HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-1981 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACpiJ -��e
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd.
DATE: Aug. 11, 1981 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION IN RECOGNITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS OF SHER,%N MILLER
Issue Summary
It would be appropriate for the City Council to recognize the contributions of Mr.
Miller as long -time editor and publisher of the Saratoga News and extend
condolences to his family on his death August 9, 1981.
Recomnendation
Pass resolution.
1
Fiscal Impacts
None.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution.
Council Action
8/19: Clevenger /Mallory moved adoption of Resolution 1027. Passed 5 -0.
•
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CI'T'Y OF SARATOGA IN RECOGNITION
OF THE VALUED CONTRIBUTIONS OF SHERMAN MILLER TO THE CITY THROUGH
MANY YEARS OF SERVICE IN THE FIELD OF JOURNALISM
WHEREAS, Sherman Miller founded the Saratoga News, which has furnished residents
of Saratoga with timely information and entertainment since September 1, 1955; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Miller served as editor of the Saratoga News for many years and
remained active as a contributor until his death on August 9, 1981, skillfully blending
articles of all types with photographic coverage to produce a newsy, bright, and help-
ful newspaper; and,
WHEREAS, he was one of the leaders in the movement for incorporation of the City
of Saratoga on October 22, 1956; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Miller was for many years well known to Councilmembers and City staff
as one who maintained a lively interest in City affairs; and,
WHEREAS, he will be greatly missed by Councilmembers and staff as a friend and
associate.
•
NOW, TARE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the invaluable services rendered to Saratoga
by Shernlan Miller are hereby recognized by the Saratoga City Council, and condolences
are extended to Wilma Miller, his wife of many years; their son, Dr. Malcolm Miller;
and their grandson.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1981, by
the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
MAYOR, City of Saratoga, California
ATTEST:
M 21_.
CI'T'Y OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO.�
DA'L'E: August 14, 1981
DEPAMx 1fM: City Manager
SUBJECT': REGULATION OF SECOND HAND MERCHANDISE DEALERS TO ASSIST
IN IDENTIFYING STOLEN GOODS
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C.
C. Mgr.
Issue Summary 0RS
During the past several years, the incidence of burglary has increased many fold. Part ofjthe
reason for this increase is attributable to the strong market in second hand or "antique "rand
in precious metals. Such goods are easily "fenced" or traded through second hand goods or
antique shops, whether knowingly or innocently on the part of the dealers. To combat the crime
by providing an easier means of identifying stolen goods when offered for trade or sale, the
Sheriff's Department recommends that we adopt an ordinance, identical to one passed by the
Board of Supervisors, that requires merchants and dealers in second hand goods to hold such
goods in their original state for a 30 -day period, and to allow a peace officer to examine such
goods during this period. A $30.00 license fee is imposed and would be collected by the Sheriff
to process applications for registration.
Recomnendation
Introduce ordinance by reading title only.
Fiscal Impacts
Minimal fiscal impacts upon the City are anticipated. There are a small number of dealers and
merchants in Saratoga who would be affected., All are believed to be legitimate dealers who
should not be adversely affected by the requirements of the proposed ordinance. All dealers
have been notified of the proposed ordinance by the Sheriff's office.
Exhibits /AtttachTenis
Draft ordinance
Council Action
8/19: Mallory /Clevenger moved introduction by title only and waiving of further
reading. Passed 5 -0.
Mallory /Jensen moved adoption of Ordinance 38.102. Passed 5 -0.
•
•
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING ARTICLE V OF CHAPTER 4 OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA BY ADDING
DIVIS -TO'N 6, ENTITLED "SECONDHAND DEALERS"
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Article V of Chapter 4 of the Saratoga City Code is
hereby amended by the addition of a new Division 6 to read as
follows:
DIVISION 6
SECONDHAND DEALERS
Sec. 4 -143. Authority.
Pursuant to the authority provided in Article 4
(commencing with,Section 21625) of Chapter 9 of Division
8 of the Business and Professions Code, the City of
Saratoga establishes the following requirements for the
conduct of any secondhand dealer business located in
the City of Saratoga.
Sec. 4 -144. Definitions.
The definitions contained in Article 4 of Chapter 9
of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code are
incorporated herein.
Sec. 4 -145. Right of Inspection of Records.
Every secondhand dealer licensed under Business and
Professions Code section 21641, shall produce his or her
business records for inspection by the following persons:
(a) Any officer holding a warrant authorizing
him to search for tangible personal property, as
defined in Business and Professions Code section
21627.
(b) Any person appointed by the sheriff of
the county.
(c) Any officer holding a court order directing
him to search for tangible personal property, as
defined in Business and Professions Code section.
21627.
Such inspection shall be for the purpose of insuring
compliance with the reporting requirements of the Business
and Professions Code section 21628.
Sec. 4 -146. Right of Inspection of Property.
Every secondhand dealer licensed under Business and
Professions Code section 21641, shall produce for inspec-
tion, upon request of any officer specified in the previous
section, all tangible personal property, as defined in
Business and Professions Code section 21627, which such
secondhand dealer shall have acquired in the course of
business within the previous 30 days. Such inspection
shall be for the purpose of insuring compliance with the
reporting requirements of Business and Professions Code
section 21628.
Sec. 4 -147. Alteration of Original State.
All tangible personal property, as defined in
Business and Professions Code section 21627, acquired
in the course of business and subject to the reporting
requirements of Business and Professions Code section
21628, shall be segregated and shall not be altered from
its original state and appearance until after the 30 day
period as specified in Business and Professions Code
section 21636 or until earlier release pursuant to
Business and Professions Code section 21636.
-2-
n
r�
L J
•
•
•
Sec. 4-148. License Application Fee; Investigation.
The fee for processing an application for a license
under Business and Professions Code section 21641 shall
be thirty dollars ($30.00) in addition to any fee required
by the Department of Justice. The fee for renewal of a
license shall be thirty dollars ($30.00).
Secs. 4 -149 to 4 -199. (Blank.)
SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that
it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, sub-
section, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force
and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage
and adoption.
The above and foregoing ordinance was regularly introduced
and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed
and adopted this day of 1981, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
-3-
MAYOR
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd.
DATE: August 5, 1981 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT. Planning C. Mgr.
------------------ - - - - -- ----- - - - - --
Approval of a rezoning from R -1- 12,500 to R -M -4000 at
SUBJECT: 14239 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road (C -197) Applicant- Clarence Neale
Issue Summary
On July 8, 1981, the Planning Commission passed a resolution
recommending that the 1.16 acre site be rezoned from R -1- 12,500 to
R -M -4000. This rezoning would bring the zoning of the site into.
conformance with its general plan designation as apartments. The
applicant has indicated he wishes to locate two of the structures to
be removed from the Saratoga Federated Church property onto the site
for senior citizen housing.
Recommendation
1. Conduct the public hearing on the rezoning.
2. Determine the merits of the rezoning and approve or deny.
3. Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Negative Declaration dated June 29, 1981
3. Staff Report dated July 1, 1981
4. Minutes for the July 8, 1981 Commission meeting
5. Site maps
Council Action
8/19: Mallory /Callon moved to approve rezoning. Passed 5 -0.
1 ,
4.
,r�ISt,ly.jUa4 a� �� ,I f,- ar 1�`yf ap �., d• -
r ?RESOLUTION 'NO..". C -19 7
-
-d,d
;Q' KESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
t +qtr +xg +;W, {THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
_ r
,o
e � u
k
Jr>�.t�•ntR�L�r 14,,
'C t
�L„ r'w 51 ,Y'��•�
4t \
t•'
t x,,
t:
$ ti c rr •;
y�
3 '
4
r.
%W Y
w
r<
•F ifs r i.L �yt:. S �
r
a a _
r
Nr" -
y
WHEREAS,' the Commission held a Public Hearing on said proposed s;;K
r J1
F amendment, which Public Hearing was held at the following time and place
rfi z }� Y'A� ri � s,to wit. At the hour of 7 30 p.m on the 8th day of July, 1981 at the
City Council ,Chambers, 137V77 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California; and
t + °1{ }ih +iiAt I fir, thereafter said hear, , ing was closed, and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it
'{ ',,would affect the zoning regulation plan of the City of Saratoga, and
"after consideration of a Negative Declaration .prepared for the project
h`i,sand brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain
' 11 findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached here
} ..
to and marked Exhibit "A" should be affirmatively recommended to the
H af. City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of.Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached hereto
„. be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council
�i
of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of
"1
y
said City, and that the Report, of Findings of this Commission, a copy of
which report is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B ", be and the same
'd s' hereby approved, and "
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send a
{ co py of this Resolution,of Recommendation with attached Proposed Amend-
ment and Report of Findings and a summary.of hearings held by this Com
y 1. r l3 .
7a tmisSion to the City Council for further action in accordance with State ,...._
`' , ,. F } YrF Law ;t I, yv ) ,, + .: t •: , � -
t "'l-.PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
} >t r
p , C
# #>.State` of alifornia, this 8thl day of July, 1981, by the following roll
t�'�
i call vote
ctrt5� F,�,• 7r i. �
�i'3° ' -N ComrmL i� s�, st ir ot ,n'v, e,r� s Bolger + , . C� ro' ..
