepancies now. My client does not wish a fightwith the city. He has even built his home well above code and usual building standards. However, if the city continues with this continued nitpicking, litigation will be the only alternative. If you feel that another meeting with Mr. Shook and yourself would be productive in attempting to iron out these continued problems, we would welcome the opportunity to resolve these difficulties. Very truly yours, ADLESON, HESS, CHRISTENSEN & PERKINS ,-Randy M. Mess RMH:jw c.c. client 0000 9ce ° o 0 0 00 •: /Tr7 1:3777 FRUIT-,�'ALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 ( -108) 867 -3,4:38 December 2, 1983 Mr. Ralph Renna 3613 Countrywood Court San Jose, CA 95130 Dear Mr. Renna: Due to discrepancies between the original Design Review Approval and the house as constructed, it has been necessary for you to file a new Design Review application (A -920). During the Staff review of this application it became apparent that unapproved balconies constructed on the north and south ends of the structure were Violating the setback requirements of this zone. To legitimize the balconies as they are currently existing, a Variance will have to be obtained. The most expeditious manner in which to handle this matter would be to have the applications for Variance and Design Review processed at the same time. Toward that end, you were notified on November 9th; your architect, Mr. LaGuisa, had been notified on November 2nd, and your attorneys, Messrs. Hess and Kelly, were notified on November 15th and 23rd respectively relative to the need to submit the Variance application. In addition, several phone messages were left for Mr. Hess on November 22nd concerning this matter. It is obvious, there- fore, that this office has endeavored to minimize the time and effort' to arrive at the complete and final approval of your construction. However, to date you have not seen fit to submit the Variance appli- cation and we, therefore, intend to place the matter of Design Review on the Planning Commission agenda for their January 11, 1984 meeting. Should you decide to submit your Variance application so that it may be heard that same evening, the complete application and fees must be received by 12:00 noon on December 21st. As you are aware, applica- tions are accepted during the morning hours only. Inasmuch as it is essential that there be a Variance Approval for the balconies prior to a Design Review determination relative to them, if your application for Variance is not received and acted on prior to your current Design Review application (A -920), the balconies will have to be the subject of a subsequent Design Review application. Further, you should be aware that these balconies require either Mr. Ralph Renna December 2, 1983 Re: A -920 Page 2 Variance and Design Review Approval or removal prior to the issuance of the building permits necessary to complete this structure. Please contact Linda Lauzee at 867 -3438 if you have any questions concerning this matter. Very truly yours, bert S. h &kOk Director of Community Development RSS:cd cc: Mr. Jere LaGuisa, 1936 Camden Ave., San Jose, CA 95124 Mr. Randy Hess and Mr. Patric Kelly, 2 North Second Street, Suite 1340, San Jose, CA 95113 City Attorney PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL STEVEN G. 8AIRD JACK L. BRIDGE GREGORY A. MANCHUK A.TKINSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -694t December 16, 1983 Mr. Randy M. Hess Adelson, Hess, Christensen & Perkins Two North Second St., Suite 1340 San Jose, California 95113 Re: Ralph Renna 15041 Snbev Road, Saratoga, CA Dear Randv: J. M. ATKINSON. (1892-1982) L. M. FARASYN, 0S).S -1979) 1 L P + EN COr•�1 +;UPdiIY G:�r " , t G i� T I have received your letter dated December 12, 1983, and in view of your desire to "make the record clear ", I must respond to certain statements and allegations set forth in your letter. You have apparently overlooked the critical fact that your client has been required to file design review and variance applications as a direct result of his disregard of the City's ordinances through the construction and modification of improvements without building permits and other necessary approvals. Had Mr. Renna constructed his residence in accordance with the original plans as approved by the City, no further proceedings of any kind would have been necessary. Instead, your client proceeded to modify the structure without first requesting approval by the City of such modifications. Whether the modifications were, or should have been, observed by the building inspector is totally irrelevant. The building inspector does not have authority to modify the zoning ordinances and the City is not estopped to enforce its ordinances upon discovery of a violation. I do not believe any court would find merit in your argument that because Mr. Renna made unilateral changes in his approved plans which were not immediately discovered, including the construction. of improvements within the required setbacks, he should then be allowed to get away with it. With respect to your comments concerning the multiplicity of applications, you have clearly distorted the facts. Mr. Renna was required to submit an application for design review approval on the modifications to his structure and upon review of these drawings, the City staff determined that improvements had been constructed within the required setbacks which necessitated a variance. Shortly thereafter, in a telephone conversation with either you or another attorney in your office, I specifically recommended that the design review and variance applications be heard by the Planning Commission at the same time in order to simplify the proceedings and minimize the quantity of paperwork by all parties concerned. Mr. henna was also directly informed by the City staff that both applications should be handled simultaneously, as reiterated in the letter from 1Vir. Shook to Mr. Renna dated December 2, 1983. A hearing on the design review application was therefore postponed pending the filing by A'ir. Renna of his application for a variance. � C Mr. Randy M. Hess December 16, 1983 Page Two Despite numerous requests from the City, your client did not file a variance application and indicated no intention to do so until your most recent letter to me elated December 12, 1983. In the absence of the variance application, the City staff had no alternative except to schedule the design review for hearing by the Planning Commission with appropriate qualification that design review approval could not be given with respect to improvements for which a variance was required. If it is now the intention of your client to apply for the variance, both matters will be scheduled for hearing before the Planning Commission at the same time, as originally suggested by the City staff. With respect to your comments concerning the payment of application fees, the procedure followed by the City in this case is the same as would be applicable to any other applicant who must obtain multiple approvals. Your client could easily have avoided the additional expense of a variance application by constructing all of his improvements in accordance with