Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA= G-A)A BILL NO. a 87 CITY OF SAI ATOGA Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE: July 7, 1982 C. Att DEPART =r: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C. Mgr. -------------------------------------- APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF DESIGN REVIEW A -820 AND VARIANCE V -575, SUBJECT: BELNAP DRIVE, DAVID' RITTE_R Issue Summary Mr. Ritter, received Design Review and Variance approval at the May 26, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting. Compliance with the City Geologist's letter dated May 20, 1982 was conditioned as part of the approval. The section.of that letter which is being appealed requires that the geotechnical consultant,. (Terratech) review their 1979 report and inspect the site to assure that no significant changes have occurred in the intervening 3 years. Since the Planning Commission approval, Mr. Cotton has reviewed the November 13, 1979 letter by Terratech and has determined that this does not satisfy the condition. Therefore, Terratech must provide a review- for their report. Mr. Ritter feels this condition is vague, midleading and that the previous re- plQrt ad(, agss s the geotechnical issues adequately. A. Conduct public hearing B. Make findings per memo dated July 2, 1982 C. Deny appeal Fiscal Impacts None Known Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo from Senior Inspector dated 7/2/82 2. City Geologist's letter dated 6/21/82 3. David Ritter letter of Appeal dated 6/4/82 4. Report to Planning Commission .dated 5/6/82 and 5/26/82 .5. =City Geologists letter dated 5/20/82 6. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 7. Terratech letter dated 11/13/79 Council Action 7/7: Consensus to continue to 8/4. 8/4: Appeal withdrawn; condition was met. and revised on 5/21/82 5/26/82 �1E�- 1OR.�NDt1�I TO: City Manager oguw @2 §&MkUQ)(5'& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 FROM: Director of Community Development DATE: 7/29/82 SUBJECT: Ritter Appeal, of Condition of Design Review A -820 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On July 28, 1982, Mr. Ritter submitted a geotechnical report by Nordmo Associates dated July 8, 1982. Mr. Ritter has agreed to withdraw his appeal if this report satisfies the condition appealed. Although the City Geologist has not completed a comprehensive review of the report it appears to satisfy the condition. I anticipate that Mr. Cotton will have reviewed the report by tomorrow afternoon and that Mr. Ritter will withdraw his appeal in writing shortly thereafter. Rob t S. Shook a ®d® 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 ©• ' (408) 867 -3438 I E �I O R .a N Dr t! tiI TO: City Council FROM: Senior Inspector DATE: July 2, 1982 SUBJECT: Appeal of Conditions of Design Review A -820 and Variance V -575 David Ritter, Belnap Drive On October 22, 1980 site approval was granted for the subject property on Beln,ap Drive.. During review of this application the site was found to be within a Md zone. The applicant's geotechnical consultants provided evidence in their February 16, 1979 report to modify the Ground Movement Potential to show the site as Pd. The City Geologist concurred and the map was so modified although he did point out that the site is marginal for residential construction. During the Design Review process the City Geologist reviewed the proposed construction and recommended approval with conditions. Due to the three year time la`g ,between Terratech's report and the current application, the City Geologist recommened that the applicant's consultant review their report and make a site visit. The Planning Commission made the City Geologist's recommendations conditions -6f Design Review approval. Mr. Ritter is appealing the condition described above. He argues that the condition is vague, misleading and that the issue is adequately covered in Terratech'.s previous work. Since Design Review approval, Mr. Ritter has submitted and the City Geologist has reviewed the November 13, 1979 Terratech letter. The City's Geologist does not feel that this letter satisfies the condition. Staff recommends denial of the appeal based on the following findings: 1. The site is getechnically marginal and requires close geotechnical review. 2. The geotechnical requirements are consistent with City review procedures. 3. The health, safety and welfare -of the. ;community-- iboul'd be jeopardized by a failure of the proposed structure. _-0 ``,�� P William Cotton and Associates GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 314 Tait Avenue, Los Gatos, California 95030 (408) 354 -5542 June 21, 1982 TO: Kathy Kerdus, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Ritter, SDR 1409 We have completed a geologic review of the subject application using the Review of Proposed Building Location (letter) prepared by Terratech and dated November 13, 1979. In addition, we have discussed this matter with Mr. Gabriel from Terratech. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION In a previous review (May 20, 1982), we outlined the conditions of approval considered to be appropriate for the subject application. We have reviewed the captioned letter and determined that it does not satisfactorily fulfill the conditions outlined previously. Our discussion with Terratech revealed that they are of the same opinion. Consequently, we do not recommend approval until the conditions outlined in our review of May 20, 1982 have been satis- factorily completed. Respectfully submitted, \qj"� 4 William R. Cotton City Geologist CEG 882 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING , June 4, 1982 David A. Ritter 120 Carlton Ave. #26 Los Gatos, CA 95030 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Variance Application V575 and Design Review A -820 SUBJECT: Appeal of condition #1 in William Cotton's letter dated May 20, 1982 The reason for the appeal on condition #1 is because it is vague, misleading, and in my opinion it has been thoroughly covered in previous reports done by Terratech. Because of its vagueness a meeting with William Cotton and Rich Harrison was held on June 4, 1982 at 8:00 AM. During this meeting a letter from Terratech dated November 13, 1979 (2� years old) updating their February 16, 1979 report was submitted to William Cotton. Mr. Cotton stated he had not seen this letter before and would call Terratech today to discuss it. Since condition #1 is still in question between William Cotton and myself, I feel it is necessary now to put in this appeal on the last submittal date. Best regards, David A. Ritter REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ** Revised 5/26/82 * Revised: 5/21/82 DATE: 5/6/82 _- Commission Meeting: 5/12/82 SUBJECT: A -820, V -575 - David Ritter, Belnap Drive REQUEST: Design Review and Variance Approval to construct a single - family dwelling over 30' in height on a hillside lot. Variances are also required for the side yard setback (11' where 25' is the minimum) and to relocate a power pole above ground. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorical Exemption PUBLIC NOTICING: Notice of this project was advertised in the newspaper, posted on site and mailed to surrounding property owners. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Slope Conservation ZONING: HC -RD SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential SITE SIZE: 2 Acres 'SITE SLOPE: Average site slope 30 %. Slope at building site: 30.2% *HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 30 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: 1st Level: 2,811 sq. ft. 2nd Level: 816 sq. ft. TOTAL: 3,629 sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO: Complies IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 6 %, Complies SETBACKS: Front: 30' Right side: 11' Left side: 100'+ Rear: 56' GRADING REQUIRED: Less than 50 cu. yds. of grading required for the eastern portion of the structure. Report to Planning Commission 5/6/82 A -820, V -575 Page 2 STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to construct a two -story single family dwelling on a hillside lot, which requires Design Review Approval. A variance is required for the side yard setback and to relocate a power pole at the northwestern portion of the property. The southeastern portion of the structure is to be located on a previously graded area of the site adjacent to Belnap Way. The remaining portion of the structure is located on the sloped portion of the site ranging in slope from 15% to 30 %. The majority of the building site conforms with the approved footprint with the tentative map, except that the proposed footprint has been expanded to include more of the sloped portion of the -lot and the level area to the east. Screening of the proposed structure is provided by existing topography and dense vegetation on the front and side elevations. The rear elevation, which is the side that could be visable from a distance, is screened on either end, however, the midsection would remain exposed. (See Exhibit "D "). The tallest portion of the structure (30') is located on the downhill portion of the lot. The exterior materials include vertical siding which will be painted in a green or brown tone (the applicant has not chosen yet) to blend with its surroundings. Staff recommends a condition to review a sample of the chosen color. P.G.& E. has completed undergrounding of power lines along the eastern portion of the property. The applicant is requesting to shift an additional power pole down Belnap Way because it would obstruct his view from the proposed structure. The wires from the relocated power pole would connect with those already under - grounded. A guy pole will be located directly across this pole on the south (uphill side) of Belnap. The applicant has indicated that P.G.& E. informed him that this new pole could not be undergrounded because the wires that lead up to it cross too steep a terrain where trenching isn't practical. The guy wires from the guy pole will need to be anchored in the open space easement. The City Attorney has been informed of this and did not have any problems with this proposal. Staff has compared the boundary designating the open space area on the tentative map with the architectural site plan and has not found any inconsistency. How - ever, Condition 2. is recommended to confirm the consistency again with the actual building plans. FINDINGS: 1. Physical Hardship Setback: There is a warrants a side yard limited on the site. Power Pole: There i in that steep slopes underground P.G.& E. physical hardship associated with the site which setback in that the level building area is very s a physical hardship associated with the site are prohibitive for the grading necessary to wires. Report to Planning Commission 5/6/82 A -820, V -575 Page 3 2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances Setback: The site is exceptional in that it contains an already graded area. Also, this area is set 10 -12 feet above Belnap Way so that impacts from the setback encroachment would be minimal. The relatively isolated nature of the site may also be considered an exceptional circumstance. Power Pole: The existing topography creates the exceptional circumstance which could warrant leaving the power pole above ground. 3. Strict or Literal Interpretation Setback: Strict or literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of utilizing the available level area of the site. Power Pole: Strict or literal interpretation of Article 22 would be in- consistent with Specific Plan policies established for this area, which states: "Minimize earthmoving and grading, avoiding steep terrain, except where necessary for roadways." 4. Grant of Special Privileges Setback: Granting of the setback variance would not be a grant of special privilege, since other variances have been granted in the same zoning district due to topographical reasons., Power Pole: Leaving the power pole above ground would not be a grant of special privilege because it is inconsistent with the City's policy for minimal grading. 