Lade
n sm AYES
; t r,. y �' i ,L' yJ.'t' Jt •' ':r r
c tiP
Commissioners Schaefer and Zambetti L�
t
Commissioner Monia
ABSENT
v �� .� "'!t'�s S�f. ' yt. rf i s"y.'.�. a �a , ;^t� btr+,., r 'r•r > f� r ,. ", /L•G '- G
D a
air an o t e Planning Commission
I
IC
7
PTMnTN(;.0
C -197
EXHIBIT "B"
1. The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of the site into confor-
mance with the Land Use Element of the 1974 General Plan of Saratoga.
2. The rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the zoning
ordinance as prescribed in.Section 1.1 of said ordinance.
3. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the
environment (Negative Declaration determined to be an appropriate
document).
File No: C -197
DECLARATION TBAT J:1,IVTI'.ONI.ENTAL
IMPT,CT REPORT NOT R17.QU IItED
.(Negativc'Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
Tho undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the
CITY OF SARAT03A, a Municipal Corporation; after study and evaluation
has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Lnvironmcntal.Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15030
th ouc;h 15023 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolutiolz 653 -
of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have
no si.gni=icant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment
within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PP.OJL'CT DESCRIPTIOi1
Rezone a 1:16 acre parcel from R- 1- '12,50b to RM -4000. The site is
located at 14230 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and identified as.APN 397 -27 -15
in the records of the Assessor of the County of.Santa Clara.— The action
is required to bring the General Plan and zoning into conformance.
pA1,1E ANTD ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Mr. Clarence N. Neale
14165 Saratoga-Sunnyvale-Rd.
Sarato a �A 9 070
TZEhSO� I• "0 NE ATIVE DECLARATION
The.proposed project will not have a signifi.cant adverse impact on the
environment since-it is an infill project which will not require the
significant.extensioji: of.urban.services and will comply with current codes
and ordinance when the project is physically developed.
E::ecuted at Saratoga, California this 29th day of' June
R. S. ROBINSON, JR.
DIRECTOR OF PLANT\ II`G AND EI`��IROI.r l:i�7
CO '2111: CITY 0 ISAI'.ATOGA
, E
DIRECTOR' S AUT11011IZED TAFr MEMBER
C C
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 7/1/81
Commission Meeting: 7/8/81
SUBJECT t C -197 - Clarence W. Neale
14230 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
REQUE ST: Rezone the subject parcel identified as A.P.N. 397 -27 -15
-from R -1- 12,500 (Single - Family Residential) to R -M -4,000 (Multi - Family
Residential).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A negative declaration for this project. has
een prepared.
PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised by publishing in the
newspaper, posting, and by mailings to 89 nearby property owners.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Apartments
ZONING: R -1- 121500
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential (R -1- 10,000 and R -1-
12,500) to the north and east; multi - family residential (R -M -3000 and
R -M -4000) to the south and west.
SITE SIZE: 1.16 acres (50,529 sq. ft. ±)
SITE SLOPE: Gentle
STAFF ANALYSIS: The current R -1- 12,500 zoning for the site is not
consistent with the apartments designation established for the site in
the 1974 General Plan. The purpose of this application is to remove this
inconsistency and bring the zoning of the site into conformance with
the General Plan as per Section 65860 of the Government Code. ;.Staff
feels that under certain conditions the site would -be appropriate for
higher density development.
The site is currently occupied by two dwelling units which will remain
on the site. The applicant proposes, for the time being, to relocate
the two structures on the Saratoga Federated Church site to his property.
The structures would be brought up to code and placed between the exist-
ing structures. The units would be rented to senior citizens at a cost
- of $ 350..to $400-per--month. - - — ----- --- --- - -- - -
Report
to Planni — Commission
7/1/81
C -197
Page 2
Access to the site from Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road is through Neale's
Hollow Lane and Arbeleche Lane. The applicant has indicated that a
301wide non - exclusive easement allows him access on -the above mentioned
routes. However, since the proposed rezoning could increase the max-
imum number of dwelling units that would be allowed on the site from
4 units to about 12 units, Staff has determined that a second access to
the site is necessary for adequate fire protection and the provision of
emergency services. It is also suggested that the entrance to Neale's
Hollow be widened to provide easier access to the site. The applicant
feels that the present access is sufficient.
Under Section 18.11 of the zoning ordinance the Commission.can.recommend
to the Council that the site be conditionally reclassified from an R -1
to an R -M district to ensure compliance with community objectives. The
conditions that can be applied to the proposed rezoning are:
1. That one of the uses for which the property was reclassified shall
be established, and /or
2. That a particular use represented by the applicant as being in-
tended by him shall be established, and /or
3. That a particular use and /or structure or structures represented
by the applicant as being intended by him shall be established and con-
structed, within a specified period of time, and in accord with such
plans as presented by the applicant in requesting the change of zoning
granted, the nonhappening of which would in such specified period of
time automatically reinstate the previous district 'classification ex-
isting prior to the ordinance changing the zone.
Staff recommends that, if the rezoning is to be approved, a condition
be added to require a complete developmental plan for the site, in-
cluding a second access to the site, prior to the rezoning becoming
effective. Staff has tried to contact the Santa Clara Valley Water
District to determine if a second access to the site could be provided
from their property immediately to the East. There is an existing gate
protected driveway that..could be utilized if the Water District were
willing.
FINDINGS: If the Commission determines that this rezoning should be
recommended for approval by the City Council, the following findings
should be made:
1. The proposed rezoning will bring the zoning of the site into con-
formance with the Land Use Element of the 1974 General Plan of Saratoga.
2. The rezoning is required to achieve the objectives of the zoning
ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of said ordinance.
3. The proposed rezoning will not have a significant impact on the
environment (Negative Declaration determined to be an appropriate.
document).
OPTIONS: 1. Recommend ;conditional approval of the rezoning to
t e,City Council.
2. If the Commission feels this proposed rezoning is un-
acceptable they should recommend that the General Plan designation
for the site shown on the 1974 General Plan Map be ammended to Medium
Density Residential to reflect the site's current zoning.
Report to Planning (Commission (_ 7/1/81
C -197 ` \ Page 3
This could then be addressed by the General Plan Advisory Committee.
3. Schedule this item for a study session and request further
information from the applicant.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
forward to the City Council the attached resolution recommending con-
ditional reclassification of the site's zoning from R- 1- 12,500 to R -M-
4000 to bring the zoning of the site into conformance with the Land
Use Element of the General Plan. The following conditions shall be added:
1. Prior to final approval by the City Council of this request, the
applicant shall prepare a total site development plan showing the place-
ment of existing and future structures for Planning Commission and City
Council review and approval. Applicant-shall also submit proof of a
viable secondary access to the site to provide adequate fire and emer-
gency access.
2. The structures shown on the above mentioned site development plan
shall be in place within two years of approval of that plan by the
City Council. If this is not accomplished, the rezoning of the site shall
revert to R -1- 12,500.
Approved:
Michael Flores, Assistant Planner
MF /as
P.C. Agenda: 7/8/81
t l 4
H '� � r V /�Ybit1•j "y�rcq�,J�'�ia' )� °��t19.,�;.y1° ,4 y - / � .. '�.
' Commission
1
2 'M Minutes 7/8/81 g ,.
}w
t
F f
'S.
-4- ,: , '0?:
Y .•'
�;'SDR -1499 (conta
�w +existing legal lot and the applicant has a right to build on it.
i,,•Richard Stowers, architect, 'questioned 1 the condition by the Saratoga
>3'Fire District requesting 'a 32 foot radius on site. He explained that
�� <a turnaround having'that large a radius would be detrimental to the site
,C '.,because" "of the`trees and topography. It was determined that the Fire
llistrict_ does have various options to a standard 32 foot radius turna-
�z ound, and Condition V, -,B should read "Construct a turnaround at the
prroposed dwelling site having a 32 foot inside radius or other approved
re
p e turnaround which must meet uirements of the Fire Chief. Details
t hf q
shall be shown on building
lans. P
.. ,Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve the
Negative Declaration for SDR -1499. The motion was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve
per the Staff Report dated July 8, 1981 as amended, and Exhibit
' "B ". The motion was carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
f., 6a. Negative Declaration - C -197 - C. Neale
6b C -197 C. Neale, Consideration of Rezoning from R -1- 12,500 to R -M -4,000
on the 1.15+ acre parcel located at 14230 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Staff described the proposed rezoning. They commented that they have
'rt{3 concerns regarding secondary access. The Santa Clara Valley Water District
has indicated that up to one - quarter of the site would be taken up by
easements due to flood hazards, and this would significantly reduce the
,? `?
.� maximum number of allotted units that could occupy the site.
Chairman Laden stated that the issue at this time is the rezoning of this
[ property to bring it into conformance with the General Plan. She explained
that the owners can later bring in a site development plan, at which time
yy Y the structures can be conditioned and the access can be addressed. She
n rh ,added that the Commission can either suggest a rezoning or General Plan
Amendment to the City Council.
kr5K�,,' j a The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m.
r� C: 14 6 S S 1 R d d t, h h
..._. ..
larence Neale, 1 5 aratoga- unnyva e oa , state t at e as two
.'accesses to the property in his deed, both of which are accessible to
,,'..A,<-..Highway 85. He explained the history of the site, explaining that the
,5,,,_ property had previously been zoned R -M -4,000 and had not been developed;
s ;';therefore the zoning had reverted back to R -1. Mr. Neale described the
cess roads.and the proposed project, stating that he wished to build
?iecunits for senior citizens on this property.