the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. I would offer the final observation that you and your clients seem to be under the impression that it is the objective of the City to process applications from Mr. Kenna "ad infinitum ". I can assure you that the City staff has much better ways to expend its time and limited resources. We would be absolutely delighted if Mr. Renna would simply complete his project without further violation of the Zoning Ordinance. We certainly share your desire to resolve all remaining problems through disposition of the design review and variance applications. Very truly yours, HAROLD S. TOPPEL Saratoga City Attorney HST /ns cc: Mr. IJ ayne Dernetz Mr. Robert Shook w /enclosure r t, ADLESON, HESS, CHRISTENSEN & PERICII\TS January 6, 1984 0 G 1984 PERMIT REVIEW Linda Lauzze City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: My client, Ralph Renna Variance at 15041 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California Dear Ms. Lauzze: JOHN S. PERKINS EVE M. AGIEWICH Pursuant to your request, the following letter is written with .regard to the variance on the balconies concerning my client's home on Sobey Road in Saratoga. 1. Physical Hardship. The balconies were placed on the North and South side of.the home. the balcony facing the Hexom property extends approximately twelve inches beyond the eaves of the home. The balcony on the opposite side of the residence is approximately even with the uppermost eaves of the house. The City has claimed that these balconies exceed the set -back requirements. Due to the design of the house, the balconies are required for aesthetic and architectural reasons. These balconies have remained on the home for approximately eleven months.before they were even noticed by the City, after a subsequent.throrough examination of the home. Prior to the city inspection, there were no complaints by neighbors regard- ing the balconies, nor should there be any. In fact, we un.d:erstand the neighbor to the opposite side of the Hexom property to be in favor of the balconies. These balconies do not infringe on the privacy of other neighbors. The use of the:balconies to substantially increase the beauty of this home, and the fact that nothing else can be done to prevent the home from being, given a "barn like" appearance if the balconies are removed, strongly support this finding of physical hardship. Importantly, these balconies have been reviewed and inspected by: various City Inspectors for approximately eleven months. Great .expense.would be required to remove the balconies. The ATTORNEYS AT LAW ASSOCIATEO ATTORNEYS PHILLIP M. AOLESON TWO NORTH SECOND STREET RANGY M. HESS SUITE 1340 BARBARA B. CHRISTENSEN S AN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION (408) 297 -6505 OF COUNSEL PATRIC J. KELLY January 6, 1984 0 G 1984 PERMIT REVIEW Linda Lauzze City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: My client, Ralph Renna Variance at 15041 Sobey Road, Saratoga, California Dear Ms. Lauzze: JOHN S. PERKINS EVE M. AGIEWICH Pursuant to your request, the following letter is written with .regard to the variance on the balconies concerning my client's home on Sobey Road in Saratoga. 1. Physical Hardship. The balconies were placed on the North and South side of.the home. the balcony facing the Hexom property extends approximately twelve inches beyond the eaves of the home. The balcony on the opposite side of the residence is approximately even with the uppermost eaves of the house. The City has claimed that these balconies exceed the set -back requirements. Due to the design of the house, the balconies are required for aesthetic and architectural reasons. These balconies have remained on the home for approximately eleven months.before they were even noticed by the City, after a subsequent.throrough examination of the home. Prior to the city inspection, there were no complaints by neighbors regard- ing the balconies, nor should there be any. In fact, we un.d:erstand the neighbor to the opposite side of the Hexom property to be in favor of the balconies. These balconies do not infringe on the privacy of other neighbors. The use of the:balconies to substantially increase the beauty of this home, and the fact that nothing else can be done to prevent the home from being, given a "barn like" appearance if the balconies are removed, strongly support this finding of physical hardship. Importantly, these balconies have been reviewed and inspected by: various City Inspectors for approximately eleven months. Great .expense.would be required to remove the balconies. The Linda Lauzze City.of Saratoga January 6, 1984 Page Two D nearest home that can be seen from the balconies is approxi- mately 250'feet away from the home and the balconies infringe on no one's privacy. It should be further noted that Mr. and Mrs. Renna's home is built in a steeply lowered area and is at a much lower elevation than the surrounding homes. 2. Exceptional, Extraordinary Circumstances. The balconies make an exceptional and extraordinary improvement to the home and its design. Further, as stated above, they have remained on the home for some eleven to twelve months without criticism by city officials or neighbors. Further, one of the main purposes for set -back requirements, beyond aesthetic purposes, is to keep a proper distance between the homes themselves for safety reasons, such as fires. The instant homes are already far away from the mutual property lines, with Mr. Renna's home being some 300 feet away from his nearest neighbor. Further, the fact that these balconies have remained for eleven months, and have been approved by various city inspectors, and that the cost involved in removing the balconies, are also extraordinary circumstances. 3.. Strict or Liberal Interpretation. Other property owners in the district, especially along Sobey Road, have similar structures to the balconies, and similar second story structures. The numerous homes overlooking Mr. Renna's home,, and adjacent to Mr. Renna's home, are all extremely large, expensive homes, _ with similar types of structures. A strict interpretation of the requirements would only deprive Mr. Renna of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the district. 4. Grant of Special Privileges. Granting Mr. Renna the right to keep his two small balconies would not be a grant of special privileges as there are exceptional circumstances associated with them and other property owners in the area are enjoying the same privilege of balconies and second stories. 