5. Public Health, Safety & Welfare Setback, Power Pole: Granting of these variances, would not be impacting the public health, safety or welfare. RECOMMENDATION: *VARIANCE: Staff recommends approval of the Variance for the setback and power pole and, approval of the design review application. *DESIGN REVIEW: Staff recommends approval of the Design Review per Exhibits "B" and "C -1" and subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall: I. Submit to the Division of Inspection Services, a letter from a registered engineering geologist that the boundary line designating the open space area on the building plans is consistent with the tentative map. 2. Submit to the Division of Inspection Services for review and approval, detailed grading and drainage plans. H -U U, V -5/5 Page 4 3.. Submit to the Division of Permit Review for approval, a sample of the color chosen for the exterior. ** 4. Comply with requirements of the City Geologist's letter dated May 20, 1982. rl r Approved: Sharon Lester Planner SL /dsc P.C. Agenda 5/12/82 ** Amended by Planning Commission 5/26/82 w 1111 a m Co O n GEOTECHNICAL and A��C -{ ULTANTS s s o c l a t es v 314 Tait Avenue, Gatos, California 95030 fJAY (408►. 354 -5542 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT May 20, 1982 TO: Kathy Kerdus, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Lands of Ritter, SDR 1409 We have completed a geologic review of the subject application using the fol- lowing documents: - Site Plan (10- scale) prepared by Robert Longacre dated March 1982; - Letter from Frank Lewis to Sharon Lester regarding Md /Pd setback line dated May 18, 1982, In addition, we have reviewed a number of documents which were submitted for previous applications. DISCUSSION The subject property is located on a moderately steep to steep, north - facing hillside underlain by landslide materials of the Congress Springs Landslide • Complex. The majority of the western portion of the property is undergoing slow, but continuous, failure while the eastern portion is characterized by a relatively stable, chert ridge. Previous geologic investigation by Terratech (February 16, 1979) demonstrated that there is a justification for modification of the Ground Movement Potential Map of the Congress Springs Study Area. The modification recommended by the consultants and previously approved by our office involves an adjustment of the boundary between the Md zone (moving deep landslide) and the Pd zone (potentially deep landsliding). This modification Places the relatively stable chert ridge i-n the eastern portion of the property within the Pd zone. Our review of the captioned Site Plan indicates that the proposed development is situated within the eastern portion of the property. Additionally, it appears to be within the Pd zone created by the modification of the Ground Movement Potential Map. The location of the septic tank drainfield area, however, is not shown on the map; consequently, we cannot comment on this aspect of the project at the present time. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION As pointed out in our previous review, geologic and survey data presented by Terratech in 1979 was considered an adequate basis for the recommended modifi- cation of the Ground Movement Potential Map. However, the report is over three years old, and it is conceivable that substantial changes may have occurred • since the report was prepared. Consequently, it would be prudent to have the geologic consultants review the report and inspect the subject property to ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING determine if the report is adequate in its present state or if an update is necessary. • The applicant should clearly understand that we consider the subject property to be a very marginal parcel of land for residential construction. Conse- quently, a cautious approach to development is warranted. As pointed out in previous reviews, the area west of the Md line is failing and will continue to fail at its present rate and perhaps at a greater rate. The west - facing slope of the chert ridge represents the lateral scarp of the large moving deep landslide (i.e. Md) which underlies the entire western portion of the property. Progressive failure of scarp regions surrounding landslides is a legitimate concern in any landslide terrane. Careful evaluation of this west - facing slope, therefore, is required prior to development of this parcel. In view of the above, we recommend approval with the following conditions: 1) Construction Sites - The applicant's geologic consultant should review and approve the actual location of the residential structure and other improvements, both on the plans and in the field. Specific attention should be given to the location of structures on the west - facing slope adjacent to the moving deep landslide. In addition, the Terratech report of 1979 should be reviewed by the geologic con - sultants and the site inspected to assure that the significant and adverse changes have not occurred since the report was prepared. 2) Soil and Foundation Engineering - The applicant should retain a soil engineer to conduct a detailed soil and foundation engineering inves- • tigation of the subject property. This investigation should address, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, con- trol of site drainage (surface and subsurface), design parameters for residential foundations and retaining walls, and evaluation of stability of the septic tank drainfield area and the west - facing slope adjacent to the moving deep landslide. In view of the unique geologic conditions characteristic of the subject property, it is essential that the geotechnical investigation make specific reference to the proposed development plans and the impacts which these condi- tions pose on proposed land use. The results of the work outlined above should be submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Geologist prior to issuance of grading and /or building permits. Respectfully submitted, William R. Cotton City Geologist CEG 882 William Cotton and Associates Planning Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes 5/26/82 A -810 (cont.) Commissioner Laden moved to approve A -810, per the.Staff Report and Exhibits "B" and "C" and the letter from the City Geologist dated May 25, 1982. Commissioner King seconded the motion. The geology on the site was discussed, specifically the fault line and the fact that the homeowners should be made aware of it. The Deputy =••?�? City Attorney suggested that this could be put in an agreement which could reference the geology report in the City file. Commissioner Crowther commented that he would like it legally recorded and moved to amend the motion to include a condition of.dedication of an open space fault line easement 20 feet on each side of the fault line. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the amendment. Bill Heiss, the engineer, explained that the map is already recorded on this project. He stated that he could make the map as an exhibit attached to the easement. Commissioner King commented that he would be voting no on the amendment, since he feels that the City Attorney was suggesting a more favorable approach. The vote on the amendment to the motion was taken, which carried, with Commissioner King dissenting. The vote on the motion to approve A -810, as amended, was taken. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. 7. A -823 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to con - ::;> struct a two -story single family dwelling on Lot 24, Congress Hall Court, in the HC -RD Zoning District; continued.from May 12th } The proposal was described by Staff. The public hearing was opened at =' 10:25 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner King moved to approve A -823, per the Staff Report, Exhibits -_ "B" and "C ", and the City Geologist's letter dated May 18, 1982. Commis- _• sioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. Sa. A -817 - M. Gera, Request for Variance and Design Review Approval to con 8b. V -574 - struct a two -story dwelling at 19120 Springbrook Lane, which exceeds the standard floor area ratio by 23.3 %; cont. from May 12th Staff explained that there had been a split vote on this matter at the previous meeting. The public hearing was opened at 10:30 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve V -574, making the findings, and stating that other variances have been granted in very similar situa- tions. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. Commissioner Zambetti further discussed the findings. Commissioner Monia stated that he was changing his previous vote, since he feels that the structure is not in •srWi view of any property owners. The vote was taken, which was carried, with Commissioners King and Laden dissenting. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A -817, per Exhibit "B ". Commis- sioner Laden seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. 9a. A -820 - David Ritter, Request for Design Review and Variance Approval to 9b. V -575 - construct a two-story single- family dwelling on a hillside lot which maintains an 11' setback where 2S' is required and exceeds the maximum allowed height of 30' (331) on Belnap Drive Staff gave the history of the application, stating that there had been a split vote at the previous meeting. The letter from the City Geologist was noted. Staff reported that the structure has been reduced and no longer needs a variance for the height; however, it does need a variance for the setback and the power pole. The public hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m. Mr. Ritter appeared, stating that the structure has been lowered approxi- w mately 21� ft :fir;; Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Laden Planning Commission r ` Page 6 Meeting Minutes - 5/26/$.. A -820 and V -575 (cont.) seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The geology on the site was discussed. The applicant clarified that the fault line is'recorded on the Open Space Agreement which was granted at the Building Site Approval stage. Commissioner Laden moved to approve V -575, per the Staff Report and Exhibits "B" and "C -1 ", making the findings. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden moved to approve A -820, per the Staff Report, Exhibits "B" and "C -1 ", and the City Geologist's letter dated May 6, 1982. Com- missioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting.. 10. A -821 - Ralph Soden, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family dwelling on Lot 18, Tract 6526 (Parker Ranch) in the HC -RD Zoning District; continued from May 12, 1982 It was noted that this application had -also been a split vote at the previ- ous meeting. The public hearing was opened at 10:50 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commis- sioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner King moved to approve A -821 per the Staff Report and Exhibits "B" and "C ". Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Monia, Bolger and Crowther dissenting. - 6 - lla.Negative Declaration - SDR -1504 - D. Ebrahimoun llb.SDR -1504 - D. Ebrahimoun, Request Tentative Subdivision Approval, 15170 E1 Camino Grande (P, corner of El Camino Sende), 2 lots _ The project was described by Staff, and the letter from the City Geologist was noted. The public hearing was opened at 10:55 p.m. The project engineer described the site and the project. Condition II -N, involving street improvements, was discussed, along with the Deferred Improvement Agreement. It was determined that Condition II -'N should be deleted. The removal of the trees on the site was discussed. Commissioner Crowther questioned the lot split, stating that he felt it was inconsis- tent with the HCRD Ordinance. Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR -1504. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Zambetti dissenting. Commissioner King moved to approve SDR -1504, per the Staff Report as ammended, and the City Geologist's letter dated May 25, 1982. Commis - sioner Laden seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Zambetti, Bolger and Crowther dissenting. (Commissioner Monia left the meeting at 11:10 p.m.) 12a.Negative Declaration - V -577 - Longmeadow Development 12b.SDR -1520 - Longmeadow Development, Request for Tentative Subdivision 12c.V -577 - Approval for 14270 Douglass Lane ($ corner of Durham Ct.), 3 lots, and Variance Approval to retain the existing guest cottage and wash room, pool, garage and shop - building which would have nonconforming front, side and rear setbacks It was directed that these items be continued to June 23, 1982 at the request of the applicant. - 6 - 1 326 COMMERCIAL ST. SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95112 737-4596 November 13, 1979 Project 2435 City of Saratoga Department of Inspection Services 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Attention: Mr. Donald Wimberly Director of Inspection Services Subject: Review of proposed building location Lands of Ritter - Belnap Way Saratoga, California (4 08) 297 -6969 Gentlemen: We have reviewed the proposed location of the house that Mr. David Ritter plans to construct on his property on Belnap Way. The proposed location of the house is shown on the following two drawings: 1. "Revised Tentative Map, Lands of Ritter, S.D.R. - 1409" (formerly 1208) dated November 1, 1978. 2. "House Layout, Lands of Ritter, S.D.R. - 1409" dated April 28, 1979• Both drawings were prepared by Mr. Frank T. Lewis, Jr., Land Surveyor. On both drawings, the house is located in a "Pd" area and is set back approximately 30 feet from the adjusted Md /Pd line recommended in our Report No. 2435 dated February 16, 1979. We consider the house location shown on the two plans to be geologically satisfactory. Very truly yours, TERRATECH, NC. o eph N. Gabriel G 256 N G /am cc: Mr. David Ritter Mr. Frank T. Lewis, Jr., Civil Engineer J • CITY OF SARATOGA AGENIDA BILL NO. 0Z F6 Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE: July 2, 1982 C. Atty. DEPARTMWr: City Manager C. Mgr. SUa7ECT: Agreement with Santa Clara County for Local Gas Tax Measure Issue Sunmazy In .1981, the Legislature enacted SB215 which increased.the State gasoline tax by 2� per gallon and authorized cities and counties to adopt a local gasoline tax. In coordination with other Bay Area local governments, Santa Clara cities and counties have developed a proposal for the November '82 ballot that would levy a 54 per gallon local tax on gasoline. The Proceeds from the tax would be shared between regional and local (city and county) road systems for main- tenance and construction purposes. The formula does not distribute the proceeds of the tax in a manner completely acceptable to Saratoga, but the City would benefit by its share of the tax. Additional gas tax monies are needed by the City. In order to be placed on the ballot, a'majority of cities representing a -majority.-of incorporated population and the County must approve the proposal. The -tax must then receive a two - thirds vote of approval by the electorate to be enacted. Recommendation Approve the final draft of the agreement between the County of Santa Clara and the cities for local option moter vehicle fuel tax allocation. Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement on behalf of the City of Saratoga. Fiscal Impacts If passed, the local gas tax measure will provide a substantial revenue to the City for maintenance of City streets. The amount of revenue is not yet determined. Exhibits /Attachaents 1. Report from City 11anager, dated 7/2/82 2. Text of Agreement, ballot measure, and transmittal memo from County Transportation Commission, dated 6/24/82. 3. Resolution of approval. Council Action 7/7: Mallory /Clevenger moved to reject agreement. Passed 5 -0. a0ft �7EMOO RANDUI��1 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 SUBJECT: Proposed Local Gas Tax Ballot Pleasure Recommendation: DATE: July 2, 1982 Approve, by resolution, the,Agreement Between County of Santa Clara and Certain Cities Pursuant to SB 215 (Chapter 541 81 -32 Session). For Local Option Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Allocation. Summary: 1. In 1981, SB 215 authorized cities and counties to adopt a local gas tax to supplement State gas tax revenues. 2. The County Transportation Commission wants to place such a local vas tax on the ballot, to raise funds needed by cities and the County for street and road maintenance and improvements. They hope that all Bay Area counties will act in concert to adopt similar local taxes by November 1932. 3. In order to qualify for the ballot, the measure must be approved by a majority of cities representing a majority of the incorpor- ated population and by the Board of Supervisors. Once the measure qualifies, it must receive a 2/3 rds favorable vote Countywide to pass. 4. The measure provides that 2G will be apportioned among the cities and County for maintenance and /or construction of local streets. and 3C will be allocated to complete the Regional Highway System (including acquisition of the entire 85 corridor and improvements from Stevens Creek to Saratoga- Sunnyvale.) The 2� share for local streets is allocated to.each jurisdiction according to pop- ulation and street mileage. Proposed Local July 2, 1982 Page two Gas Tax Ballot Measure 5. The terms of the measure and the agreement are the product of intensive effort by city and county officials over the past several months. The Saratoga City Council has recommended against some of the provisions that remain. 6. Recent analyses indicate that the unfunded deferred maintenance cost for streets and roads in Saratoga may accumulating by as much as $1 million per year. Such an unfunded deferred maintenance level is nearly twice the level presently funded. Other cities and the County are in similar straits. Discussion: The proposed measure contains four points which the City Council pre- viously has opposed (see my letter of 6/3/82 to Mayor Barbara Winckler, Chair of the County Transportation Commission). These points are: 1, 60% of the local gas tax is allocated to completion of regional highway improvements and additions. The Council proposed the major share be alloted to cities and the County for local streets. 2. The City Council proposed that the additional funds not be used for new construction until it is established mainten- ance requirements for exisitng streets and roads are met. 3. The Council believed voters will not approve a tax as high. as 5� per gallon. 4; The Council opposes the inclusion of Route 85 acquisition completion and Cupertino operational improvements among the regional highway projects to be funded by the proposed tax. The views of the City Council have been heard and addressed by the Commission. However, there was not sufficient support for these views to alter the final draft. I recommend the City Council approve the agreement, as it now stands, and support the measure if it is placed on the ballot. Nothwithstanding the four points previously opposed by the City Council, if passed the measure will provide substantial revenues needed for maintenance of streets by Saratoga, the County, and other cities. Proposed Local Gas Tax Ballot Measure July 2, 1932 Page three The amounts are not adequate to completely cure the problem of accumulating deferred maintenance, but will reduce the problem sig- nificantly. In my opinion, there is greater priority need for a partial solution to the growing maintenance deficit than there is to benefit from opposing the measure because it still includes points objectionable to the City. The measure almost certainly will have sufficient support from cities and the County to qualify for the November ballot. The necessary two - thirds vote of approval will be very difficult to obtain, even under the most optimistic circumstances. The support of all cities will be important to the chances for success of the measure. Aside from this measure, there are no other prospects on the horizon for additional revenues with which to reduce the growing problem of street maintenance. If the measure fails, cities and the County most likely will be limited to current revenue levels for street main- tenance purposes for several years to come. zw&_� ". J. Wayn Dernetz ck IT q AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND CERTAIN CI`1'IES PURSUANT TO SB 215 (CHAPTER 541 81 -82 SESSION) FOR LOCAL OPTION MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAX ALLOCATION JUN 2 1 1982 This is an agreement executed as of _ 1982, by and between the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a political subdivision of the State of California ( "County ") and the Cities of CAMPBELL, CUPERTINO, GILROY, LOS ALTOS, LOS ALTOS HILLS, LOS GATOS, MILPITAS, MONTE SERENO, MORGAN HILL, MOUNTAIN VIEW, PALO ALTO, SAN JOSE, SANTA CLARA, SARATOGA. and SUNNYVALE ( "Cities" hereinafter) relating to the imposition and allocation of a local option motor vehicle fuel tax. RECITALS WHEREAS, there has been a demonstrated requirement for additional revenues to meet local highway needs and regional highway capital needs; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara and the City Councils of the Cities named herein have determined to submit to the electorate of the County a measure to increase the motor vehicle fuel tax by five cents per gallon to provide funds for construction and maintenance for such highway needs, all as provided for in SB 215 (Chapter 541) of the 81 -82 session of the State Legislature; and WHEREAS, a local option motor vehicle fuel tax may be imposed by a County on a countywide basis in accordance with part 4, (commencing with Section 9501) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code; and -1- NOTICE —1257e Please return this document to the Board of Su Rm. in S ose, Calif. 95110; e men copies. Thank you. Clerk, rd of Supervisors WHEREAS, Section 9502(a) of the Revenue and Taxation Code specifies that prior to imposition and collection of any tax under Part 4, a proposition granting authority to the County to impose the tax shall be submitted to and approved by the voters at an election; and WHEREAS, Section 9502(b) of the Revenue and Taxation Code specifies that a proposition may be submitted to the voters only if it is approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County, and a majority of the City Councils of the Cities having a majority of the population in the incorporated areas of the County; and WHEREAS, Section 9502(b) further specifies that the County and the Cities within the County must have a written agreement with respect to allocation of the revenues between the County and Cities; and WHEREAS, this Agreement specifies the allocation of local option motor vehicle fuel taxes between County and Cities in accordance with Section 9502(b) of the Revenue and Taxation Code, NOW, THEREFORE, the County and the Cities HEREBY AGREE to the following local option motor vehicle fuel tax allocation formula and related conditions and approve the submission of said proposition to the voters. 1. SPECIAL FUND A special fund shall be created by the County's Auditor - Controller for that portion of the local motor vehicle fuel tax which is received by the County. Interest earned on these funds shall accrue to the fund. Any donations or other -2- funds designated for the purpose of accomplishing the projects that are a part of this agreement shall become a part of the special fund. These funds shall be expended for.highway use only. 2. REGIONAL /LOCAL FUND SPLIT From the levy of five (5) cents per gallon, three (3) cents may be used with or without Federal funds for the construction of Regional Capital Highway Projects that are further identified in this agreement. Two (2) cents shall be apportioned between the Cities and County for local street and highway capital. improvement or maintenance purposes. After the designated regional projects specified in Section 4 are funded, there will be a reevaluation of the 3 cts. /2 cts. split for subsequent years. This reevaluation will be done in accordance with Section 5 herein. 3. ALLOCATION OF TWO (2) CENTS TO CITIES AND COUNTY From the total levy of five (5) cents per gallon, two (2) cents shall be distributed to all of the.Cities within the County and to the County for purposes of local street and highway capital improvement or maintenance purposes. The amount received by the County and each of the Cities within the County existing as of July 1 each year shall be the revenue derived from multiplying one (1) cent per gallon times each entity's population divided by the combined population of all the cities in the County and the unincorporated area of the County plus the revenue derived from multiplying one (1). cent per gallon times each entity's maintained miles divided by the total maintained -3- miles of all the Cities in the County and the unincorporated area of the County. This amount shall be adjusted annually, effective as of July l each year to reflect changes in population and maintained miles. 