1 The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the rezoning'of the property
},.would not give building site approval; that can be dealt with at a later
date. Chairman Laden explained to Mr. Neale that the emergency access
condition could be addressed with the Fire Chief when the time comes to
,> develop
r'Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger
y econded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
,�f4r'r,Commissioner Crowther questioned why a inning of R -M -5,000 was not being
c' considered, since it is listed in the ordinance. Staff explained that the
is consistent with adjacent developments and there is presently
1. no R -M -5,000 in'the City. ,, Commissioner Crowther commented that he felt
000, would be more consistent with the density requirements of the
_.f General Plan. ,He noted that this site is already being used for multi-
.2
4
'V'Commission :.J
Page 3
ing i. nutes 7/8/81
I
A ;,trj� 'o,
V
6"
U
'an i s- d, - reciiy �adj ace'nt tib, another multi - family !residential area.
r, =Commissioner Schaefer :agreed that `she felt the R-M-5,000 zoning would be
-.reasonable. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission
�,k�that a R-M-4,'bqo.. zoning would be consistent with the General Plan.
;z::The Negative Declaration for the rezoning was discussed, and it was
'd t
ermined that the sentence reading "The applicant intends to provide
;,senior c rental housing on the site" should be deleted. Chairman
citizen
Laden explained to Mr._ -Neale that he can specify senior citizen rentals
pl, - to the bank and City when he comes in with a site development plan.
ommissioner King moved to recommend to the City Council the amended
.'Negative Declaration and rezoning to R-M-4,000 for application C-197,
bringing it into conformance with the General Plan; making the necessary
findings. : "Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, amending it to
40,1
the conditions recommended in the Staff Report, that the applicant
shall prepare a-total site development plan and submit proof of a viable
secondary access to the site.' The amendment failed for lack of a second
C ommis sioner Bolger seconded Commissioner King's motion for recommendation of
?,N the Negative Declaration and rezoning. Commissioner Crowther moved to
rv, V
amend the motion to rezone the property to R-M-5,000 instead of R-M-4,000.
Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which failed, with Commissioners
Bolger, King, Laden and Zambetti dissenting. The vote was taken on the
recommendation for -rezoning to R-�-4,000 and the Negative Declaration.
E.,
Commissioner Zadbetti stated he w uld be voting no, explaining that it
be a.conditional rezoning and he feels that at some future time,
final approval is given at the City Council level, the applicant
should submit a site development plan to ensure a viable double access for
fire and emergency. He added that he feels, if the site development plan
was not activated in two years, then the plan should revert back to a
:,j R-1-12,500 zoning. Commissioner Schaefer agreed. The motion for rezoning
tr
to R -M-4,000 was carried, with Commissioners Zambetti and Schaefer dissent-
U
ing.
v:,:. Chairman Laden suggested to Mr. Neale that he follow Commissioner's Zambettils
Vt !suggestion to present a site development plan to the Planning Department
their..review• Mr. Neale stated he would do so as soon as possible.
T., UP - 503 Dr. Collinson,'Re4uest for a Use Permit to allow the continuation
new ownership, of an existing veterinary clinic
in the
C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial) district at 13561 Quito Road
described the proposal r.
J4,
public hearing was opened at 8 45 m.
.
.�S i n c e no one appeared, Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public
Nl.hearing.' Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried
"'�' ,'unanimously
4
C ommiss ioner'Crowther moved to approve UP -503, making the findings. Com-
missioner Schaefer, seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously .
that .the'Commission should ,
ould co'n'sider changing the use permit
suggested?
-run with the land','"as opposed to with the owner. The whole issue of
pe'rmiiswill., ;be taken up in.a future study session.
7
0.
4 s t for 'a Use Permit to allow the construction of
'I"'ad'eta'c':hed garage over,,'6'y in height re ired
(12,,,,max.) in the, qu
d
ear':yar at '19621
Juna Lane
rt,.on- ,the proposal was given .,Dy. Staff ".%The setbacks of the 'project
discussed
A
4L.'
OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
COYnLCD IR COR IORMARCE WITH $t C.317' • .
Ol THE RLV ErVt AND TAXATION CODE PAGC-
[IIE I- ASS
DATE MARCNSSOD
4 y� I'• _ I �Q7
LfRED E. 'CARLSGN•ESSOR
26 ±
al SCALE 111-100/' iC! ` 7
P�j 9 3.488Ac.
LL r s C7. I/ J 9
O I!
C \`
1 O i911 ' 1 \�\ •... 9R I
1 I 1
lijsT �
- - - ziszy
t
Je" 1S `, PARCEL 2
PARCEL!
111 �0 1 70
r x' 2 -1 3 j 4
20 01 I
0
asS' o 4
/S
-i /F Fn /7
W
—__ —_" o.
nlaD _ x ,LOP
Q !9
i
I Gz
I-- 1� I
VICTOR pt -,
W 41
Z � "s.li I t .13
C � � ,9 10 9 /0
V
I
>
I I
B II °I // is 2
eel _� _'1 ^1����PTN CITY OF I'�79 J PT N.t o.1i'AC. IW Ii PTN.14
w. n
12 $ARATOG 4ITI. 3 I Klso
-4 SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE
_115"'V
1
it 14,;67
503
RD.S. 374/53
31
OAR, IItA:Z
AC y
4z
Lo ,r 0.8089 At `
,S
28 \
N SARAT06A 1' �'
Y G 0. 62 A
. C.
� 0.30 AL� �+ •��
I
MARY PARKER HOP/ ESTER
CITY OF SARA' QQN
ti Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO . Dept. Hd .
DATE: 8/13/81 C. At
DEPARI=:. Public Works C. Mgr.
- )11'�
SUBJECT: REPORT AND ASSESSMENT FOR WEED ABATEMENT - 1981 SEASON
Issue Summary
Fire Marshall has submitted the list of unpaid weed abatement charges for the
1981 Weed Abatement Program in Saratoga.
Recommendation
Hold Public Hearing and, if appropriate, adopt Resolution No. confirming
report and assessment.
t
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachmients
Resolution No.
Council Action
8/19: Jensen /Mallory moved to adopt Resolution 1028. Passed 5 -0.
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING REPORT AND
ASSESSMENT RE: WEED ABATEMENT
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on August 19, 1981 the Fire
Marshal of Santa Clara County did submit a report to this Council
consisting of all unpaid bills for weed abatement expenses and a
proposed assessment list, and the parcels against which said expenses
plus applicable administrative and collection costs are to be assessed,
all pursuant to Article II, Chapter 6 of said City Code, being the Weed
and Rubbish Abatement provisions of this City, and
WHEREAS, the Council having heard said report, and all objections
therto, and the Council finding that no modifications need be made to
any of said assessments, and good cause appearing therefore,
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
The report of the Fire Marshal of Santa Clara County as of August
3, 1981, which report is dated August 3, be and the same is hereby con-
firmed. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by refer-
ence is a list of the assessor's parcel numbers, names and addresses of
owners of said property, list of unpaid bills, and the amounts of the
assessment for each of said parcels. Each of said parcels as shown on
the attached exhibit is respectively declared to have a lien against it
in the amount set opposite said parcel number in the last column thereof,
and the Santa Clara County Auditor is hereby directed to enter the amounts
of said assessments against the respective parcels of land on the County
Tax Roll, and to collect the same at the time and in the manner as gen-
eral Municipal property taxes are collected.
A certified copy of this resolution and assessments shall be .filed
with the Santa Clara County Auditor.
:•.'.:z? =; <- c= =s :, _:;..::::..., ,;,::.<. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced
and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sara-
toga held on the day of 1981, by the
following vote:
C7
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
County of Santa Clara
California
EMA/GSA
Environmental Management/
General Services Agency
Ms. Betsy Cory
Deputy City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
`C.OMCD
AU r) 4 1981
Subject: Report and Assessment for Weed Abatement -
1981 Season
Dear Ms. Cory:
Office of the Fire Marshal
70 W. Hedding St., East Wing
San Jose, California 95110
299 -2041 Area Code 408
August 3, 1981
Enclosed are five (5) copies of the 1981 Report and Assessment for Weed Abate-
ment for the City of Saratoga.
It will be appreciated if you will have the lists posted according to code
requirements.
The date of the public hearing for presentation and confirmation of the
weed abatement assessments is confirmed for August 19, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. I
will attend the public hearing.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please don't
hesitate to call me.
Yours very truly,
!!1i
Cli ford M Johnson
Fire Marshal
CMJ /k
enc. (5)
cc: Chief Ernest Kraule (w /list)
Saratoga Fire District
64� () b L
® An Equal Opportunity Employer
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL
70 WEST REDDING STREET
SAN JOSE, CA 95110
1981 WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS
CITY OF SARATOGA
1981 WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES
TOWN; Saratoga P.I. CODE 845
OWNER
APN
AMOUNT
CARREIA, ABEL M. & LEILA R.