5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare. Granting of the variance for the balconies would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. In an effort to attempt to resolve this matter, Mr. Renna is willing to reduce the size of his balcony, at his own expense, approximately twelve inches, so that it would be even with the Linda Lauzze- City of Saratoga January 6, 1984 Page Three eaves of the home. If this would alleviate the requirements for a variance or would incline the Council to approve the variance, my client will be happy to comply with the Council's wishes as a condition for keeping the balcony on his home. Thank you for your courtesy. Very truly Y9uss ADLESON, HESS; CHRISTEN PE K NS By: Randy M. ss RMH:jw C.C. client CITY Or SARI 10QN SQ . AL: Initial: EWA BILL NO. 7 Dept. Hd. DATE: March 1, 1984 C. Atty CLPARTmE Tr: City Manager C. Mgr. SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES ORDINANCE Issue Summary One of the priorities established by the City Council for the current year involves the improvement of the City's Code Enforcement efforts. This priority is being addressed through streamlining and updating parts of the Municipal Code, implementating the Commun- ity Service Officer Program, and establishing an infraction method of enforcement to go along with the existing misdemeanor procedure. Infraction enforcement involves the issuance of "citations" for code offenses in place of arrest and arraignment under misdemeanor procedures. It is a far simpler and easier enforcement process for both the City and the code violator. The process does not require a sworn peace officer to administer. Offenders who are "cited" for infractions of the municipal code receive a "ticket" similar to traffic tickets. The infraction may be "cleared" by forfeiting bail, in lieu of a fine, according to a predetermined schedule. Offenders rights are protected by reserving to them the opportunity to appear at Court to enter a plea instead of forfeiting bail. The City intends to convert many of its existing municipal codes from misdemeanors to infractions and to enforce these through citations issued by Community Service Officers and existing staff. Adoption of the attached ordinance is a necessary first step toward implementing an infraction procedure. The ordinance establishes that certain code sections may be desig- nated as infraction offenses, provides a procedure for enforcement, and designates authorities and responsibilities. The ordinance also provides for a more effective nuisance abatement procedure for both "routine" and emergency conditions. Along with the adoption of this ordinance, it will be necessary for the City Council to ordain which codes are to be enforced as either infraction or misdemeanor offenses.and to adopt a "bail" schedule for both. Staff are continuing to work on recommendations for these matters. Recommendation Introduce and adopt the attached ordinance. Fiscal Impacts Adoption of the Infraction Offense enforcement procedures will have beneficial fiscal impacts by (1) reducing the cost of enforcement for specific offenses and (2) establishing a system of fines for infractions in lieu of other punishments, thereby increasing revenues. No estimates are available on the exact amounts of either effect. Exhibits /Attachments (1) Ordinance draft of 2/24/84 (2) Memo to Council from City Manager (3) Memo to City Manager from City Attorney Council Action 3/7: Read and introduced ordinance 5 -0. 3/21: Adopted ordinance 38.118, 5-0. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CPI'Y OF SARATOGA REPEALING CER'T'AIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 1 PERTAINING TO CODE ENFORCEMENT AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 2.5 PERTAINING TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF CODE AND ORDINANCE PROVISIONS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Sections 1 -7, 1 -7.1, 1 -7.2, 1 -7.3, 1 -7.4, 1- 7.4 -1, 1- 7.4 -2, 1 -7.5, 1 -8, 1 -9, 1- 10, and 1 -11 of Chapter 1 of the Saratoga City Code are hereby repealed. SECTION 2: Chapter 2.5 is hereby added to the Saratoga City Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 2.5 ENFORCEMENT OF CODE AND ORDINANCE PROVISIONS ARTICLE I CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT Sec. 2.5 -1. Violations as Misdemeanors or Infractions; Public Nuisances. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code. Any person violating any of such provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this Code or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, or an infraction if so designated. Each such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of this Code, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, is committed, continued, or permitted by such person, and shall be punishable accordingly. Where no specific penalty is provided therefor, any person convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of this Code shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Any person convicted of an infraction under the provisions of this Code shall be punishable for a first conviction by a fine of not more than $100.00, for a second conviction within a period of one (1) year by a fine of not more than $200.00, and for a third or any subsequent conviction within a period of one (1) year by a fine of not more than $500.00. 2/24/84 -1- In addition to the penalties provided by this Section, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, shall be deemed a public nuisance and may be abated by the City in a summary action pursuant to Article 1I or Article III of this Chapter, or any civil action, and each day such condition continues shall be a new and separate offense. Sec. 2.5 -2. Prohibited Acts. Whenever in this Code any act or omission is made unlawful, it shall include causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, suffering or concealing such act or omission. Sec. 2.5 -3. Imposition of Penalty. The provisions of this Code which declare certain crimes to be punishable as therein mentioned devolve a duty upon the court authorized to pass sentence to determine and impose a punishment described. Sec. 2.5 -4. Determination of Punishment. Whenever in this Code the punishment for a crime is left undetermined between certain limits, the punishment to be inflicted in a particular case shall be determined by the court authorized to pass sentence, within such limits as may be prescribed by this Code. Sec. 2.5 -5. Place of Confinement. Every person found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this Code and sentenced to imprisonment shall be imprisoned in the County Jail. Sec. 2.5 -6. Authority to Arrest. Every officer and employee of the City having any duty to enforce any of the provisions of this Code or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code,' is hereby authorized, pursuant to California Penal Code ; 836.5, to arrest a person without a warrant whenever any such officer or employee has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor or infraction in the presence of such officer or employee which is a violation of a provision of this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, which such officer or employee has the duty to enforce. Sec. 2.5 -7. Community Service Officers. Each Community Service Officer of the City shall have the duty of enforcing the provisions of this Code, the Subdivision Ordinance NS -60, the Zoning Ordinance NS -3, any other ordinance of the City, any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, and the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code. Whenever, under the provisions of this Code, a particular 2/24/84 -2- department head, officer or employee has been delegated a duty of enforcement of any provision of this Code, any other ordinance of the City, any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, such duty and