4. REGIONAL CAPITAL HIGHWAY PROJECTS; ORDER OF LISTING NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF PRIORITY The funds made available from three (3) cents of the five (5) cents local gas tax shall be used to complete the following Regional Capital Highway Projects. The County may seek to place these projects in the State Transportation Improvement Plan so they may qualify for maximum State and Federal participation. a. State Route 85 - Purchase right -of -way for the entire corridor from Route 87 to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. b. State Route 101 - Widen from four to six lanes in the vicinity of Alum Rock interchange. C. State Route 17 - Widen by adding one lane in each direction from State Route 101 to the Alameda County line. The exclusive use of these lanes for buses and carpools during peak hours shall be considered. d. State Route 101 - Widen by adding one lane in each direction between the Guadalupe Parkway (State Route 87) and Lawrence Expressway. The exclusive use of these lanes for buses and carpools during peak hours shall be considered. -4- e. State Route 85 - Make operational improvements in Cupertino and San Jose, including and extending the improvements beyond its current terminus to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. f. State Route 237 - Construct a full freeway between State Route 85 in Mountain View and State Route 17. g. State Route 152 - Safety improvements from 0.9 mile east of Bell Station to Route 156. 5. REEVALUATION OF REGIONAL /LOCAL SPLIT AND ADOPTION OF ADDITIONAL REGIONAL CAPITAL HIGHWAY PROJECTS When funding for the Regional Capital Highway Projects has been identified and guaranteed, there shall be a major reevaluation of the Regional /Local Split of the 5 cts. gas tax revenues and the identification and adoption of additional Regional Capital Highway Projects. However, the minimum amount to be allocated for local street and highway capital or maintenance purposes shall not be less than Two Cents. The County Executive shall submit a proposal covering the Regional /Local split and the list of additional Regional Capital Highway Projects to the Board of Supervisors. This proposal, or an amended proposal, must be for highway projects. Such proposal or amended proposal may be adopted a.s an amendment to this agreement only upon approval by the Board of Supervisors and a majority of the Cities, providing that those Cities contain a majority of the population in the incorporated areas of the County. -5- f If such proposal is not approved when the Regional Capital Highway Projects identified in Section 4 are completed, the 2 cts. will continue to be distributed to the Cities and County for local street and highway capital or maintenance purposes under the provisions of Section 3, and the 3 cts. will be retained in the special fund (restricted for use on approved Regional Capital Highway Projects) until such time as a proposal is adopted in accordance with this section. An adopted proposal under this section will supersede Sections 2 and 4 and will remain in effect until funding for additional Regional Highway Projects is identified and guaranteed. Additional reevaluations must be pursued under the provisions of this section. 6. DEFINITIONS The definitions shown here are a part of this resolution. a. "Construction" shall include: (1) Acquisition of rights of way and material sites and the payment of damage or relocation costs; ` (2) Engineering; (3) Construction; Rev. 6/21/82 ME (4) Reconstruction; (5) Replacement; (6) Any-improvement excepting maintenance; (7) Such.improvements, without being limited thereto, may include, where capital outlay is required, provision for special safety conveniences and devices, and such illumin- ation of streets, roads, highways, and bridges as in the judgment of the body authorized to expend such funds is required for the safety of persons using the same. b. "Maintenance" shall include: (1) The preservation and keeping of rights of way, and each type of roadway, structure, safety convenience or device, illumination equipment and other facility, in the safe and usable condition to which it has been improved or constructed, but does not include recon- struction or other improvement; (2) Operation of special safety conveniences and devices, and illuminating equipment; (3) The special or emergency maintenance or repair necessitated by accidents or by storms or other weather conditions, slides, settlements, or other unusual or unexpected damage to a roadway structure or facility. The degree and type of maintenance for each highway, or portion thereof, -7- structure or facility. The degree.and type of maintenance for each highway, or portion thereof, shall be determined in the discretion of the authorities charged with the maintenance thereof, taking into consideration traffic requirements and moneys available therefor. c. "Regional Capital Highway Projects" - Highway projects that are specified herein or added according.to the pro- visions o.f this policy for purposes of construction. d. "Maintained Miles" - Center line miles of all streets and highways for which a jurisdiction has a maintenance responsibility. 7. This agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed an original, and said counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 8. This agreement shall remain in effect for the duration of the tax and may not be modified, amended or otherwise changed unless by an amendment approved and executed by the parties as provided for herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this- agreement as of the date first above written.. COUNTY OF A NTA CLARA By Xl_'1411 A TES DONAL RAPl erk Chairp erson Mmnre. WRIson Board o Sup rs Board of Supervisors' - a 6 ATTEST: ATTEST: ATTEST: ATTEST: ATTEST: ATTEST: ATTEST: ATTEST: ATTEST: ATTEST: ATTEST: ATTEST: -9- CITY OF CAMPBELL By CITY OF CUPERTINO By CITY OF GILROY By CITY OF LOS ALTOS By TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS By TOWN OF LOS GATOS By CITY OF MILPITAS By CITY OF MONTE SERENO By CITY OF MORGAN HILL By CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW By CITY OF PALO ALTO By CITY OF SAN JOSE By ATTEST: CITY OF SANTA CLARA By ATTEST: CITY OF SARATOGA By ATTEST: CITY OF SUNNYVALE By APPROVE • AS ,. TSJ FORM: De tytounty Counsel Dat,�r/d': June 17, 1982 r DJB:bc 0607L -10- County 61 $, anta Clara Californi June 24, 1982 4. • J i - Linda Callon, Mayor City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Callon: 0 Transportation Agency 1555 Berger Drive San Jose, California 95112 47co C� �6y A'Q� The Highway Financing Task Force would like to request that the following item be placed on your July 7, 1982 Council agenda: A. Agreement Between Cities and County for Local Gas Tax Cption B. Ballot Proposition ` A member from the Highway Financing Task Force will be present to answer any questions Council members may have. Attached you will find a copy of the Agreement. Please keep the original for your files and distribute copies to the rest of the Council and staff. An original from the Clerk of the Boards's office will be hand delivered to your office if your Council chooses to approve the Agreement. If you have any questions, please call me at 299 -2884. EF :bw Sincerely, Evelyn Freeman Transportation Commissioner Coordinator An Equal Opportunity Employer • 0 THE E GITY OF SA RA'T OGA June 3, 1982 The Honorable Barbara Winckler Chair, Santa Clara County Transportation Commission 17887 Vineland Avenue Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Dear Mayor Winckler: J. Wayne Dernetz City Manager At its regular meeting of June 2, the Saratoga City Council received the communication from Mr. Peter Giles of the same date, which transmitted the May 27 draft of the Highway Financing Task Force Funding and Allocation Recommendations. The City Council had considered the earlier versions of the proposal at a previous study session, and are familiar with the background on the issues. With regard to the May 27 draft, it is the unanimous view of the Saratoga City Council that: 1. More than half of the total tax should be allocated to local agencies (cities and the county) with the remainder utilized for the regional system. It was suggested that the proposed distribution between local and regional needs be reversed. 2. The additional tax monies should not be used for new construction or acquisition until it is established that all maintenance require- ments for existing roads are being met. 3. The proposed tax rate should be lowered; voters will not approve a 5� additional gasoline tax. 4. The regional capital highway projects list includes two projects that are opposed by the City of Saratoga. These are the right of way 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 �J acquisition for State Route 85 from Route 87 to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, and the opera- tional improvements in Cupertino along the State Route 85 corridor. Reference to these projects should be eliminated from the list. The City ,Council has asked me to convey this position to you right away. Our representative to the County Transpor- tation Commission will be unable to attend the meeting on June 9. Sincerely, Way a Dernett ck CC: Peter Giles, Chair Highway Financing Taskforce City Councilmembers DRAFT BALLOT MEASURE LOCAL OPTION HIGHWAY GAS TAX Measure Summary Emlarr 6 Shall the County of Santa Clara levy a countywide motor vehicle fuel tax in the amount of 5 cents per gallon and 5 cents per 100 cubic feet of compressed natural gas (used as motor vehicle fuel) only for the purpose of construction of city, county and regional streets and highways in Santa Clara County and of maintenance of local streets? TEXT As required by State law (SB 215, Chapter 541, 81 -82 Session) the cities and County have agreed to submit this to the voters and have entered into the written agreement respecting allocation of revenues. The cities and the County shall use the revenues provided by the tax for streets and highway purposes only. The Cities and the County shall use 2� of the tax for the purposes of maintenance and /or construction on city and County streets and highways. 3C of the tax shall be used to complete the regional highways in Santa Clara County listed below (not in priority order): - State Route 85 - Purchase right -of -way for the entire corridor from Route 87 to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. - State Route 101 - Widen from four to six lanes in the vicinity of Alum Rock interchange. - State Route 17 - Widen by adding one lane in each direction from State Route 101 to Alameda County line. The exclusive use of these lanes for buses and carpools during peak hours shall be considered. - State Route 101 - Widen by adding one lane in each direction between the Guadalupe Parkway (State Route 87) and Lawrence Expressway. The exclusive use of these lanes for buses and carpools during peak hours shall be considered. _r - State Route 85 - Make operational improvements in Cupertino and San Jose including and extending the improvements beyond its current terminus to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. State Route 237 - Upgrade to a full freeway between State Route 85 in Mountain View and State Route 17 at Milpitas. - State Route 152 - Construct safety improvements from Route 156 to a point 0.9 miles east of Bell Station. After completion of these regional highway projects, the 5� gas tax shall continue to be used exclusively for streets and highways. A minimum of 2(,, will continue to go to the County and cities for local highway purposes, and a new agreement must then be developed and approved by the County and cities to use the remaining 3� for new regional highway projects and /or local streets and roads. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR ALLOCATION OF REVENUES FROM A LOCAL OPTION MO'T'OR VEHICLE FUEL TAX MEASURE WHEREAS, Senate Bill 215 (1981 Session) has been enacted and authorizes cities and counties, by agreement, to place measures on the ballot for voters in each county to establish a local option motor vehicle fuel tax; and WHEREAS, it is well documented that there is serious, growing deficiency in available, revenues for maintaining existing streets and roads. Recent estimates for the City of Saratoga indicate the deferred maintenance cost may be as high as $1 million per year; and WHEREAS, through the County Transportation Commission, representatives from the cities and the county have studied this matter and have prepared an agreement for a local option gasoline tax to be placed before the voters which spells out how the proceeds of the tax would be distributed and utilized; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Saratoga, mindful of urgency and importance of this issue to the citizens of Saratoga and the public at large, has actively encouraged changes and modifications to the.plan for distribution and use of the proposed tax proceeds in order to have the proposal less onerous and more appealing to voters; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned that its suggestions and efforts have not been successful with the County Transportation Commission but, nonetheless, believe the voters should be allowed the opportunity to consider the Measure and; further, if passed, the Measure will provide needed additional revenues to maintain existing streets and roads. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the agreement attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A," entitled "Agreement Between County of Santa Clara and Certain Cities Pursuant to SB 215 (Chapter 541 81 -82 Session) For Local Option Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Allocation" along with the Draft Ballot Measure for Local Option Highway Gas Tax, marked "Exhibit B," attached; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Mayor Callon be and hereby is directed and authorized to enter into the Agreement on behalf of the City of Saratoga. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the day of 1982, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor p CITY OF SAIZMOQ'1 F,-EWDA BILL NO. . 4 Initial: Dept. lid. DATE: July 7, 1982 DaiRIMENT:. Community Development C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Reconstruction and overlay of Allendale Avenue & Cox Avenue. Issue Surmaxy The bid opening on this project is Wednesday, July 7, 1982. At this date,we can not discuss the apparent low bidder. A complete agenda bill will be put together, after the bid opening and ''will be available at the July 7th council Meeting. Recommendation Recommendation will be made after the bid opening and the apparent low bidder is determined.' Fiscal Impacts To be discussed after the bid opening Exhibits /Attachments Will be available at the July 7th Council Meeting Council Action 7/7: Mallory /Clevenger moved to award contract to low bidder, Piazza Construction, in amount of $185,867.95. Passed 5 =0. ��IDA BILL NO. DATE: July 7, 1982 CITY OF SARIGOGII Initial: n% %,. Dept. Hd - 1 C. Atty. DEPART=: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: RECONSTRUCTION AND OVERLAY OF ALLENDALE AVE. AND COX AVE. Issue Summary The bid opening on the above project was on July 7, 1982. There were nine (9) bidders on the project with bids ranging from a low of $185,867.95 to a high of $284,718.25 (the Engineer's Estimate was $250,000.00). The apparent low bidder was Piazza Construction of San Jose. Recomnendation Award the contract to Piazza Construction Company for bid amount of $185,867.95. The award shall be conditional upon receipt of their affirmative action program as required to be submitted to-the City Manager one (1) week subsequent to the determination of the apparent low bidder (Resolution No. 494.2) Fiscal Impacts The cost of the project is$185,867.95 which shall come from the Capital Improvement Budget. Exhibits /Attachments Bid Summary Council Action DATE: ✓% 7,1981 TIME: 2 :00P.M.' City of arato a -Community Development Depar -�--�- BID SUMMAllhY Sheet Lof tmen t PROJECT RECONsreue riON eOvCRZ qy �^ 6F ALLENDALE QVF. COX .4vC. Piazza Cosh- Ralsch C6nsb-. O��,raa! Irvin WaI11:7 car7s /r to Description Quantity wit Unit price Amount i i� Amount Unit air!. Amount Unit Price Amount it Amount_ / oa +vo XCCTIia �GYJ an R °�i va Z 600 C. Y. 20.00 52,wo.00 /4.44 37Q40. /�,5 37, 7Q7.00 13. 33 800. 19.5"0 SO, 7U0, dC ? ase cau se o.�c. 3500 Tar? 3250 !312301. Z7.S0 96.Z5o. � 00 98,GIG10. ZB.SC 9975Qo 2�7, 97 Y6 3. T �e a Cur oirc' 11800 Tors 35-00 63 6Z. 27. 49, 5M d 50 4Cb,0 SQ 54,6W. 27.75 49 9SD. �• r c Stri c ,� Z /S L. f. 0.30 964.50 A 6" 482.Z5 0.16' 482.25 016 S14.40 0.1 S S• Tra! {iceSh -� i/s�� /� 835 L.F. D. /S 275.25 O.1Z 220.2 O. /Z 2ZO.W 0.13 238 SS O.IZ 6• 6fr �re T.•o is 400 L.r. O.ZO 80.40 0.20 8 ,0. 40.0,20 80.06 O.ZZ 88. O.ZO 80,00 7. . c sfiioirry 84d L• F 0 25 Z /0.00 4.20 /68. as D,ZD O,ZZ 184.80 D. Z 168.Gb 8. S Ea_ zaW 250. 60, 3460.06 �� 3Da•o 66. 330.00 6a 3GID.OG 9 a: r .� aveme� � �� L. S. O e ec .ve ave nc s 350 , 4.A0 /4X. 00 Z. 7 962.5` 2.75 962.5 300 /,050.4 Z.7S 96Z. SO TOT LJA�OUNT: 250,/79.75 0 /85867.95 �` !88777.9 0' /90,685,-76 * Zn,! 652.8: i DATE: 7 fig 81 TIME' Z :00P.M.' . Cit Saratoga Community Deve opment Department -EID SUMMARX w Sheet Z pfZ. PROJECT 4 RECo/v.STi?Uc T /ON DYERL A Y DF ALLEAl DALE .4 VS. €` COX .4 vE•. ,� _ _..7 Me&rAy- Spje..Ypz , R R.J. Z,,are ving G Grope Ala 16irslr. N Neu Bras, C Con Z X CD, Iterr D Description Q Quantity i it i nit O OH-lF U Amount Y Unit U Amount P Unit i Amount D it Amount _Amount P ! o oo w .t'cavo .a7 5 Z 600 C C. Y. Z ZO 3 5ZG / /8.78 4 48 828. 1 14.8 6 64,,61,0-06 3A/2 7 783/1. 2 24,7 6 6'¢ ZZOL 2• B Base Cocir� e onC. 3 3 O T Tar/ 3 33.30 1 116 SSO. 3 34.16 1 119,3sa6D 3 32.35 ! !/3225 3 30,05 1 1O5175 4 41M 1 1435LU.G 3 7 7- Pea - `a aac. / / 800 T Tor! O O 5 59 940 3 35, 6 63 64. 3 3Z.3 S SB 234.. 6 6Z /00. � �1. 7 73 8w.0 4 r r ff c Sc D D.IS 4 482: Z5 0 0•/7 S S6. S5 0 046 5 514-40 O O,SI 1 1639.6 6 6.17 5 546.5 S W171 1,e s i'o' ir'c / / 835 L L.F. D D. /Z Z ZZQZD D D, 1 Z38.5S D D, /3 d 138.5 0 0.Z6 4 477. /D / /4. Z ZS6. 9 80100 D D.ZZ 8 88.ob 0 0.Z/ 8 84.00 0 0.42 1 16AOO 0 0,24 8 88.E 7 8 8 " Ticr i c e e,¢0 L L.F. O O.Zd / /68. L60 0 0.2Z ! !84.84 O O. Z/ 1 176.40 d d.5-5 4 446;zc 6 6.2Z 1 184.8;:" 8. 0 00i,17 6-05SWa /ks S S E Ea. 6 60A . .3M.00 9 96.a 3 3/. 00131,2 6 656.2 6 66. . .330,a � aveme.� , ,�irr� L L. S. 7 740.00 - -� 7 735'. - - 7 731. SZ / 0, R Re ec : ve �rvemen 3 35I> Z Z. 7$ 9 962. S 3 3.03 1 1,06a 50 2 2.90 1 1, 015.00 3 3.4 1 1,207-50 3 3.63 OT.LI L �JA�OUNT' 1 13/ 367.95 ' ' 235 �/• 90 2 239, /08.35 ' ' 250 9/5.7 Z Z8�,7la Z- CITY OF SAIZATOGA AGENDA BILL NO DATE: July 7, 1982 DEPAIn'T, T:. Community Development SUBJECT: Fruitvale Avenue Bike Path Facility Issue SL=ary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Bids have been received for this project in excess of the TDA funds available, i.e., total bid of $44,216.55, while TDA funds only amount to $32,500. Project has been bid in two phases anticipating this eventuality, i.e., from Douglass to Three Oaks and from Redwood School to Douglass. Recommendation Award contract for Schedule A (from Douglass to Three Oaks) to low bidder, Anza Engineering, for a contract amount of $26,747.50. Fiscal Impacts $26,747.50 (TDA funds). These funds are rebudgeted in the 1982 -83 fiscal year. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Report from Director of Community Development 2. Bid Summary Council Action 7/7: Mallory /Fanelli moved to award contract for Schedule A to low bidder, Anza Engineering, for contract amount of $261747.50. Passed 5 -0. >alFg, g' I'M a €€ 9tYFS g a c e ONION "" s ffiN I € •.y'. NI S RR. REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY :COUNCIL DATE: 6 -25 -82 COUNCIL MEETING: 7-07-82 SUBJECT: Fruitvale Avenue Bike Path Facility We received bids on this project June 14, 1982. The project was set up in two schedules in anticipation that there would be insufficient funds to fund the entire work. The attached Bid Summary indicates that we were correct in our projections. The low bid for the total project is $44,216.55, and the low bid for the Schedule A is $26,747.50. Funds available from TDA are $32,500. It is obvious, therefore, that to do the entire work would mean the City would have to fund the balance over $32,500. Schedule A essentially constructs the Bike Path Facility between Douglass and Three Oaks and is entirely within the existing rights -of -way. It also includes some work along the Redwood School frontage. Schedule B involves work between Redwood School and Douglass Lane, primarily widening and overlaying the existing pathways through the landscaped areas. The project was set up in two schedules for a second reason, because the use of those pathways through the landscaped areas would require the approval of the subdivision homeowners associ- ations. Thus far we have been frustrated in our attempts to get that approval inasmuch as these associations, while established on paper, are not operative with officers, etc. In fact, the majority of the landscaping maintenance costs are being borne still by the developer of the subdivisions, George Day. The paths, however, are there and while they are not at the standard we would desire for bicycle facilities, they are likely to be used as such whether further improvement is made or not. Because of the problems of funding and of obtaining rights for usage,it is recommended that the Schedule B portion of this con- tract not be awarded, and that only Schedule A be awarded to the low bidder, Anza Engineering, for a contract price of $26,747.50. Rot00 RSS:cd (Attach.) Director of Community Development VAr 47;:,����d June 14, 1982 PRO✓ %� FrUitva 1 F AvF _ R i kr- Path Facility - Phase A & B . ( 3) _._ st i t ) )0 15 Engineer's Est. Swene -& Sons �� McCartci a n z.a Enq�Peer�r�g. TOT�G 1dID�.. TOTAL IDgE/17 - 260.0( pR /CE 5 _ L �R/cE 34 ; TOr�� PNG o E �n _ QESCR /�T /ON 9UaNT.�T UNIT pR%cE TOTfIG .`o �icE TOTAL ;..�i l._ ^2 . Clear & Grub Construct Asphalt Han .cap Ramps L.S. _ 2 EA. 1,00 400 800.00 249 300 2,490. OO_ 3. Construct Concrete - anci c ap amps - 1 EA 600 600.00 8.50 �$� 98-'s-60 400 400.00 400 400 -Q1 4. Construct Asphalt B1ke Path 13,050 S.F. 1.50 - .19,575.00 1.46 19 053.00 .1::75 22,837.50 1.40 18,270.00 1.45 18,922.50 .60 _ - -- 0880`01 5. Remove -& Replace - urn L.F. 3.00 300.00 10.0 1,000.00 11.2 1 120 :00 6 5 .00 . .00 ,700.01 6 - C n s r_uat_jjo_o Retaining Wall Modify Existing Drop-- 230 0.95 2 518.00 ; 17. 65 4,059.50 8.80 2,024.00 16.5D 3,795.00 5.00 3450.0 -1 - 7. inlet 1 EA. 1,000 1,000.00 850.00 ,900 900.00 750 750.00 500 500.00 650 65 8. Overlay Existing Driveway 600 S.F. 1.00 600.00 1.05 630.00 +1 -- -- �60.Qi PHASE A SUBTOTAL' 26,175.00 27,991.5-Q-- 35,605.00 2 5 - �-! i Overlay Existing - a 1 �''iTh Z`- •10,580 S.F. 0.85 8,993.00 0.75 617.6 1. 4 2 2. Construct Meander Asphalt Bike Path _ Paint 6" Solid and _ 4,0.05 S.F. 2.00 8 010.00 -. 7,809.75 - 9,772.20 - 2.75 11.013.75 2.10 8,410.00 .75 -7008. 75 3. - Dash White Line 2,660 L.F. 0.5 1,330.00 - ).30 798.00 0.27 718.20 0.40 1.064.00 1 0 0 2Lj"-0- 18,333.00 44,503.00 .2_ 16,225.35 =+ 22,631.40 58,236.40 23,369.95 22 170.50 48 918. PHASE B _JSUBTOTAL'Sl TOTAL'S i t ) )0 15 "r CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO: "V70 DATE: July 7,'1982 DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services SUBJECT: Asphaltic Concrete Purchase Issue Summary Initial: � Dept. Head: City Atty: City Mgr 9k-4— As required, we have advertised for and received bids for suppling asphaltic concrete to be used on our ''Demonstration Dig -Out Repair Project ". We received two (2) bids for suppling 800 to 1,000 tons of asphaltic concrete. Reed & Graham, Inc. Bi,d $23.96 per ton Granite Rock Co. Bid $26.89 per ton Recommendation. Award contract to Reed & Graham, Inc. and authorize City Manager to issue purchase order for up to 1,000 tons of asphaltic concrete, total amount not to exceed $23,960. Fiscal Impact Authorizes the expenditure of $23,960 of Revenue Sharing Funds as appropriated by Resolution No. 1088. Exhibits /Attachments Bids from Reed & Graham and Granite Rock Co. Council Action 7/7: Mallory /Fanelli moved to award contract to Reed and Graham and authorize City Manager to issue purchase order for up to 1,000 tons of asphaltic concrete, total amount not to exceed $23,960. Passed 5 -0. r. . PROPOSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA The undersigned declares he has carefully examined the specifications for Supplying Asphaltic Concrete for the Demonstration Dig-Out Repair Project and he proposes to supply the required materials as provided for the unit price set forth below. 