366- 12-031
$ 643.96
12299 S. Hwy 9
Saratoga, CA 95070
CARREIA, ABEL M. & LEILA R.
366- 12-068
844.30
12299 S. Hwy 9
Saratoga, CA 95070
QUARNSTROM, JOHN E. & THERESA A.
366- 13-007
112.52
P.O. Box 510
Pescadero, CA 94060
MARDESICH, NICK
366- 22-022
60.82
563 Alberta Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
JACKSON, DONALD K., et al
386 - 30-034
145.46
P.O. Box 1522
Cupertino, CA 95014
NEIPP, BARBARA G.
391- 02-032
60.76
13040 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
RODEO OAK CREEK PARK OF SARATOGA
391 -03 -277
83.16
P.O. Box 3216
San Jose, CA 95156
RODEO OAK CREEK PARK OF SARATOGA
391-03 -282
314.82
P.O. Box 3216
San Jose, CA 95156
CAL -WEST COMMUNITIES, INC.
391-06 -143
112.92
780 Welch Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CAL -WEST COMMUNITIES, INC.
391 -06 -144
106.98
780 Welch Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
TITLE INS. & TRUST CO.
391 -14 -022
184.14
P.O. Box 67
Saratoga, CA 95070
1981 WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES
TOWN: Saratoga
OWNER
CARDONA, CARL & JACQUELINE
18737 Aspesi Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
SHRIVER, PATRICIA J.
18733 Metler Ct.
Saratoga, CA 95070
KOMPOLT, MURIEL L.
18725 Metler Ct.
Saratoga, CA 95070
RAY, DANNY P. & GEORGIA A.
1218 Flora Ave.
San Jose, CA 95117
STURLA, WARREN A.
P.O. Box 21
Saratoga, CA 95070
STURLA, WARREN A.
P.O. Box 21
Saratoga, CA 95070
MVS CO.
P.O. Box 67
Saratoga, CA 95070
BELLICITTI, ISABELLE
18500 Marshall Ln.
Saratoga, CA 95070
BATTAGLIA, JOSEPH P.
760 N. First St.
San Jose, CA 95112
BARRON, JACOB S. & RUTH Z.
14140 Ten Acres Ct.
Saratoga, CA 95070
WORTHINGTON, J.R. & BARBARA A.
14131 Ten Acres Ct.
Saratoga, CA 95070
-2-
P.I. CODE 845
APN
AMOUNT
391 -55 -016
$ 106.98
391 -55 -017
87.00
391 -55 -019
28.48
391 - 56-049
214.04
391 -62 -001
26.40
391 -62 -002
129.34
391 -62 -017
253.20
397 -01 -006
79.86
397-01 -019
155.26
397 -01-052
110.16
397 - 01-053
115.22
1981 WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES
TOWN: Saratoga P.I. CODE 845
OWNER APN AMOUNT
KOSICH CONSTRUCTION CO.
397 -01 -064
$ 156.74
18867 Kosich Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
THOMAS, CLAYTON F. & DOROTHY L.
397 -02 -106
96.12
1741 Saratoga Ave., No. 210
San Jose, CA 95129
BUEHNER, OLIVER W., Trustee
397-02 -109
49.08
18650 Allendale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
SUNDQUIST, STEVEN V., et al
397 -03 -050
118.80
5985 Tandera Ave.
San Jose, CA 95129
ALLEN, PATRICIA E.
397 -05 -039
80.20
18579 Vessing Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
SPEARS, ALBERT & ROSALEEN
397- 05-068
89.10
11 Reservoir Rd.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
JANOVICH, STEVE & FRANCES
397 -07 -086
191.70
7639 Prospect Rd.
San Jose, CA 95129
RENNA, RALPH & DORIS
397 - 07-087
147.28
3613 Country Wood Ct.
San Jose, CA 95130
ROLIZ, INC.
397 -07 -092
170.44
P.O. Box 1137
Saratoga, CA 95070
ROLIZ, INC.
397 -07 -095
109.36
P.O. Box 1137
Saratoga, CA 95070
HAAS, RONALD & BARBARA
397 -07 -096
102.46
14264 Taos Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
-3-
1981 WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES
TOWN: Saratoga
OWNER
O'DONNELL, DANIEL B. & JOANNE
19135 Monte Vista Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
MADDEN, GARY & MARY
1832 Dry Creek Rd.
San Jose, CA 95124
FRUITVALE AV UNIT TWO IMPROVEMENT
P.O. Box 126
Saratoga, CA 95070
JOHNSON, JOHN D. & LOIS A.
2Q Notre Dame
San Jose, CA 95113
MOORE, ELLEN C.
1089 S. Daniel Way
San Jose, CA 95128
ROBERTSON, CHARLES
1006 Saratoga - Sunnyvale
San Jose, CA 95129
IOE, LORY F. & MARILYN B.
715 Blackfoot Ct.
San Jose, CA 95123
RODONI, LILLIAN
P.O. Box 305
Saratoga, CA 95070
DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORP.
P.O. Box 2805
Santa Clara, CA 95051
DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORP.
P.O. Box 2805
Santa Clara, CA 95051
-4
P.I. CODE 845
APN AMOUNT
397 - 08-057 $ 92.08
397 - 13-037 162.06
397 -16 -117 106.92
397 -22 -012 63.38
397 -24 -022 93.22
397 -25 -064 118.06
397 -25 -097 87.22
397 -29 -005 317.58
397 - 37-018 74.84
397 - 37-019 74.84
1981 WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES
TOWN: Saratoga P.I. CODE 845
OWNER APN AMOUNT
DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORP.
397 -37 -020
$ 74.84
P.O. Box 2805
Santa Clara, CA 95051
DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORP.
397- 37-021
291.52
P.O. Box 2805
Santa Clara, CA 95051
ANDERSON, EARL R. & CLARA H.
407 -17 -003
101.80
1900 Pollard Rd.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
CONE, BETHEL M., et al
503- 09-007
23.02
409 Alberto Way, Suite 3
Los Gatos, CA 95030
CONN, MICHAEL L. & CAROLE A.
503 -14 -032
100.18
3969 Freed Av
San Jose, CA 95117
CHADWICK, ALLEN L. & BARBARA
503- 15-027
322.24
13539 Mandarin Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
COCCIARDI CORPORATION
503- 15-031
52.18
22631 Mt. Eden Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
MARCHANT, ROBERT & DIANNA
503- 15-035
82.36
21567 Rainbow Dr.
Cupertino, CA 95014
MARTINEZ, MICHAEL R. & MARILYN J.
503 -17 -026
299.22
5885 Dash Ct.
San Jose, CA. 95120
FLYNN, GEORGE W. & PATRICIA B.
503 -17 -027
106.92
390 Hillsdale Ave.
Santa Clara, CA 95051
LARSEN, TOR G. & ELSE G.
503- 18-070
192.44
12929 Pierce Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
-5._
1981 WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES
TOWN; Saratoga P.I. CODE 845
OMR APN AMOUNT
TOUGAS, BERNARD E. & DORIS G.
503- 19-067
$ 147.42
20604 Wardell Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
BAKER, NORMAN
503- 23-032
138.10
P.O. BOX 387
Saratoga, CA 95070
CHABRE, AIMEE, et al
503 -24 -004
88.84
24550 Santa Cruz Highway
Los Gatos, CA 95030
CASABONNE, YVES G. & ANNETTE E.
503 -24 -007
17.88
20120 Harriman Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
CARROLL, STANLEY E. & CAROLEE
503 -24 -039
142.36
13410 Beaumont Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
MC BAIN & GIBBS, INC.
503 -28 -117
46.04
P.O. Box 908
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
MC BAIN & GIBBS, INC.
503 -28 -118
46.04
P.O. Box 908
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
MC BAIN & GIBBS, INC.
503 -28 -119
46.04
P.O. Box 908
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
MC BAIN & GIBBS, INC.
503 -28 -120
46.04
P.O. Box 908
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
MC BAIN & GIBBS, II-.
503 -28 -121
46.04
P.O. Box 908
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
MC BAIN & GIBBS, INC.
50.3 -28 -122
46.04
P. 0. Box 908
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
-6-
1981 WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES
TOWN: Saratoga
OWNER
MC BAIN & GIBBS
P.O. Box 908
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
MC BAIN & GIBBS
P.O. Box 908
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
RIDDER, JOSEPH B.
750 Ridder Park Dr.
San Jose, CA 95190
SCHROEDER, BERT N. & PAULINE M.
21300 Saratoga Hills Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
RIDDER, JOSEPH B.
750 Ridder Park Dr.
San Jose, CA 95131
WALKER, THOMAS E. & SUSAN
1134 Littleoak C1
San Jose, CA 95129
BOHN, ROBERT H. & GAY M.
20056 Kern C1
Saratoga, CA 95070
NOONAN, PETER B. & MARGARET L.
P.O. Box 1380
Campbell, CA 95008
DE MARTINI, ALLEN..F. & BARBARA J.
17th Floor Mills Tower
San Francisco, CA 94104
MEDALLION DEVELOPMENT CORP.