responsibility is not revoked hereby but shall continue and be concurrent with the duty of each Community Service Officer. In enforcing the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance NS -3, each community service officer shall have the same power as given the zoning administrator by the provisions of Section 20.2 of Ordinance NS -3, and in enforcing the Subdivision Ordinance NS -60, each Community Service Officer shall have the same power as given the director of public works by virtue of Section 10.1 of Ordinance NS -60. The City Council may, from time to time, by ordinance or resolution, add to, change or modify the duties of the Community Service Officers, and may create priorities of responsibility in relation to the particular department head, officer or employee who also may have a concurrent duty of enforcement under any particular provision of this Code, any other ordinance of the City, any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code. Sec. 2.5 -8. Violations of Code; Notice to Appear. If any person is arrested for a violation of any provision of this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, where such violation has been designated as an infraction, and such person is not immediately taken before a magistrate as prescribed by the California Penal Code, the arresting officer or employee shall prepare in duplicate a written notice to appear in court, containing the name and address of such person arrested, and the offense charged. The arresting officer or employee shall deliver one (1) copy of the notice to the arrested person, and the arrested person, in order to secure release, must give his written promise to appear in court by signing the duplicate notice which shall be retained by the arresting officer or employee. Thereupon the arresting officer or employee shall release the person arrested from custody. The arresting officer or employee shall, as soon as practicable, file the duplicate notice with the magistrate specified in such notice. If any person is arrested for a violation of any provision of this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, and such violation is designated as a misdemeanor, and such person is not immediately taken before a magistrate as prescribed by the California Penal Code, the arresting officer or employee shall prepare in duplicate a written notice to appear in court, containing the name and address of such person arrested, the offense charged, and the time and place where and when such person shall appear in court. The time specified in the notice to appear shall be at least ten (10) days after such arrest. The arresting officer or employee shall deliver one (1) copy of the notice to the arrested person, and the arrested person, in order to secure release, must give his written promise to appear in court by signing the duplicate notice which shall be retained by the arresting officer or employee. Thereupon the arresting officer or employee shall release the person arrested from custody. The arresting officer or employee shall, as soon as practicable, file the duplicate notice with the magistrate specified in such notice. 2/24/84 -3- Sec. 2.5 -9. Payment of Costs of Abatement Required Prior to Probation of Defendant. upon any guilty plea or judgment of conviction in any criminal proceeding brought for the violation of any provision of this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, wherein the City has or will incur costs and expenses in removing or abating a nuisance caused, committed or maintained by the defendant as a result of the violation of which such defendant is prosecuted, if the defendant is otherwise entitled by law to probation, then the court may require the payment to the City of such costs and expenses as one of the conditions of such probation. Sec. 2.5 -10. Fees, Charges, Licenses and Taxes Made a Civil Debt. The amount of any fee, service charge, utility charge, license, or tax of any nature whatsoever imposed by- any provision of this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, shall be deemed a civil debt owing to the City. An action may be commenced in the name of the City in any court of competent jurisdiction for the collection of the amount of any such delinquent or unpaid fee, service charge, utility charge, license, or tax, together with any penalties applicable thereto as prescribed by this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code. The remedy prescribed by this Section shall be cumulative and the use of a civil action to collect such an amount as a debt shall not bar the use of any other remedy provided by this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, or by law, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions thereof. Sec. 2.5 -11. Collection of Costs of Civil Action or Proceedings by the City. Wherever the City Attorney for the City is authorized or directed to commence or sustain any civil action or proceeding, either at law or in equity, to enforce any of the provisions of this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, or to enjoin or restrain any violation thereof, or otherwise to abate any public nuisance, or to collect any sums of money on behalf of the City which have or will become due by reason of any violation of any such code, ordinance, rule, regulation, order or code adopted by this Code, then the City shall be entitled to collect all the costs and expenses of the same, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and reasonable investigation costs, which shall be set by the court and made a part of any judgment in any such action or proceeding. AR`T'ICLE II NOTICED NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE Sec. 2.5-12. Authority. The provisions of this Article are adopted pursuant to the provisions of Section 38773.5 of the Government Code of the State of California. 2/24/84 as Sec. 2.5 -13. Declaration of Nuisance. Whenever the City Council has declared by resolution or ordinance that a nuisance exists upon a parcel of land, the City Council may utilize the provisions of this Article to effect the abatement of such nuisance and to make the costs of such abatement a special assessment against the parcel upon which such nuisance exists. Sec. 2.5 -14. Notices: Posting. After the passage of a resolution or ordinance declaring the existence of a nuisance upon a parcel of land, the Director of Community Development shall cause notices to be conspicuously posted on the property on which the nuisance exists as follows: (a) One notice on each separately owned parcel of property of not over fifty feet (501) frontage; or (b) Not more than two (2) notices on any parcel over fifty feet (501) frontage but less than one hundred feet (1001) frontage; or (c) Notices not more than one hundred feet (1001) apart if the frontage of a parcel is greater than one hundred feet (1001). Such notices shall be posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the time for hearing by the City Council of objections to the proposed abatement of the nuisance. Sec. 2.5 -15. Notices: Form. following form: The notice required by Section 2.5 -14 shall be substantially in the 2/24/84 NOTICE TO ABATE NUISANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on 