800 tons to 1,000 tons of Aspaaltic Concrete at $ 23_96 per ton, ( Twenty-three dollars and ninety-six ---- - - - - -- - Do11ars per ton) including all applicable taxes. Signature of Bidder (If an individual, so state. If a firm or co- partnership, state the firm name of all individual co- partners composing the firm. If a corporation, state legal name of corporation, also names fo President, Secretary and Manager thereof.) (408) 287 -1400 Business Telephone Dated: June 7, 1982 Reed & Graham Inc. Gerald R Graham President Darren P Birtola, er ygnTnca_ Calif_ 99190 Business Address PROPOSAL to THE CITY COUNCIL, SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA The undersigned declares he has carefully examined the specifications for Supplying Asphaltic Concrete for the Demonstration Dig -Out Repair Project and he proposes to supply the required materials as provided for the unit price set forth below. 800 tons to 1,000 tons of Aspahltic Concrete at $ 26.89 per ton, ( twenty -six dollars and 89/100 ------=--------- - - - - -- Dollars per ton) I nc uding all applicable taxes. Signature of Bidder //y (If an individual, so state. If a firm or copartnership, state the firm name of all individual co- partners composing the firm. If a corporation, state legal name of corporation, also names fo President., Secretary and Manager thereof.) (408) 275 -0804 - Business Telephone Dated:' _June 7. 1982 Granite Rock Co. Pres.- Bruce Woolpert Sec,- Jack Scripps ` Gen. Mgr.- Betsy Woolpert 11711 Berryessa Rd. San Jose, Calif. 95133 Business Address 1-!Ir JDA BILL NO. C2- 9' CITY OF SAW\T a'1 Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE: July 7, 1982 C. Atty DEPARTbIE"Vi r: Community Development C. Mgr. ------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR - 1472 - OUITO OFFICE CE TERS SUBJECT: PASEO PRESADA AND COX Issue Summary The public improvements required for the subject Building Site have been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Recommendation Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject Building Site e Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing development and bond. Council Action 7/7: Approved 5 -0 on Consent Calendar. UB �� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: June 25, 1982 FROM: Director of :Community Development SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SDR 1472 Name & Location: Ouito Village Office Center, Cox Ave. Public Improvements required for -SDR 1472 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year., the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Quito Office Center , Inc Address: P.O. Box 4486 Walnut Creek, CA. 94596 2. Improvement Security: Type: setter of Credit Amount: $45,870 Issuing Company: Mercantile Bank of Canada Address: P.O. Box 579 Vancover, Bristish Columbia Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 04508823 3. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook - CITY OF SAPQXICGA AGENDA BILL NO Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE: July 7, 1982 C. Att DEPARTMENT:. Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE FOR TRACT 5954 and RELEASE OF MONUMENT BOND CAMINO BARCO, KOSICH CONSTRUCTION Issue Sunnary The one year maintenance period for the subject tract has expired and all deficiencies have been corrected. At this time, the City must take action to accept the streets and easements offered on the.Tract Map and release the Improvement Bond, and Monument Bond. Recommendation 1. Adopt Resolution 36 -B- 200 2. Authorize release of the attached described Improvement Bond and Monument Bond. Fiscal Impacts The City assumes future maintenance responsibility of the street and storm drains. Exhibits /Attachm-nts 1. Memo describing tract and bond 2. Res. 36 -B- 3. Memo describing monument bond Council Action 7/7: Appraved.5 =0..on Consent Calendar. 1' T �VlEO' AND�1�V7 09TE o2 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -34:38 TO: City Council FROM: SUBJECT: Director of Community Development Final Acceptance for Tract 5954 Location: Camino Barco DATE: June 25, 1982 The one (1) year maintenance period for Tract 5954 has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected. Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu- tion which accepts the public improvements, easements and rights -of -way. Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve- ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be released. The following information is included for your information and use: 1. Developer: Address: Kosich Construction Company 18867 Kosich Dr., Saratoga, CA. 95070 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: May 20, 1981 3. Improvement Security: Type: Performance Bond Amount: $46,920.00 Issuing Co: Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland Address: 253 California Street San Francisco, CA. 94111 Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 5989203 4. Miles of public Street: 5. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm 0.11 RESOLUTION NO. 36 -B- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS TRACT NO. 5954 It appearing that on or about May 20, 1981 , the street, storm drain and other improvements as shown on-the hereinafter referred to subdivision map and on approved improvement plans therefor were completed. and thereafter were maintained by the subdivider for a period of not less than an additional year from date of satisfactory completion. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as�shown on the following described subdivision map: Map of Tract No. 5954 recorded in Book 395 of Maps, at Page 28 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on May 9, , 19 77 . and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby re- scinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication.on said map are hereby accepted, except the following: and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby declared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby order- ed released: That certain Improvement Bond No. 5989203 dated March 28, 1977 and issued by Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the day of 19 , at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CT71 CLrRF MAYOR 3 Date: June 25, 1982 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MONUMENT BOND, TRACT NO. Monuments in the above tract have been checked and found to be acceptable. It is recommended that Bond No. 9079080 , issued by Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland in the amount of $ 700.00 , be released. Developer of the above tract is: Kosich Construction Co. RSS /dsc RO ,RT S. HOOK S DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Date: June 25, 1982 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MONUMENT BOND, TRACT NO. 5954 Monuments in the above tract have been checked and found to be acceptable. It is recommended that Bond No. 9079080 issued by Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland in the amount of $ 700.00 , be released. Developer of the above tract is: Kosich Construction Co. RSS /dsc RO RT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SARATOGA A Initial: AGENDA BILL NO: o2-/ 3 Dept Head: DATE: July 7, 1982 City At DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mgr"--. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- SUBJECT: Fire District's Request for Fire Hydrant Spotters Issue Summary The Saratoga Fire Department, together with the Central Fire authorization to install "Blue Raised Reflective Markers" on aid in the quick location of Fire Hydrants in times of need. from the Saratoga Rotary Club, will bear the full costs of p of the markers. Many cities throughout the State and nation with good results. Recommendation District, has requested our streets. Such markers The Districts, with help urchase and installation are using the markers Grant permission to Saratoga Fire District to install Fire Hydrant markers on City streets. Advise District that they are to bear: full cost of installation, and maintenance. The District should be made aware that the City from time to time, through its pavement maintenance efforts, will cover or otherwise destroy some of the already in place markers and that the District will be responsible to make all necessary replacement. Fiscal Impact There will be no cost to the City. Attachments /Exhibits Letter from Saratoga Fire District, dated June 9, 1982 with attachment. Council Action 7/7: Callon/Mallory moved approval. Passed 5 -0. 7 SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 Telephone: (408) 867 -9001 9 June 1982 Mr.Dan Trinidad Assistant Director Maintenance Services 13777 Fruitval Avenue City of Saratoga Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Dan: Enclosed please find a descriptive brochure related to hydrant spotters. These are used by many cities and have proven to be of great assistance in helping fire departments locate fire hydrants that otherwise may be obscure. As you realize, the immediate spotting of hydrants is of utmost importance in cases of an emergency. These are similar in design to those currently used by the city as lane markers where reflective lighting is considered important. The Saratoga Fire District and the Central Fire District request permission to install hydrant markers on all streets and roadways where fire hydrants are found within the city limits. There will be no cost to the City of Saratoga for the markers or the installation therof. The two aforementioned fire districts, with financial assistance from the Saratoga Rotary Club, will defray these costs. It is anticipated that this installation will begin within the near future and be completed prior to the late fall and winter months. Thank you very much for your considered assistance in this matter. The Rotary Club and other community agencies are most eager to have this most worthwhile project completed as they join with you in a common desire in making ours a much safer place to reside. Should you have questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincere Ernest 1e,Chief Saratoga Fire Department cc: Chief Sporleder,Central Fire District When eve yi ',� cou nts... . save.': minutes with a ,�)jS,Aq, �i '7 , •1fi,y tr 5 _i.Fl �hn•k,r t t 4 .r- ev F y 1 g °2�3'y • ? r f !� \. �' S ' iqf" �L,a y)ry lk �r��J AP, N HYDRANT SPOTTERS r .. '�� �`°4 )`� rr ,i � b 1 �t .�'',y / }yb�l � �.4 .s• yi.� .gj}l�t`+,. c� �1 a rs• 4 w, .1 r , a 13 r-t �xL y: •r Jk �, .�f � i � p v5 kr' ,�y �y 1 � "��,+, �,tr,1• �+e�� , �F / r i', 1 1 1 t 1��.� . f4fr. j? p{sra�.. A`P'D NS {1 }..! e y ',r '' w.,,f•� + i 1,r�� �,'. .. r „•�.• t i 1.r t -/" ti ✓ • r - /y�t �,.. -Y a J .�✓ �. '=F' �r 'i", iy x/^C.� # tgg"t'- v y bJ• St a'" i'c 1 ' . i d. t� t. .� 0. 1�,', 3'1's 'x,'44 r r' ✓ 1 1 �t s. 4 4 �>:-•. Sa1 o- �' f t •� 1 � �/ t r i r y ( '�' '��T¢r Y S? 'F :9�, b��+ v � �,� �y ,tt. rr1., `k lY; 44f Lut (it s. .. .G B y t1i.,�� WrJ 'rI fir. /i. r, 'r�+.i'el ,� d z.. tl. t„•,P�i + ` 5� i •i J �`r, -�it,� 41 1 .. ' � .�� ii1'"t � +\ � � a tj 1i. �• g, F i r - ' r lttl 4� Y!` F .'^MCA , � 4 +••i'�. ��,y : ff .jd�alr;�•1. r 1�1:' ,t�+ : � rj�IS �_,� .n �� ref r �'a �� ` P1S A ��t {I Y,— -A � I ti � .� t, i�. ea l�llll. '. c�., ,y a �r1c •.� , ' ®w � •'?.,'• ^"nuW:a �b`jj, fl, T ��.Sj��S 4a�11;11 ( "•i • nri + I s 1 (�' �� t��,',�}� } ,..` vs in'''fo �71 'l•' p tz \�\\ \�� { . i ti r i'+�y ,7(S aG,•+ i 15' +I� i�''� r , 1 jS jy "�m..D.�'°Yl� y,?'1'h1,.t v.`°S 1: I •�' yfj Ywd \kyg�y, 'r 'a r ° t ��'L :v .. ylw '�V �, � \ , t. Z. 6 4 AI i i 31 'n 11 S � {. till• 1' S , Si. 1 V,F t,. 