3600 Pruneridge Ave., Suite 330
Santa Clara, CA 95051
DHAKA, VIR A. & MOHINI
31028 Marne Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274
-7-
P.I. CODE 845
APN
AMOUNT
503 -28 -123
$ 46.04
503 -28 -124
46.04
503 -29 -012
235.24
503 -29 -029
106.92
503 - 29-078
128.32
503- 30-002
98.14
503 -30 -030
149.04
503 -30 -057
172.86
503 - 31-002
138.10
503 - 31-052
506.38
503 -53 -061
144.66
1981 WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES
TOWN: Saratoga P.I. CODE 845
OWNER APN AMOUNT
PONTIER, LENA
503 -53 -064
$ 114.96
P.O. Box 212
Saratoga, CA 95070
KENNEDY, CHARLES H.
503- 55-046
14.64
21197 Haymeadow Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
SHANAFELT, JOHN J.
503 -55 -063
110.56
918 Vermont St.
San Jose, CA 95126
MC BAIN & GIBBS, INC.
503 -62 -014
92.08
P.O. Box 908
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
MC BAIN & GIBBS, INC.
503- 62-015
92.08
P.O. Box 908
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
MC BAIN & GIBBS, INC.
503- 62-016
46.04
P.O. Box 908
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
MC BAIN & GIBBS, INC.
503 -62 -017
46.04
P.O. Box 908
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
MC BAIN & GIBBS, INC.
503-62 -018
46.04
P.O. Box 908
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
MCMAHON, PATRICK R. & PAMELA A.
510 -52 -005
158.02
553 Bucher Ave.
Santa Clara, CA 95051
PRONGER, NORMAN (TRUSTEE)
517 -12 -032
37.86
20600 Lomita Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
KOCHER, RAISA R.
517 -22 -037
53.66
15139 Park Dr.
Saratoga, CA 95070
-8-
1981 WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES
TOWN: Saratoga P.I. CODE 845
OWNER APN AMOUNT
MARKULIN, JOHN & ANGELA 517 -22 -101 $ 72.36
14777 Montalvo Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
FULDE, WALTER J. & CATHERINE D. 517 -22 -103 72.36
15164 Montalvo Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
09-
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: Auqust 5, 1981
In
De
C.
WAdministrative Services C.
------------------------- -------------------------------------------
SUB_EC'r: Municipal Solar Utility Program -
Joint Powers Agreement and Contract Agreement
Issue Summary
The attached Joint Powers Agreement establishes the California Solar Energy Conservation
Development Authority (CalSECDA) relative to the City's proposal to participate in the
second phase of the California Energy Commission's Muncipal Solar Utility Program. The
Contract Agreement is between the City and CalSECDA and fulfills CEC requir(�nents for
program participation.
P--ccnTnendation
It is recommended that the Saratoga City Council authorize the JPA creating CalSECDA and
the Contract Agreement between CalSECDA and the City. It is also requested that the Council
designate a council representative to the CalSECDA Board.
I
•
Fiscal Impacts
Each new phase two participant will be reimbursed up to $3,000.00 for travel and per diem.
A membership requirement of $1,000.00 each, may be deducted, from the $3,000.00 or donated:
by the provision of in -kind services. Consultant assistance to address the specific needs
of participant proposed programs in the amount of $45,000.00 is available. CalSECDA staffing
costs are also provided by the CEC. Saratoga's proposed program options will target revenue
generation for on -going self- sustaining operation of our MSU activity as a primary program
goal.
Exhibits /Attachments
• Muncipal Solar Utility Program memo-
• Proposed CalSECDA Joint Pavers Agreement
• Proposed Contract Agreement (City of Saratoga and CalSECDA)
• Saratoga MSU Program Options: Broker Model and Facilitator Model
Council Action
8/19: Jensen /Clevenger moved to adopt staff recommendation to approve agreement and
authorize Mayor to execute. Passed 5 -0.
eClevenger /Mallory moved to appoint Callon representative CalSECDA Board; Jensen
1st alternate; Carnekie 2nd alternate. Passed 5 -0.
asm
TO: City Manager
(09,2W @a O&M&ZOO&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438 .
FROM: Housing and Community Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: .Municipal Solar Utility Program
DATE: 8/5/81
In April of 1981, the City responded to a Request for Proposal issued by the
California Energy Commission (CEC) for the development of municipal solar
utilities. Shortly thereafter, Saratoga's proposal was selected along with
eight others statewide. Saratoga's participation will be in the second
phase of the CEC's program.
As in Phase I, program participants will join together to form a Joint
Powers Authority which will act as the CEC grant recipient (total Phase II
budget amount is at least $118,000.00). Preliminary work to date has pro-
duced the name California Solar Energy Conservation Development Authority
(Ca1SECDA). In recognition of the benefits to be derived from this program,
many Phase I organizations remain participants in the second phase. In this
regard, the City of Oceanside will serve as the Ca.1SECDA finance control
agency with all requests for reimbursement going to that city. John Casey,
Mayor of Oceanside, will serve as Ca1SECDA chairman, a role that he also
filled during Phase I.
Phase II participants are requested to appoint an elected official to the
Ca1SECDA board. The local staff program manager (Stan Carnekie) will serve
as the City's alternate representative.
The Ca1SECDA Board meets once monthly throughout the ten month contract
period. Five workshops, which will be quite intensive, and last an entire
day, will be held as per contract requirement. These workshops will address
specific participant needs and proposed program objectives. It.has been
suggested that the monthly business meetings be held back to back with the
workshops, so as to facilitate attendance.and reduce travel and related
costs. The current schedul.e of meetings and workshops is as follows:
August 13 (Thursday) Ca1SECDA meeting
14 Workshop - "Marketing a Municipal Solar Utility"
Location: Arcata
September 11 (Friday) Ca1SECDA meeting
12 Workshop - "Legal Barriers"
Location: San Jose
October 16 (Friday) Ca1SECDA meeting
17 workshop - "Consumer Financing Packages"
Location: Monterey Park
City Manager -2- August 5, 1981
November 5 (Thursday) Workshop - "Consumer protection"
6 CalSECDA meeting
Location: Saratoga (Community Library)
December 4 (Friday) CaISECDA meeting
5 Workshop - "Miscellaneous Issues in MSU Development
Location: Oceanside
Subsequent meetings and locations remain to be scheduled.
The proposed Contract Agreement is between CaISECDA and the Phase II parti-
cipants vs. the CEC and participants. This provides greater local control
and flexibility while meeting CEC program requirements. To date, the City
is on target with the deliverables required by contract, i.e., submittal of
proposed Work Plan: two options, Broker Model and Facilitator Model. Con-
tract requirements call for the submittal to the City Council, by the end
of the contract period, of two program options, neither of which must be
adopted.
The two program options offered have been specifically developed to provide
the City Council with a broad range of choice in the depth of the City's
MSU involvement. Option 1, the Broker Model offers a more indepth approach
with the formation of an Alternative Energy Resources Commission or Task
Group oriented toward the development of an Energy Element to the City's
General Plan. This option as well as Option II, the Facilitator Model,
would establish aninhouse alternative energy information and referral
service inclusive of the development and implementation of various energy
and related ordinances.
The 'Facilitator Model (Option II), offers a less intensive involvement, by
deleting the Task Group and replacing the Energy Element with scaled down
energy conservation measures to be included within the Conservation Element
to the General Plan. It should be noted that both of our proposed options
are flexible and not cast in concrete, they may be modified during the
course of the contract as determined needs, circumstances, and experience
dictates. As previously mentioned, at the time of contract expiration,
the Council will be presented with two MSU options. At that time, the
City Council will be requested to adopt one of the options and begin imple-
mentation. Should the City Council choose not to adopt either option,
written articulation of the Council's action in not adopting will suffice
to complete the contract requirements. ,
/da
cc: Mike Flores
Stan( "Zarnekie
Housing and Community Development Coord.
�S
:tii1 E.�i1 OO R ,��;V�DTIij'�11
C
13777 FRUIWALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(•108) 867 -3438
TO: City Attorney DATE: 7/14/81
FROM: Housing and Calumity Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Transmittal for corrt'nent of revised CSECDA Joint Powers Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmitted herewith is the recently revised CSECDA Joint Powers Agreement.
As per our previous conversation relative to the prior draft, municipal cor-
porations will be the only signatories to this JPA. Those profit and non-
profit corporations selected for Phase II participation shall be non voting
members of CSECDA via a separate agreement with the Authority.
Your review of this draft is arequested. I would like to schedule this for
City Council action at their regular meeting on August 19, 1981. Being that
you are now basically familiar with this matter, and since ; ,have a considerable
amount of work to complete in order to meet the above dead e, your prompt
review and comments would be greatly appreciated.
/da
cc: City Manager
California =' Solar Eneri;
y Conservation Development Authority
Date: July 10, 1981
wy'
'rO: CalSECDA Members ��✓'�
FROM: Mignon Marks
SUBJECT: Revised Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)
Attached is a copy of the JPA which was modified at the
Ca1SECDA meeting on July 2.. The major change to the JPA
involves the eliminat:_on of references to duties required
under the Energy Commission's contract. Instead, the new
agreement treats Ca1S:I:CDA as an independent association
of local jurlsdiction�;. (CalSECDA will enter into indi-
vidual contracts with each community to compl,v with the
Energy Commission's contract requirements).