19 , the City Council of the City of Saratoga declared a public nuisance to exist on the property described as: The conditions constituting such public nuisance and the action (s) to be taken for abatement thereof are as follows: Condition Corrective Action Upon failure to abate such public nuisance through the corrective actions described herein, the nuisance will be abated by the City of -5- Saratoga and all costs of abatement will be assessed against the property on which the nuisance exists and will constitute a special assessment upon and against such property until paid, said assessment to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes. A copy of the declaration of nuisance by the City Council is on file in the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk. Any property owner objecting to the proposed abatement by the City of Saratoga is hereby notified to attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga to be held on , 19 , commencing at 7 p.m., at the Saratoga City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, when their objections will be heard and given due consideration. Dated this day of .19 Director of Community Development City of Saratoga Sec. 2.5 -16. Notices: Publication and Mailing. In addition to posting the notice required by Section 2.5 -15, the City Council shall direct the City Clerk to publish such notice once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and to mail written notice of the proposed abatement to each owner of the property described in the notice, as shown by the latest equalized municipal assessment roll available on the date of mailing. The notice shall be published and mailed by the City Clerk at least fifteen (15) days prior to the time for hearing by the City Council of objections to the proposed abatement of the nuisance. The notice published and mailed by the City Clerk shall be substantially in the form set forth in Section 2.5 -15, except that such notice shall be signed by the City Clerk. See. 2.5-17. Hearings. At the time stated in the notice set forth in Section 2.5 -15, the City Council shall hear and consider all the objections to the proposed abatement of the nuisance. The hearing may be continued from time to time. Sec. 2.5 -18. Decision by City Council. At the conclusion of the hearing provided for in Section 2.5 -17, the City Council shall allow or overrule any objections to the proposed abatement. If no objections have been made at the hearing or the City Council has overruled those made, the City Council shall, by resolution, order the Director of Community Development to abate the nuisance. 2/24/84 -6- Sec. 2.5 -19. Abatement Work. The abatement work may be performed by the City's own employees or by independent contractors, or any combination thereof. The Director of Community Development and his authorized representatives and contractors may enter upon private property as may be necessary or appropriate in order to abate the nuisance declared to exist upon such property. Prior to commencement of the abatement work by or on behalf of the City, the property owner may abate the nuisance at his or her own expense. Sec. 2.5 -20. Report of Costs. The Director of Community Development shall keep an accurate account of the abatement costs incurred by the City, including attorney's fees. Such account shall indicate, where appropriate, the costs attributable to each separate parcel of land upon which the abatement work is performed. Following completion of all abatement work, the Director of Community Development shall prepare a final itemized written report showing the total abatement costs and he shall submit such report for confirmation by the City Council at its next available regular meeting after the notice period set forth herein. At least ten (10) days prior to the date of such meeting, a copy of the report together with a written notice of the date on which the same shall be considered by the City Council shall be mailed to the persons to whom notice was mailed pursuant to Section 2.5 -16 and a copy thereof shall also be posted at City Hall. Sec. 2.5 -21. Hearing: Confirmation of Report of Costs. At the time fixed for considering the report of costs provided for in Section 2.5 -20, the City Council shall hear any objections of the owners of the property to be assessed for the abatement costs. The City Council may modify the report if deemed necessary. The City Council may then, by resolution, confirm the report as submitted or modified. Sec. 2.5 -22. Payment of Abatement Costs The Director of Community Development may receive payment in full of the abatement costs charged against a parcel of land at any time after confirmation of the report by the City Council pursuant to Section 2.5 -21 and prior to the filing of such report with the County Tax Collector pursuant to Section 2.5 -23. Sec. 2.5 -23. Filing Report with County Tax Collector: Collection of Assessment. After the City Council has confirmed the report of costs to abate the nuisance declared to exist upon a parcel of land, and if such costs have not been paid in full, the City Clerk shall transmit a copy of the report together with a copy of the resolution confirming the same to the County Tax Collector, who shall add the amount of abatement costs, or unpaid portion thereof, to the next regular tax bill as a. special assessment for municipal purposes levied against such parcel. The amount of the assessment shall be collected at the time and in the manner of ordinary municipal taxes. If such assessment is delinquent, the amount shall be subject to the same interest and penalties and procedure of foreclosure and sale provided for ordinary municipal taxes. 2/24/84 cre Sec. 2.5 -24. Taxes Paid in Error: Refunds: Claims. The City Council may order refunded all or any part of a tax paid pursuant to the provisions of this Article if the City Council finds that all or any part of the tax has been erroneously levied. A tax, or any part thereof, shall not be refunded unless a claim is filed with the City Clerk on or before March lst after the tax became due and payable. The claim shall be verified by the person who paid the tax or his guardian, executor, or administrator. ARTICLE III EMERGENCY NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE Sec. 2.5-25. Authority. The provisions of this Article are adopted pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 (commencing with Section 38771) of Chapter 10 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4 of the Government Code of the State of California. Sec. 2.5 -26. Nuisance Declared. Any encroachment upon, or obstruction in or to, any public sidewalk, street, alley, lane, court, park, trail or easement, or other public place, shall constitute and is hereby declared to be a nuisance. Sec. 2.5 -27. Alternate Procedure. This Article constitutes an alternate procedure to Article II of this Chapter for abatement of a nuisance and for assessment of the abatement costs against the property on which such nuisance is maintained or from which such nuisance extends. Sec. 2.5 -28. Abatement by Director of Community Development. If, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, any