4 1,5. 1 rS , 6 r .I /' I.�1'r ate fg.rC' >Esr f 1a1•,� .SG �fA d i�r. °��� 4 E ��� y F °t'M sue...•. nc__. .,wzy..., _ >r t-i i^ C ..• t: r, i+ ` .° T � r . iyY, � r yI;r �� i r f i t +pp i?RK.y�'•',��;i�i� k }�� � "2�a�p`" �3��ah9 br�����4t��Ei. 1 1 ki ntt�. I S,t. 4i o r Locate. hydran t s' F- r UP to tt Y 1000 feet ahead - - - 2 8:m... :,.The. Speeding pllm�er advance warning signal to the "driver J. nears the scene of the Knowing precisely where the hydrant is, he .can maintain speed,. slowing' at. the fire..Ahe .blackness .of. night/ _ right, moment to allow.. the..hosemen to made even blacker- by the brll { dismount and make' an immediate liance of the. blaze ahead ' hookup while he continues -into position'- Smoke. •;..noise:: .C.Onfuslorl at the fire wherein Hell's: that: hydrants Getting water ' on the , blaze in the shortest possible time ,is the goal of No sweat when your .city has STIM every fire captairrand his team SONITE" Fire -Lite . markers! Fire -Lite Hydrant. Spotters give a super :bright fire -Late Hydrant Spotters can Help! s CITY OF SAPATOGA Q � Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 7 Dept. Hd. DATE: July 1, 1982 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policv •Analysis C. Mgr. SUB=: GPA 82 -1 -E, Amend General Plan Designation for Property at Northeast Corner of Saratoga.- Sunnyvale Road and Miljevich Drive from Proposed ------------ M- UTns -ty-Re-. T8'Yi t fir"; - *'-q� CtT)----- •--------- - - - - -- - - -- Issue Summary 1. At its meeting of June 23, 1982 the Planning Commission approved a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the above request. 2. City does not have sufficient funds to purchase new parks. 3. Council needs to set a date for public hearing on the proposed amendment. 4. Staff is concerned with the time differential between the public hearing and final adoption of the General Plan. Recomnendation 1. Review the attached report and report on General 2. Review number of amendments pending final action. 3. Consolidate new public hearings so that they are with date of final action oA the General Plan. Fiscal Impacts None anticipated. Plan hearings. nearly concurrent Exhibits /Attachments Exhibit A - Report on General Plan Hearings, dated 7/1./82 Exhibit B - Staff report dated 6/16/82 Exhibit C - Negative Declaration dated 6/9/82 Exhibit D - Planning Commission Resolution dated 6/23/82 Exhibit E- Correspondence received • Council Action 7/7: Consensus to set for public hearing 8/4. 8/4: Moyles /Mallory moved to approve Res. 2003 approving GPA. Passed 5 -0. c,e,J J' REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 7/1/82 COUNCIL MEETING: 7/6/82 SUBJECT: General Plan Hearings ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the agenda this evening a General Plan Amendment on an individual parcel (GPA 82 -1 -E) will be before the City Council. There are three other individual amendments that will require final action by the Council. They are: GPA 82 -1 -B Change the Brcokview School Site from Community Facility- School Site to Medium Density Residential (Scheduled for public hearing July 21, 1982). GPA 82 -1 -C Change the El Quito Park School Site from Community Facility - School Site to Medium Density Residential (Scheduled for public hearing July 21, 1982). GPA 82 -1 -D Change the Saratoga Horticultural Foundation site from Private Open Space to Medium Density Residential (City Council indicated its intent to amend the General Plan accordingly on May 5, 1982). The Council will take final action on these proposed amendments when the final vote on the revised General Plan is taken. State law only allows the Cits7 to amend its General Plan three times a year. In November 1981 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1045 which specified that the Plan could only be amended in April, September and December. That means the General Plan revision as well as the proposed individual parcel amendments should be dealt with in September. Staff is concerned that the time delay between the public hearing on the individual amendments and the final action by the City Council is too long. The issues and comments by residents may be forgotten. Combining the hearings on the individual amendments with the entire General Plan would allow the Council to look at the General Plan as a whole rather than piecemeal. i of SX, �Ygjpf REPORT TO MAYOR AND CI'T'Y COUNCIL DATE- 7/1/82 COUNCIL MEETING: 7/6/82 SUBJECT: General Plan Hearings on the agenda this evening a General Plan Amendment on an individual parcel (GPA 82 -1 -E) will be before the. City Council. There are three other individual amendments that will require final action by the Council. They are: GPA 82 -1 -B Change the Brookview School Site from Community Facility - School Site to Medium Density Residential (Scheduled for public hearing July 21,11882). GRA 82 -1-C Change the El Quito Park School. Site from Community Facility- School Site to Medium Density Residential (Scheduled for public hearing 4uly 21, 1982). GPA 82 -1 -D Change the Saratoga Horticultural Foundation site from Private Open Space to Medium Density Residential (City Council indicated its intent to amend the General Plan accordingly on May 5, 1982). The Council will take final, action on these proposed amendments. when the final vote on the revised General Plan is taken. :state law only allows the City to amend its General Plan t11X,'ee times a year. In November 1981 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1015 which specified that the Plan callddonly be amended in.�\pril, September, and December. That means the General, _Plan revision as well as the proposed individual parcel amendments should be dealt with in SQptemk)er. Staff is concerned that th,e time delay between the public hearing on the individual amendments and the final action by the City Council is too long. The issues and comments by residents may be forgotten. CoryLi.ning the hearings on the individual amendments with the entire G`nt::ral Plan would allow the Council to Look at the General. Plan as a whole ratAer than piQcerzal. General Plan Hearings July 1, 1982 Page 2 Recommendation: The Council should combine the public hearings of the individual General Plan Amendments with the public hearings on the General Plan revision to shorten the time between public'hearing and final action. That means-that the individual amendments should be sche- duled for public hearing by September when the General Plan can be amended per Resolution No. 1045. Michael Flores Assistant Planner MF /mgr 1 rr REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 6/16/82 Commission Meeting: 6/23/82 SUBJECT GPA 82 -1 -E, Nedjo Spaich, Northeast Corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Miljevich Drive ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Request: Amend the subject property's General Plan Designation from Proposed Park to Medium Density Residential. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been pre- pared for this project. Public Noticing: This project has been noticed by advertising in the newspaper and by mailing notices to 102 property owners in the vicinity. Zoning: R -1- 12,500 Surroundinn Land Uses: Site Size: 3.69 acres Single- family residential Site Slope: Gentle (less than 5%) Staff Analvsis: The applicant has expressed a desire to sell -the subject property which is currently occupied by three residences, equipment storage, and accessory structures associated with the former agricultural use of the site some of which appear to be used commercially for businesses such as wood working. A few orchard trees still exist on the site. The site has been designated for park use since 1974, but the site has not been a high priority fcr purchase and is not Likely to become so due to the City' limited revenues and other park priorities. This has been explained to the applicant's representa- tive (Mr. Peck) and he has requested the change to facilitate the sale of the property or allow it to be developed by the owner. CITY of - � ATOO GA REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Commission Meeting: 6/16/82 0/23/82 SUBJECT: GPA 82 -1 -E, Nedjo Spaich, Northeast Corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Miljevich Drive ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1equest: Amend the subject property's General Plan Designation from ,Proposed Park.to Medium Density Residential. ;r�viroutnental Assessment: A Negative Declaration :ias been pre - pared for this project. L ublic 1,+oticirig: This project has been 'noticed by advertising ir�tile newspaper and by mailing notices to 102 property ownersi in the vicinity. Goninc: R- 1- 12,500 Surrounding Landddses: Single- family residential Site Size: 3.69 acres Site Slope: Gentle (less than 5 %) staff Analysis: �1'iie applicant has expressed a desire to sell the subject property wl4icli is currently occupied by three residences, logeilvnhO-htn!kteracxo, aild accessory structures associated with the former agricultural use of the.. site some of which appear to be used commercially for >usinesses such as wood working. A few orchard trees still exist ors the site. site has been designated for park use since 1974, but the site .;;a riot been a high priority for purchase and is not likely to !.�ecome so due to the City's limited revenues and other_ park i,,rLor_ities. This has been explained to the applicant's represerita - ,'AT!u, (Mr. Peck:3 and he has requested the ch -tinge to facilitate tr;e ?i}7' uF tiio? roi_ -�erty or allow it to be devel-o- ied by the owner, GPA 82 -1 -E, Spai• June 16, 1982 Page 2 The proposed change in the site's General Plan Designation would allow detached single - family residential development to occupy the sit`. This development would mean the loss of open space which is the most significant issue associated with this proposal. The remainder of this report will be devoted to the potential impacts of the applicant's request and the potential impacts of alternative proposals. The Area E plan and action program did not speak specifically to this site. Options: 1. Applicant's Request. Medium Density Residential This proposed designation is consistent with the General Plan designation of adjacent developed and undeveloped properties. The proposed designation is also consistent with the existing zoning of the site - R -1- 12,500. Approximately 10 detached single- family units under current zoning could be built on the site after deducting 20% of the site area for streets. This would generate about 120 ADT (.average daily trips) when construction is completed and the units are occupied. A minimum of 36 ADT is generated by the existing residences on the property and it is likely that considerably more (particularly truck traffic) is added due to the commercial uses on the property. Considering the fact that Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to the west of the site carries 30,000 ADT this project will not create a significant traffic impact. Other impacts created by the proposal would be the same as those generated in adjacent existing residential development. No significant extension of urban services would be required since this would be an infill project. 2. No Change. Proposed Park This would maintain the status quo of the site and preserve potential usable open space. However, the danger with this option is that the City could be sued on the basis of inverse condemnation if the City does not buy the property for a park in the near future. Since the City is not likely to have the funds in the near future because of other park priorities and declining revenues, it may be advisable to allow residential development on the site and'.use the park fees from the development to improve existing parks. It is not known how frequently parks are used in Saratoga but it is likely that they are used less than in other cities considering the recreational activities many Saratogans have on their own properties. Therefore, it is not certain that new parks are necessary._ 2 ' GPA 82 -1 -E, Spai� • June 16, 1582 Page 2 The City might consider selling one of its own vacant properties to buy the site. However, this would just mean the loss of other open. space. Further, the City would still have to find money to develop and maintain the park which would entail further impacts on the City's di�ficult financial position. The only way the City could benefit financially from open space is to develop the area then lease the property. Golf courses and tennis centers are two examples where this concept is rztilized. It is doubtful that this site is large enough for a tennis center, and again the inability of the City to finance this type of activity is the central issue. The Institute of Traffic Engineers estimates that a City Park can generate up to 60 ADT per acre. Using that number a City park on this site would generate about 100 A.DT more than Option #1 above. 