Please have your jurisdiction's legal counsel review this
,IPA and have it approved by your governing board if either
has not been done already. The original document is being
routed around for signature and will ultimately be .filed
at John Casey's office: in Oceanside.
'[he individual contracts between Ca1SECDA and the local
communities will be m._ciled to you separately around July 20.
L
DESCRIPTION:
MUNICIPAL SOLAR UTILITY PROJECT
OPTION 1
The City of Saratoga will develop a ccanprehensive energy program designed to
reduce the communities reliance on non- renewable energy sources.
As noted in the League of California Cities' Energy Statement, the effects of
energy costs and problems of supply are felt most immediately at the local level.
Energy directly affects the amount of money that each household has to spend.
Furthermore, it effects the cost of local government and, indirectly, the level
of service to the public. The League suggests that cities take the lead in
developing public programs to.conserve.energy, to distribute energy so that
everyone can be able to heat their homes, and to facilitate the accessibility
of alternative sources of energy. Cities are well suited to this task due to
their authority to administer building codes, determine land use, implement
ordinances and oversee that development which takes place in the ccaramunity.
CCities are also the most immediate and accessible form of government available
to the public. Thus, cities can effectively work in cooperation with residents,
local businesses and community groups to carry out programs that address the
unique needs of the local community.
Within the operational constraints of a small, minimum service city, an energy
program will be developed that will provide a foundation for overall energy -
conservation. The cornerstone of the program will be the creation of an Energy
Element to the City's General Plan. Additional energy conservation will be
facilitated by the development of an Alternative Energy Information and Referral
Section within the Community Development and Regulation Management Department.
The Energy Element to the General Plan would establish the basic policy of the
City's energy conservation effort. It could lead to the implementation of energy
related ordinances, i.e., requirements for energy audits, solar retrofit for
domestic hot water where appropriate, solar requirements for new construction,
i.e., solar water heater requirement for new residential construction, solar
water heater pre - plumbing requirement for new construction, etc., solar access
for subdivision development and existing residential structures, and other energy
conservation measures which may be developed and applicable to the City of Saratoga.
-1-
Page 2'
The City Council will establish an Alternative Energy Resources Commission
C(AERC) or Task Force to assess City needs, review state -of- the -art energy con-
servation measures, develop recommendations for the creation of the Energy
Element and the full implementation of the Saratoga Solar Policy. It is planned
that the AERC would be comprised of no more than six members that would represent
a broad spectrum of conmunity concern, technical expertise and enthusiasm.
A City Alternative Energy Information and Referral Service will be developed
that would provide a comprehensive range of energy related information and
technical assistance services, i.e., tax credit information, volume purchase
arrangement, design, installation and system maintenance, consumer protection,
assistance with City regulations, etc. This information and Referral Service
could also assist the development community by familiarizing them with City
requirements. The Information and Referral Service would act to facilitate
the goals of the Energy Element on a coordinated, day - to-day basis.
During the term of the Califorrnia Energy Commission - Ca1SECDA - City contract,
the City will develop those tools which are determined to be necessary for
the successful implementation of the MSU option selected by the City Council.
An implementation plan will be developed for each proposed option during the
contract period phase which will identify specific goals and objectives, basic
data and community needs, an action plan and the development of program activities.
C
BRJKER MODEL: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1. To reduce community -wide dependence on fossil based energy resources.
2. To encourage the conversion of systems using non - renewable energy
resources to solar systems wherever cost - effective applications
exist.
3. To facilitate the overall usage of alternative energy by providing
a City Alternative Energy Information and Referral Service.
4. To provide financial assistance to those of low to moderate income
in the retrofit of solar domestic hot water heating systems,
via the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program.
COBJECTIVES:
1. To establish a City Alternative Energy Resources Commission /Task
Force that will review, accept, reject or modify work completed
by staff to:
a. identify the potential for energy conservation within
the City and develop criteria for acceptable energy
conservation standards and make recommendations to
the City Council;
b. bring about citizen participation from all elements
of the community, i.e., business, industry, and
education, city residents and civic groups;
c. review background data and formulate recommendations
for the creation of an Energy Element to the City
General Plan;
-3-
Page 4
d. review existing and developing alternative energy
Cimplementation techniques for their applicability
within the City of Saratoga.
2. To develop and implement a solar retrofit and energy conservation
component to the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation
Program (SHARP).
a. for those of low to moderate income, provision of
financial assistance in the acquisition and
installation of residential solar energy systems.
Such families /individuals have traditionally been
found to have less discretionary income and
therefore are less likely to utilize.solar or
alternative energy systems.
b. provide . technical assistance in housing,
C inspection surveys, which identify housing
deficiences, etc., architectural services when
necessary, contract assistance, work and system
operation inspection during and after installation
and warrantee maintenance.
3. To develop an in -house Alternative Energy Information and Referral
Service. Centralized service would include, but not be limited to:
• Information on State of the Art solar systems.
• Tax credit information.
• Possible volume purchase and other cost reduction
methods for system conversion or installation.
• Consumer protection assistance, i.e., performance
bonding, maintenance contracts, warrantees, etc.
• Solar access evaluation and easement acquisition
assistance.
Page 5
• Assistance with City required regulations relative
Cto solar and alternative energy.
o Develop additional assistance as may be appropriate.
o Develop program transfer package.
4. To develcp a coordinated approach, within the City organizational
structure, to facilitate alternative energy utilization by:
a. provision of technical assistance to do- it- yourself
solar system or component installers.
b. inspection of solar installations to insure com-
pliance with building codes and quality workmanship.
c. expedite permit processes for alternative energy
purposes.
i .
Cd. consider the feasibility of establishing a City
Energy Division.
5. To examine legal implications of accamplishing planned objectives.
6. To assess the potential for revenue generation in order to
maintain an ongoing energy service.
7. To compare the two options provided and recommend appropriate
action to the City Council.
8. To obtain the approval of the Saratoga City Council to begin
implementation of the chosen option /plan.
BROKER MODEL: ISSUES
1. COMMUNITY ISSUES:
a. Given the Citys traditional minimum service orientation, which
MSU activities and services are most feasible?
b. Should the City establish mandatory requirements for alternative
energy utilization throughout the ccm unity?
2. LEGAL ISSUES:
a. Is the City's Liability exposure increased by implementation
of any of the components of this model? If yes, which are
they, what is the liability(s), and how may they be mitigated?
b. Does the City face legal problems by assisting in volume purchase
C_ or servicing arrangements aimed at cost reduction for solar
system utilization?
c. Can the City recommend specific contractors, service providers,
etc. for alternative energy systems and components?
d. Identification of legal concerns in implementing mandatory
solar ordinances and conservation procedures.
3. FINANCIAL ISSUES:
a. What potential sources of revenue generation exist within current
state limitations for providing services under this model?
1. Assistance in the development of an Energy Element to the General Plan.
a. Solar easement assistance.
b. Passive solar design criteria develognent.
c. Preparation of basic data for MSU.
d. Solar panel design criteria /minimize visual impact.
e. etc.
2. Provision of successful alternative energy ordinances.
3. Development of an altneative energy library including material suitable
for disemination to residents as well as technical material appropriate
for building inspection and plan check functions.
4. Suggestions for successful program marketing and public relations (workshops).
i .
5. Provision of successful citizen participation techniques especially as
�- they may be appropriate to the proposed Alternative Energy Commission /task
force.
6. Provision of solar access protection ordinances (e.g. solar easements).
7. Provision of design ordinances and criteria for passive and active solar
systems.
8. Successful energy conservation methods and ordinances.
9. Consultation on legal problems of mandatory ordinances, i.e., a) mandatory
nature of energy conservation ordinances - legal justification; b) implications
of City arranging volume purchase /service agreements for solar with local
private business.
10. Analysis of economic impacts and cost effectiveness.
11. Assist in developing building codes for alternative energy sources (parti-
cularly solar) and training Building Department personnel in implementing
those codes.
0►C
Wayne Dernetz
Robert Shook
Rob Robinson
Barbara Sampson
IMPLEMENTATION OF MSU PROGRAM
PARTICIPATING STAFF
Key staff members who may participate in the development of the MSU Program:
POSITION
City Manager
Public Works Director
EDUCATION
B.A. Economics
M.S. Public Administration
B.S. Civil Engineering
M.S. Civil Engineering
LOCAL GDW. AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Finance /Budget
General Plan Development
Negotiations
Project Design & Implementation
Management Consultant
General City Engineering Expertise,
including Flood control, rights -of -way,
Building
20 years experience as City Engineer
Planning Director A.A. General Education Recreational Planning
B.A. Chemistry Behavioral Design Planning
M.A. Landscape Architecture Urban Design
Impact Evaluations
10 years municipal Govt. experience
Director Community
Services
A.B. Physical Education/
Life Science
General Secondary Teaching
Credential (Not Active)
Community Services
Parks & Recreation - City Owned Property
Government & Public Buildings
23 years experience Municipal Govt.