nuisance, as defined in Section 2.5 -26, constitutes an immediate hazard to the public health, safety or welfare or materially interferes with public travel or passage, the Director of Community Development may abate such nuisance. The abatement work may be performed by the City's own employees or by independent contractors, or any combination thereof. The Director of Community Development and his authorized representatives and contractors may enter upon private property as may be necessary or appropriate in order to perform the abatement work. Sec. 2.5 -29. Report of Costs. The Director of Community Development shall keep an accurate account of the abatement costs incurred by the City, including attorneys' fees. Such account shall indicate, where appropriate, the costs attributable to each separate parcel of land upon which the abatement work is performed. Following completion of all abatement work, the Director of Community Development shall prepare a final itemized written report showing the total abatement costs and he shall submit such report to the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall thereupon schedule the matter for hearing by the City Council at its next available regular meeting after the notice period set forth in Sections 2.5 -30 and 2.5 -32. 2/24/84 U:11 Dated this day of . 19 Director of Community Development City of Saratoga Sec. 2.5 -32. Notices: Publication and Mailing. In addition to posting the notice required by Section 2.5 -30, the City Clerk shall publish such notice once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and mail such notice to each owner of the property described in the notice, as shown by the latest equalized municipal assessment roll available on the date of mailing. The notice shall be published and mailed by the City Clerk at least fifteen (15) days prior to the time for hearing by the City Council of the objections to the proposed assessment. The notice published and mailed by the City Clerk shall be substantially in the form set forth in Section 2.5 -31, except that such notice shall be signed by the City Clerk. Sec. 2.5-33. Hearings. At the time stated in the notice set forth in Section 2.5 -31, the City Council shall receive and consider the report of costs provided for in Section 2.5 -29 and shall hear any objections of the owners of the property to be assessed for the abatement costs. The City Council may modify the report if deemed necessary. The hearing may be continued from time to time. Sec. 2.5 -34. Decision by City Council. At the conclusion of the hearing provided for in Section 2.5 -33, the City Council shall allow or overrule any objections to the proposed assessment. If no objections have been made at the hearing or the City Council has overruled those made, the City Council shall, by resolution, confirm the report of costs as submitted or modified. See. 2.5 -35. Payment of Abatement Costs. The Director of Community Development may receive payment in full of the abatement costs charged against a parcel of land at any time after confirmation of the report by the City Council pursuant to Section 2.5 -34 and prior to the filing of such report with the County Tax Collector pursuant to Section 2.5 -36. Sec. 2.5 -36. Filing Report with County Tax Collector: Collection of Assessment. After the City Council has confirmed the report of costs to abate the nuisance, and if such costs have not been paid in full, the City Clerk shall transmit a copy of the report together with a copy of the resolution confirming the same to the County Tax Collector, who shall add the amount of abatement costs, or unpaid portion thereof, to the next regular tax bill as a special assessment for municipal purposes levied against the property on which the nuisance was maintained or from which said 2/24/84 MIZ Sec. 2.5 -30. Notices: Posting. At the time he submits the report of costs to the City Clerk, the Director of Community Development shall also cause notices to be conspicuously posted on the property on which the abated nuisance existed or from which the abated nuisance extended as follows: (a) One notice on each separately owned parcel of property of not over fifty feet (501) frontage; or (b) Not more than two (2) notices on any parcel over fifty feet (501) frontage but less than one hundred feet (1001) frontage; or (c) Notices not more than one hundred feet (100') apart if the frontage of a parcel is greater than one hundred feet (1001). Such notices shall be posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the time for hearing by the City Council of objections to the proposed assessment. Sec. 2.5 -31. Notices: Form. The notice required by Section 2.5 -30 shall be substantially in the following form: 2/24/84 NOTICE OF ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND FIXING OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Saratoga has caused to be removed from a public place, certain encroachments thereon or obstructions therein described as which constituted a public nuisance. An itemized written report showing the costs of such removal is on file in the office of the City Clerk. Reference is hereby made to such report for further particulars. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Saratoga to make the costs of such removal a special assessment against the property on which said nuisance was maintained or from which said nuisance extended, said assessment to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes. The property to be assessed is described as follows: Any property owner objecting to the proposed special assessment is hereby notified to attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga to be held on , 19 , commencing at 7 p.m., at the Saratoga City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale, Saratoga, California, when their objections will be heard and given due consideration. WE nuisance extended. The amount of the assessment shall be collected at the time and in the manner of ordinary municipal taxes. If such assessment is delinquent, the amount shall be subject to the same interest and penalties and procedure of foreclosure and sale provided for ordinary municipal taxes. Sec. 2.5 -37. 'faxes Paid in Error: Refunds: Claims. The City Council may order refunded all or any part of a tax paid pursuant to the provisions of this Article if the City Council finds that all or any part of the tax has been erroneously levied. A tax, or any part thereof, shall not be refunded unless a claim is filed with the City Clerk on or before March 1st after the tax became due and payable. The claim shall be verified by the person who paid the tax or his guardian, executor or administrator. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted this day of 1984, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK 2/24/84 -11- MAYOR NCI NIZIM) R A IN TO:City Council FROM: City Manager Uguw @ff O&UL&ODM& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 SUBJECT:Code Enforcement Procedure. Ordinance DATE:February 17, 1984 The City Attorney's Office has drafted an ordinance to implement the Code Enforcement infraction procedure, allowing citations:to be issued for infraction offenses. A copy of the ordinance and of a memo to me from the City Attorney's Office is attached for your review. I would like to go over the draft ordinance with you at the 2/21 work session. With the advent of our CSO program, it is timely now to add the infraction method of enforcement to our City Code. At present, all violations of our code are considered "misdemeanors ". Enforcement of a "misdemeanor" requires a judicial proceeding. The "infraction" type offense does not require a judicial proceeding if the "defendant" chooses to waive rights by forfeiting bail as the penalty. This process is identical to the procedure for handling most traffic violations. The addition of infraction enforcement to the City Code is a three step process: 1. An ordinance (such as the one enclosed) must be adopted establishing the infraction procedure. 2. The Code is reviewed and those sections to be enforced by infraction method are identified. 3. A "bail" schedule (or schedule of fines for infraction ordinance is adopted by resolution. Adoption of the enclosed ordinance meets the first step. We are now working on the steps 2 and 3 with hope of completing them for your review in the next few weeks. cc: Hal Thppel R. Shook R. Harison 4 C MEMORANDUM TO: SARATOGA CITY MANAGER FROM: SARATOGA CITY ATTORNEY DATED: January 23, 1984 RE: CITATION PROCEDURES FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS .F Saratoga's first community service officers (CSOs) will be hired in the very near future. It appears that the new CSOs will be placed on active duty immediately, and their initial training will be limited to sheriffs department ride alongs rather than any formal class instruction. One of the primary functions of the CSOs will be the enforcement of City Code and ordinance provisions through the issuance of notices to appear (commonly referred to as "citations "). The following is a discussion of several issues to be addressed by the City in order to best utilize the CSOs as code enforcement personnel. In preparing this memo, I have reviewed pertinent California Penal Code and Government Code Sections and League of California Cities articles, and have discussed these issues with Judge Taylor and Alice Wheatley, the Manager of the Los Gatos Municipal Court. I. REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO SARATOGA CITY CODE AND. ORDINANCES The substantive sections of the City codes and ordinances which the City intends to have the CSOs enforce must be itemized and reviewed. This ..itemization is required for two (2) purposes. First, the City must establish which code sections it wishes to enforce by penalty versus compliance. In the former, the City would be willing to accept forfeiture of bail to terminate the prosecution, while in the latter, the City could force the defendant to appear in court and make compliance a condition of the sentencing procedure. Second, each code section to be enforced by the CSOs must be evaluated to establish recommended amounts for bail and fine. Rich Harison has prepared a Code Enforcement Matrix which identifies the general chapters and articles of the Saratoga City Code subject to enforcement. Further evaluation of individual code sections must be undertaken to properly itemize and review the specific code sections to be enforced by the CSOs. After all pertinent code sections have been itemized, they must be reviewed in order to confirm that they are worded to adequately define the prohibited conduct, rather than merely state preferred conduct. The preferred wording for each of the itemized code sections would be "It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor (or infraction) to . . .", or "It shall be unlawful . . .", or "No person shall ... ", or "Every person shall ...". Successful criminal prosecutions J.� � ��F`113� �` t,% J (�•i� )� � � .� � 1� oy J'i'h �^- '.i:'L'�e C Memo to Saratoga City Manager Page 2 January 23, 1984 will require the code sections to be worded in such prohibitive language rather than descriptive or directory .language. In addition to the substantive code sections, the administrative provisions of the City code must be amended to authorize the CSOs to conduct their code enforcement activities pursuant to Penal Code S 836.5. This might be best accomplished by enacting a new chapter 2.5 to the City Code. This new chapter' will replace and revise existing code sections 1.7 through 1.7 -8 and could more specifically deal with establishing enforcement procedures, fines and penalties. It would also provide an opportunity to coordinate and consolidate the many divergent sections which currently exist in the City code, zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance, which deal with enforcement and penalties. II. INFRACTION VERSUS MISDEMEANOR CODE VIOLATIONS The CSOs may be authorized to issue a citation for any code violation as either an infraction or a misdemeanor. An infraction is a lesser grade of criminal conduct which may be punished by a fine but no imprisonment. Since there is no potential for incarceration, a defendant charged with an infraction offense is not granted the right to a jury trial or the right to appointed defense counsel. As of January 1, 1984, the maximum fine which may be imposed for an infraction is $100.00 for the first violation, $200.00 for the second violation of the same ordinance within one (1) year, and $500.00 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one (1) year. A misdemeanor, on the other hand, may be punished by a fine or imprisonment, or both. As of January 1, 1984, the maximum fine which may be imposed for a misdemeanor is $1,000.00, and the maximum term of imprisonment is six (6) months. III. PROCESSING INFRACTION CITATIONS When an infraction citation is issued to a defendant, the CSO must file his copy of the citation with the Los Gatos Municipal Court. The City's standard operating procedure should require the CSO to prepare an incident report for submission to the City Attorney's office along with a copy of the citation. The current practice in the Los Gatos Court is to have the party issuing an infraction citation leave the court appearance date and time blank on the citation. The court personnel will then process the infraction citation through the Traffic Commissioner's court. This means that the court will mail a notice to the defendant advising him or her that he or she may post bail and a penalty assessment in a specified amount by a specified date, forfeit C Memo to Saratoga City Manager Page 2 January 23, 1984 will require the code sections to be worded in such prohibitive language rather than descriptive or directory .language. In addition to the substantive code sections, the administrative provisions of the City code must be amended to authorize the CSOs to conduct their code enforcement activities pursuant to Penal Code s 836.5. This might be best accomplished by enacting a new chapter 2.5 to the City Code. This new chapter' will replace and revise existing code sections 1.7 through 1.7 -8 and could more specifically deal with establishing enforcement procedures, fines and penalties. It would also provide an opportunity to coordinate and consolidate the many divergent sections which currently exist in the City code, zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance, which deal with enforcement and penalties. II- INFRACTION VERSUS MISDEMEANOR CODE VIOLATIONS The CSOs may be authorized to issue a citation for any code violation as either an infraction or a misdemeanor. An infraction is a lesser grade of criminal conduct which may be punished by a fine but no imprisonment. Since there is no potential for incarceration, a defendant charged with an infraction offense is not granted the right to a jury trial or the right to appointed defense counsel. As of January 1, 1984, the maximum fine which may be imposed for an infraction is $100.00 for the first violation, $200.00 for the second violation of the same ordinance within one (1) year, and $500.00 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one (1) year. A misdemeanor, on the other hand, may be punished by a fine or imprisonment, or both. As of January 1, 1984, the maximum fine which may be imposed for a misdemeanor is $1,000.00, and the maximum term of imprisonment is six (6) months. III. PROCESSING INFRACTION CITATIONS When an infraction citation is issued to a defendant, the CSO must file his copy of the citation with the Los Gatos Municipal Court. The City's standard operating procedure should require the CSO to prepare an incident report for submission to the City Attorney's office along with a copy of the citation. The current practice in the Los Gatos Court is to have the party issuing an infraction citation leave the court appearance date and time blank on the citation. The court personnel will then process the infraction citation through the Traffic Commissioner's court. This means that the court will mail a notice to the defendant advising him or her that he or she may post bail and a penalty assessment in a specified amount by a specified date, forfeit Memo to Saratoga City Manager Page 3 January 23, 1984 that bail and penalty assessment, and defendant fails to post bail, or wishes to will also advise him or her of the dat arraignment, the standard misdemeano r followed. thereby conclude the case. If the contest the citation, the court notice e to appear, for arraignment. After criminal prosecution procedure is Since this procedure permits the defendant to summarily terminate his or h'er criminal proceeding by posting and forfeiting the required bail and penalty assessment, it is recommended that infraction citations be issued only for code violations where the City is punishing prior conduct, but is not seeking the defendant's correction of a condition which continues to exist in violation of City code or ordinance standards. {' As a first step in revising the City's citation procedure, the City Council must determine which code sections will be punishable as infractions and"' what the amount of the fine should be for each offense. I would recommend that the fines be set in the maximum amounts permitted under Government Code 3 36900, namely $100.00 for the first violation, $200.00 for the second violation, and $500.00 for each additional violation. Once the fine amounts have been established, they must be incorporated into the City Code. The second action which the City Council must take in revising its citation procedure is to recommend a suggested amount of bail and penalty assessment for each code section. This suggested bail schedule should be established by resolution of the City Council and submitted to the Santa Clara County Judicial Council for approval. The City Council may suggest bail and penalty assessments in amounts equalling the aforementioned maximum fines permitted pursuant to Government Code y 36900. This resolution should be prepared for submission to the Judicial Council by March 1, 1984, for timely consideration and approval. The Los Gatos Municipal Court will conduct a prior violation search only on infraction citations issued for vehicle code violations. Therefore, it is imperative that the CSOs keep an accurate record of all citations issued and supply the City Attorney with copies of all citations issued so that the court can be properly advised on those occasions when increased amounts for bail and penalty assessment should be imposed based on repeat violations of the City Code and ordinances. (However, in California Attorney General Opinion CR 78/61 I.L., it was determined that a forfeiture of bail may not be deemed a prior conviction for purposes of increasing the bail on repeat infraction citations.) IV. PROCESSING MISDEMEANOR CITATIONS The CSOs may also issue citations for violations of the City Code and ordinances which are designated as misdemeanors. It is recommended that this • ' .. :i i. yQ'Y' "�'�4 t[..!'ri:''l . "F:iS."'�Y�y..t ;,1tT �i: .ft s.f. �•�2'lr.'Y ^ya('y,w..t% Memo to Saratoga City Manager Page 4 January 23, 1984 procedure be used in instances where the City seeks to have the defendant correct a condition which exists in violation of the City Code or ordinances. In such a situation, the CSO should issue the citation as a misdemeanor and enter a date to appear on the citation. This date to appear must be at least ten (10) days after the date the citation is issued, and must be set for a Monday or a Thursday at 9:00 a.m, at the Los Gatos Municipal Court. The CSO must then file the citation with the criminal court clerk at Los Gatos Municipal Court. As with the infraction citation procedure, the standard operating procedure should be for the CSOs to prepare an incident report at the time the citation is issued, and submit that report and a copy of the citation to the City Attorney. When the time comes for sentencing on a misdemeanor citation (either after defendant enters a plea of guilty or no contest, or upon entry of a verdict of guilty after trial), the City may request the court to sentence the defendant to informal probation. The conditions for such probation could be the.- payment of a fixed sum of money less than the maximum permissible fine, and the requirement that the condition existing in violation of the City Code or ordinance be corrected by the defendant by a date certain. If the defendant fails to fill either condition of informal probation, then the court may revoke its probation and impose the full penalty permissible under the City Code. On the other hand, if the defendant satisfactorily fulfills the conditions of his informal probation, he may withdraw his plea of guilty or no contest and enter a plea of not guilty, and the court must dismiss the original accusations filed against him. V. BAIL Attached hereto are the current bail schedules for Saratoga and several neighboring cities. Please note that the amounts for bail shown in these schedules are based on the pre- January 1, 1984 fine limitations. It is suggested that Saratoga's current amounts for bail be increased. Pursuant to Penal Code § 1463(c), 84% of all fines and forfeitures collected following arrests made by Saratoga employees and officers are transferred to the City each month. VI. FORMS Attached hereto are sample warning notice and citation forms, which could be used by the Saratoga CSOs. The incident report forms currently used by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office would also be appropriate for use by the CSOs. end /rm a M1