3. Other Uses. A variety of uses ranging from Very Low Density Residential (1.09 DU /net acre) to Commercial could be proposed for the site but all would be inconsistent with the current pattern of development in the vicinity. Some uses such as P -D residential can be designed in such a way that they would have no more traffic impact than a single - family residential development but it is likely such a use would not be accepted by the residents. Experience in other areas of the City have indicated that residents are likely to accept development at densities similar to their neighborhoods if open space can not be maintained. Recommendation- Considering the difficulties of the City's finances, and the liklihood that such difficulties will continue as costs rise and revenues decrease, it can not be recommended that the Proposed Park Designation be allowed to remain since the City simply can not afford such a designation. It will be difficult enough for the City to maintain its existing services and parks so new burdens are not warranted. The continued designation of the site as a Proposed Park in the face of the City's inability to purchase the site could result in an inverse condemnation suit against the City. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a resolution to the City Council recommending approval of the proposed change of the site's General Plan Designation from Proposed Park to Medium Density Residential. MF /mgr Michael Flor s Assistant Planner 3 • Findings: EXHIBIT "A" • GPA 82 -1 =.E 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will maintain the residen- tial character of the neighborhood and will have no adverse impact on the surrounding area. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public safety, health and welfare or be materially injurious to adjacent properties or improvements. 3. The City's financial position does not allow the purchase of the property and makes the current Proposed Park Designation inappropriate to maintain. A V EIA -4 (.: File No: (;PA 82 -1 -E �`;.:' Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15080 through 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 - of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation ot a .69 acre site, located at the northeast corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Miljevich Drive, from Proposed Park to Medium Density Residential. Approximately 10 single family detached dwelling units could be constructed on the site which would eliminate a potential park site. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Nedjo Spaich P.O. Box 363 Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment because of the mitigation measures that will be applied to residential development during tentative sub- division approval and by enforcement of existing codes and ordinances. New development would be considered an infill project which would not require any significant extension of urban services. The open space value provided by the site can b-e partially maintained by requiring land dedication or by requiring an in lieu fee to improve other existing open space resources. Any proposal fct.tentative map will be evaluated at the time of submission for any possible environmental impacts. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of R.-S. Robinson, Jr. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & POLICY ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA '>"'� DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER �xdlrb� t D RESOLUTION NO. GPA 82 -1 -E RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE 1974 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FOR A 3.69 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD AND MILJEVICH DRIVE (APN 391 -25 -551 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga received an application from Nedjo Spaich to amend the 1974 General Plan Land Use Element Designation of this parcel from "Proposed Park "•to "Medium Density Residential" and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission at a regular meeting in accord with Government Code Section 65351, held a public hearing on June 23, 1982 and reviewed the propoged amend- ment to the Land Use Element; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Negative Declaration and the Findings; attached as Exhibit "A "; ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the 1974 Land Use Element from Proposed Park to Medium Density Residential for a 3..69 acre parcel, at the northeast corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Miljevich Drive and as shown on Exhibit "B" based on the ability to make the findings as stated in Exhibit 'A". The above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and thereafter passed and adopted by the Saratoga Planning Commission on the 23rd day of June, 1982 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Schaefer and Monia NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: Secretary Chairman, Planning Q mm ssion 20473 Glasgow Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 27 July 1982 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, CA 95070 Emig rT E Re: General Plan Designation Change for Property at Northeast Corner of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Miljevich Drive from Proposed Park to Medium Density Residential (Spaich - GPA 82 -1 -E). As property owners - residents within 500' of the above site, we strongly urge the general plan designation change from proposed park to medium density residential. All the adjacent property is residential. The proposed change will make the area uniformally residential. Furthermore, the area under consideration for change to medium residential is too small in area for any type of a park as well as lacking supporting parking space, either off or on the adjacent streets. We urge the Council to support this change to medium density residential. Lois M. White to hen W. White Dear Property Owner: Below is a notice of a hearing in which you may be interested because, according to our records, you own property within 500' of the site. Agendas for the meeting will be available at the City Hall on July 30. NOTICE OF HEARING JUL 2 71982 Before City Council NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Deputy City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set the hour of 8:00 p.m_, on Wednesday ' I the 4th day of August , 1$2, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale s the time and Avenue, Saratoga, California, a place for public hearing on: General Plan Designation Change for Property at Northeast Corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and M_i.ljevich Drive from Proposed Park to Medium Density Residential (Spaich - GPA 82 -1 -E) A copy of which material is on file at the office of the Saratoga City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. All interested persons may appear and be heard at said time and place. Written Omrunications should be filed on or before July 29 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL IYI Grace E. Cory / ? Deputy City Clerk � s i J,. A G CITY OF SAIUU'OM � Initial: AGENDA BILL NO C-2 9 S Dept. Hd. DATE: July 7, 1982 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT:. Community Development C. Mgr. - SUBJECT: Pacific Telephone - Request for Easement -----------------------=------ =--------------------- - - - - -- Issue Summary Pacific Telephone has requested that the City grant to them an easement along a portion of the southeasterly side of Saratoga Avenue, southwesterly of Fruitvale Avenue. This easement would accommodate their existing facilities as well as those proposed. Recommendation Grant the requested easement of Pacific Telephone. Fiscal Impacts NONE Exhibits /Attachnrnts 1. Letter from P.T. & T. requesting Grant of Easement 2. Grant of Easement 3. Sketch showing facilities and easement Council Action 7/7: Clevenger/Mallory moved to grant request for easement. Passed 5 -0. May 21, 1982 Pacific Telephone 1333 Lawrence Expwy, Santa Clara, CA 95051 RECEIVED MAY 25 1982 City of Saratoga COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Department of Public Works 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ;Gentlemen: Pacific Telephone Company proposes to reinforce its existing facilities now located on the City of Saratoga's property along Saratoga Avenue. The additional facilities are needed to meet demands for service in the immediate area. The attached sketch shows the existing facilities in blue, the proposed facilities in red and the required right of way in green. If-our proposal meets with your approval, will you please have the attached Grant of Easement executed on behalf of the City of Saratoga, have the signature(s) notarized and return the copy marked, 11T,P.T.BT.00.00PY" to me in the enclosed, self - addressed, stamped envelope. The duplicate copy is for the City's files. Questions regarding this proposed project may be directed to me at 408 - 554 -3566 or to the engineer, Cindy Slothower, at 408 -491 -5053. Your consideration and cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Yours truly, Babs Gross Right of Way Agent Attachments r-� �CF 0057 -B (12 -79) R/W U.G. Ref: BSP 937 - 111 -902PT RECORDED AT REQUEST OF A Vin: PAW -m TELEPHONE COMPANY WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO Name rTHE PACIFIC TELEPHONE COMPANY Street Right of Way poet. Ltic%2Ei1l�E.Esc1t' Address 1333 City & I Tq State S ��`�- G LA7 wI &UeOSS THIS BOX FOR RECORDER'S USE COPY NO DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX DUE. BY THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 44zl AGENT GRANT OF EASEMENT The undersigned Grantor(s) hereby grant(s) to THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Grantee, its successors and assigns, an easement to construct and maintain (place, operate, inspect, repair, replace and remove) such underground communication facilities as Grantee may from time to time require (including ingress thereto and egress therefrom) consisting of wires, cables, conduits, manholes, handholes and aboveground markers, pedestals, terminal equipment cabinets, other associated electrical conductors and necessary fixtures and appurtenances in, under and upon that certain real property in the County of Santa Clara, City of Sa ratOga State of California, described as: The northwesterly sixteen (16) feet of Lots I and 2 and the northwesterly sixteen (16) feet of the northeasterly ninety (90) feet of Lot 3 as said Lots are shown and delineated on that certain map. entitled "Map of Krick Subdivision ", which map was filed in the office of the Recorder of the County of. Santa Clara, State of California, on November 11, 1914 in Book "0" of Maps at page 63 and further described in the.Deed from E. Gear to the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, dated May 25,-1972 and recorded May 26, 1972 in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California in Book 9852, Filing No. 4266323. d E 0 0 0 Grantee shall be responsible for damage caused intentionally or by any negligent act or omission of Grantee, its agents or employees while exercising the rights granted herein. Executed this 7th day of July 19 82 Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk (per Govt. Code 40814) CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation BY Linda Callon -Mayor . ~ 40FIC TELEPHONE M E4SEM4'1VT RE4PUE S T SCALE: ! `/= /00, ,(o�p SPR M� LE'GENO� ---� EXIS rlNl P. T. d T. F, 4C / L / TIE s PRO.sPO,SE'O NEW AT 11: fAG /LIT /ES PROPOSED CASEMEAtr 4 J J