Stan R. Carnekie Housing and Community A.A. Pre -Law Program Development & Implementation
Development Coord. B.S. Industrial Relations & Grant Application
Personnel Mgmt. Housing Development (Assisted)
(MSU project coord.) MPA Masters Degree - Public Needs Assessment
Administration 7 years Municipal Govt. experience
Life, College Teaching
Credential - American
Government /Political Science
Michael Flores Assistant Planner B.S. Geography Current Planning
(MSU project co- coord.) Concentration in environmental Implementation & modification of zoning
studies ordinances
General Plan Review
4 years municipal government experience
-8- \__: 1--)
C
SROEER MODEL: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
The Saratoga City Council will appoint an Alternative Energy Resources Commission
or Task Force (AERC). The AERC will be composed of local citizens representative
of a broad base of concerns and levels of expertise. As the AERC completes its
charge, recommendations will be made to the City Council and the General Plan
Citizens Advisory Committee relative to the generation of an Energy Element to
the General Plan. West Valley Conn unity College may be utilized as appropriate,
to encourage and meet program objectives. Courses in energy conservation may
be developed.
Throughout the development of the Energy Element, resident input will be encouraged
by attendance at public meetings and ultimately during legally required public
hearings prior to adopting the Element.
Additional methodoligies of assessing local resident needs and concerns in the
area of alternative energy may be implemented as they are developed during the
course of this contract.
CSECDA DELEGATES
CSE ®A Representative for the City of Saratoga: Mrs. Linda Callon, Mayor.
Stan Carnekie, City Housing and Community Developmnt Coordinator will be the
alternative delegate and program coordinator; and Michael Flores, City Assistant
Planner, will be program co-coordinator-
WA
ACTIVITY JULY '81
Refine Work Plan
.- Develop basic data /potential solar etc.
energy usage _
Define Energy Commission /Task Force
objectives & I.D. potential
participants _
Establish Energy Commission /Task Force
and begin work
Design & implement solar component to
Housing Rehab. program for low to
moderate income residents
Begin the development of solar
I & R Service
Begin development of City processes
to facilitate solar implementation
Examine legal barriers and potential
problems w/ MSU activity
Identify potential sources of revenue
generation per citys MSU activity
Begin design of Energy Element to
General Plan
Energy Commmission study - modification
of proposed MSU options
Begin development of solar and energy
related ordinances
Determination of which MSU option
to present to City Council
Begin implementation of City Council
approved option
Begin ongoing MSU activity
CITY OF SARATOGA MUNICIPAL SOLAR UTILITY PFmJECT SCHEDULE
AUGUST SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. '82
ON GOING
FEB. MARCFF APRIL MAY Jlf7E
1_J
MUNICIPAL SOLAR UTILITY PROJECT
FACILITATOR MODEL
OPTION 2
DESCRIPTION:
.,
The City of Saratoga will develop a limited energy program designed to-assist
citizens in reducing their reliance on non - renewable energy sources.
This option is a less intensive version of Option 1 in that no Energy Task Force
would be formed and no Energy Element would be generated. The existing conser-
vation Element to the General Plan would be modified to include policies and
objectives which would create a base for implementation measures encouraging
energy conservation and use of renewable sources of energy. Examples of these
implementation measures (which would be proposed by staff) are described in
the Goals and Objectives section of this draft. Public input on these objectives
and policies would occur as part of the General Plan review process in which
the City is currently involved, with using an existing General Plan Citizens
Advisory Committee.
The objectives and policies ofikhe Conservation Element would act as the base
for energy audit, solar access, and solar water heating ordinances.
CThe Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP) would be
modified, as in Option 1, to provide financial assistance in the erection of
alternative heating systems. The City would develop an Alternative Energy In-
forrmation and Referral Service, however, its range of service would be more
limited to existing staff. The City would likely be less active in promoting
solar energy through methods such as coordinating mass buying of solar panels
by residents.
-1-
GOALS:
Iow Rig
FACILITATOR MODEL: GDAIS AND OBJECTIVES
1. To reduce community -wide dependence on fossil based energy resources.
2. To encourage the conversion of systems using non - renewable energy
resources to solar systems wherever cost- effective applications
exist.
3. To facilitate the overall usage of alternative energy by providing
a City Alternative Energy Information and Referral Service.
4. To provide financial assistance to those of low to moderate income
in the retrofit of solar domestic hot water heating systems, via
the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program.
1. Modify the Conservation Element using the existing General Plan
Citizens Advisory Committee to:
a. Develop implementation measures which would encourage energy
conservation and use of renewable sources of energy such as:
i) Require subdivisions to take maximum advantage of solar
heating and cooling opportunities.
ii) Provide and guarantee solar access for new and existing
structures to the maximum extent possible.
iii) Require solar hot water heaters to provide the primary
source of heat for domestic and swimming pool water.
iv) Require energy audits and energy conservation measures
upon resale of dwellings.
v) Encourage energy conservation education programs.
vi) Encourage consumer protection through local guidelines
and use of state and utility programs.
b. Encourage citizen participation from all elements of the
community, i.e., business, industry, and education, city
residents and civic groups.
c. Review existing and developing alternative energy Implemen-
tation techniques for their applicability within the City
of Saratoga.
2. To develop and implement a solar retrofit and energy conservation
component to the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation
Program (SHARP).
-2-
Page 3
a. Fbr those of law to moderate income, provision of financial
assistance in the acquisition and installation of residential
solar energy systems.
b. Provide technical assistance in housing inspection surveys,
architectural services when necessary, contract assistance,
work and system operation inspection during and after instal-
lation and warrantee maintenance.
3. To develop an in -house Alternative Energy Information and Referral
Service. Centralized service would include, but not be limited to:
a Information on State of the Art solar systems.
a Tax credit information.
a Possible volume purchase and other cost reduction methods
for system conversion or installation.
• Consumer protection assistance.
o Solar access evaluation and easement acquisition assistance.
a Assistance with City required regulations relative to solar
and alternative energy.
jj
e Develop additional assistance as may be appropriate.
e Develop program transfer package.
4. To develop a coordinated approach, within the City organizational
structure, to facilitate alternative energy utilization by:
a. Inspection of solar installations to insure compliance with
building codes and quality workmanship.
b. Expedite permit processes for alternative energy purposes.
5. To compare the two options provided and recommend appropriate
action to the City Council.
6. To obtain the approval of the Saratoga City Council to begin imple-
mentation of the chosen option /plan.
FACILITATOR MODEL: ISSUES
1. COMMUNITY ISSUES:
s
a. What level of MSU activityjservice is most effective and appropriate
for a small, minimum service City?
b. Should the City establish mandatory requirements for alternative
energy utilization throughout the ccmunity?
2. LEGAL ISSUES:
a. Is the City's Liability exposure increased by implementation of
any of the components of this model? If yes, which are they,
what is the liability(s), and how may they be mitigated?
b. Can the City recommend specific contractors, service providers,
etc. for alternative energy systems and components?
c. Identification of legal concerns in implementing mandatory solar
ordinances and conservation procedures.
3. FINANCIAL ISSUES le
a. What potential sources of revenue generation exist within current
state limitations for providing services under this model?
-4-
� C
FACILITATOR'MODEL: TYPES OF REQUIREMEN`T'S
1. Provision of successful altnerative energy ordinances.
2. Development of an alternative energy library including material suitable for
disemination to residents as well as technical material appropriate for
building inspection and plan check functions.
3. Suggestions for successful program marketing and public relations (workshops).
4. Provision of solar access protection ordinances (e.g. solar easements).
5. Provision of design ordinances and criteria for passive and active solar
systems.
6. Successful energy conservation methods and ordinances.
7. Consultation on legal problems of mandatory ordinances such as:
a. City liability
b. Case law precedence .
c. Constitutionality of ordinances
C8. Analysis of economic impacts and cost effectiveness.
9. Assist in developing building codes for alternative energy sources (particularly
solar) and training Building Department personnel in implementing those codes.
i
-5-
r .
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: August 13, 1981
DEPARTMENT: Planning
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial: /Af4E�
Dept. Hd.
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Specific Plan Implementation' Ordinances
C. Atty,
C. Mgr.
Issue Summary
Staff has received six (6) proposals to write the implementation ordinances
for the Specific Plan Area per the attached RFP.
Recomnendation
After comparing the proposals with respect to approach, scope, final
products, process, staffing required, experience, cost and timing, Staff
recommends acceptance of the proposal by John Blayney and Associates
(attached).
Fiscal Impacts
The proposals ranged between $15,200 (with no meetings) to $48,000. The
recommended proposal has a maximum fee of $18,000 with attendance at six
public meetings. (It would be $14,650 without meeting attendance.)
These costs are to be recovered by the $172 /lot Specific Plan fee charged at
issuance of building permits.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Request for Proposal
2. Proposal for Preparation of Ordinances for Northwestern Hillside
Specific Plan
Council Action
8/19: Clevenger /Mallory moved to accept proposal frcin Blayney -Dyett and proposed
agreement. Passed 5 -0.
City of Saratoga
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
The City of Saratoga has recently completed a Specific Plan for the
Western Hillsides. In order to implement the Policies and Action Pro -
grains of the Specific Plan, it is necessary to adopt various ordinances
in a timely manner.
The City Council, at their June 2, 1981 meeting, approved the Specific
Plan and created a.four -month moratorium in order to allow sufficient
time to create these ordinances. (This moratorium may be extended by
the City Council).
I. SCOPE OF WORK
The consultant selected for the project will prepare and draft or-
dinances; a report regarding transfer of Development Rights and how
the City of Saratoga can implement such a program. Additionally, the
consultant shall be expected to participate in the public hearing
process through the City Council's final approval.
The consultant will be expected to deliver all draft and final
ordinances plus copies of all research papers utilized in preparing
the reports and ordinances.
i
A. Ordinances To Be Reviewed
1. Grading'Ordinance Revisions
2. Creation of a Zoning District for the Northwest Hillside
Area which includes a Transfer Development Right (TDR)
provision.
3. Review of the above mentioned ordinance in order to have
compliance with the Open Space Element and the Specific Plan
B. A Detailed Report Explaining The Transfer Development Right Process
C. Specific Ordinances To Be Revised (All ordinance drafts must
comply with applicable state codes and authorities)
1. Grading
a. In total compliance with Measure "A" policies
b. Inclusion of all grading limitations as indicated in
Specific.Plan Policies document
C. Incorporating where appropriate erosion control procedures
2. Zoning District Ordinances
a. Inclusion of a Transfer Development Right provision
b. Creation of allowed-and conditional uses within the district
Request for Proposal Page 2
City of Saratoga
C. Agricultural uses within the district
d. Setback requirements, heights, coverage factors, amount of
area to be enclosed by fences.
e. Inclusion of the slope /density formula to include a chart
indicating the minimum lot size requirement according to
average slope of lot.
f. Open space provisions to include open space easements, con-
servation easements.
g. Development standards for ridgeline lots
h. Provisions under which horses may be allowed based on
Specific Plan Policies and the ABAG 208 studies
A copy of the existing Grading Ordinance and the current HCRD ordin-
ance and a summary copy of the Special Plan Policies is enclosed for
your review.
Under the current concept envisioned by the City, the firm which would
be awarded the contract would work in conjunction with a project team
comprised of the Deputy City Attorney and City Staff members. It is
expected that the Staff project team would give initial guidelines, in-
terpretation of the Specific Plan policies where necessary, assistance
with resource material and review of all Draft Ordinances. The Deputy
City Attorney would give preliminary guidance regarding the Ordinance
and be available to review all work with the Staff and Consultants.
All consultant requests for assistance from the Attorney or Geologist
must go through the Planning Director unless other arrangements have
been made between the various parties.
II. TIME SCHEDULE
The City of Saratoga has imposed a four -month moratorium which was
initiated on June 2, 1981 and would expire the early part of October.
We have indicated to the Council the difficulty in meeting this
particular timeframe. However, all efforts should be made to have
the public hearing process started by mid - October at the Planning
Commission level. The proposal s1Tould indicate your ability to
meet this particular time schedule.
III. COST
The estimate for completion of the project must include preparation
of the draft ordinance and participation in meetings with the Plan-
ning Commission and City Council. Meetings may be bid separately,
but specify your rate for such meetings.
Additionally, we would expect that you would submit to the City
a completed, reproducible copy of all drafts and a final copy of
the ordinance.
Request for Proposal Page 3
' City of Saratoga
Your proposal must indicate a "Not to Exceed" Figure.
IV. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
The proposal shall indicate in detail what is proposed for in-
clusion in the ordinances; consultant's experience and qualifi-
cation in Hillsides issues and specifically, Transfer Development
Rights. Include a resume of individual(s) expected to work on the
project with the proposal. It is expected that the City will
award the contract on August 19, 1981, therefore, your proposals
along with a sample agreement should be received by July 31, at
City Hall.
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
In order to clarify the project, there will be a meeting on Monday,
July 20, at 3:00 P.M. in the Community Center Building to answer
questions and distribute a copy of the Specific Plan Policies.
VI. MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN ADDITION'TO SPECIFIC PLAN
• Detailed Geological Mapping - William Cotton
• Existing Grading $ HC -RD Ordinance
i
• FEIR for 300 of Area
• Circulation plan for area
• Traffic Studies - 1981
• ABAG 208 Hydrology /Erosion study
• County Resource Maps
• Trails & Pathway Maps & Programs
• Statement of City Policies re: Grading & Geology
Enclosures: 1) Grading Ordinance
2) HCRD Ordinance
3) Northwest Hillside Specific Plan Policies
ri
I
i
i
PROPOSAL FOR PREPARATION OF ORDINANCES
FOR NORTHWESTERN HILLSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN
Submitted to
City of Saratoga
M
BLAYNEY -DYETT, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS
July 31, 1981
Blayney -Dyett
Urban and Regional Planners
John A. Blayney, A.I.C.P.
Michael V. Dvett, A.I.C.P.
Robert W. Glover, A.I.C.P
July 31, 1981
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attention: Mr. R. S. Robinson, Jr., Planning Director
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
In accord with your invitation, we are pleased to submit the accompanying proposal
for preparation of ordinances to implement the Specific Plan for the Northwestern
Hillsides.
We believe our experience working in Saratoga and in Santa Clara County and pre-
paring zoning regulations, including hillside development standards, and ordinances
providing for transfer of development rights equips us to meet your needs.
Our proposal is organized in seven sections:
Approach
Scope of Work
Schedule and Budget
City Staff Participation
Firm Experience
Individual Qualifications
Sample Agreement
In addition to the material describing our qualifications in this proposal, we are
enclosing a firm brochure and loan copies of relevant reports.
We urge you to contact client references for their appraisals of our commitment to
quality, our creativity, and our adherence to time schedules.
Cordially,
John A. Blayney
sp
177 Post Street. Suite 750 •
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 421 -7735
•
APPROACH
The Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan, prepared pursuant to Measure "A," will allow
construction of about 480 additional homes in the 2,100 -acre study area. Saratoga
intends to adopt specific and detailed regulations that will allow these homes to be
built with the least possible impact on the natural environment and existing rural
character. The consultant will have primary responsibility for preparing zoning and
grading regulations, while the City staff will draft other ordinance revisions called for
by the Specific Plan.
The objective should be to draft the simplest, least limiting set of regulations that will
accomplish the intent of the Specific Plan while minimizing the amount of project
review time. It would be possible to select sites for each of the homes to be built that
would preserve the existing character to the satisfaction of nearly everyone. The
objective of the ordinances to be prepared is to approximate this result without an
onerous or arbitrary degree of regulation. Both potential developers and affected
residents should be able to determine what will be approved in advance of preparation
of a development proposal.
Because we believe there is more than one way of accomplishing most of the plan's
objectives, we will prepare a report listing alternative regulatory methods, illustrating
their application, and describing the pros and cons of each. Following response from
City reviewing bodies, we will draft the regulations. Our experience has been that
this "options approach" speeds the decision process. We must examine alternatives in
• any event, and we anticipate that members of the Planning Commission, the City
Council, and interested citizens will want to know why one method is being
recommended over another.
_•
Many of the options will represent trade -offs; regulation of one element may make
regulation of another unnecessary or may require another approach to it. For
example, if the maximum area of natural ground surface or natural vegetation that
may be distrubed is prescribed, grading standards and building coverage will be
affected. The visible bulk of a house usually will be less if grading to create a
natural- appearing pad is permitted; but if existing trees would screen a house built on
natural grade, the least intrusion would result and visible padding should be dis-
couraged.
A system for transferring development rights may be needed to keep development off
important ridgelines. Our options report will explain and illustrate the TDR concept,
but it also will describe alternatives to TDR that we may find feasible.
-1-
SCOPE OF WORK .
1. Review of Relevant Studies; Specify Work Schedule; Assignments
Our first step following selection will be to study the existing HC -RD and grading
ordinances and the results of their application in detail. We also will review EIRs
prepared for portions of the area and relevant sections of the General Plan, inlcuding
the Open Space Element.
A detailed time schedule will be prepared incorporating both consultant and City staff
efforts and procedures to ensure coordination.
2. Regulatory Options Report
A report will be prepared to explain and evaluate alternative regulatory devices for
implementing the Specific Plan. Sketches will be included where needed to clarify
concepts.
a. Transfer of Development Rights
TDR could be used to keep ridgelines open and may or may not be found necessary
to accomplish this objective. The concept will be explained and experience cited,
with particular attention given to recent and currently active programs at Malibu
and elsewhere in California. Possible applications will be described and impacts
on possible receptor areas evaluated. Topics to be covered will include:
— Donor sites (ridgetops; possibly riparian areas or highly visible hillsides).
— Receptor sites (in same ownership, in Northwest Hillside study area, outside
study area).
— Mandatory transfer vs. incentives to transfer vs. conditional transfer (each
may be applicable to different site conditions).
— Method of determining development rights. Allocation could be based on
slope density formula, with or without a bonus usable at the receptor site.
Limits on density increase at a receptor site must be specified.
— Economics of transferable development rights.
— Possible legal or precedential problems resulting from mandatory transfer.
— Administrative system; extent of City involvement.
b. Need for TDR
Factors to be evaluated in determining need for development rights transfer or •
other mitigating measures will include:
-2-
— Effect of development on or near ridgetops of different topographic char -
acter and with different vegetation. For example, does preservation of
ridgetops call for keeping rooflines below a topographic ridge or for avoiding
homes silhouetted against the sky as seen from Pierce Road?
— Visibility of development. More intensive development can be acceptable
where trees dominate.
c. Lot Design and House Siting
Rarely is sufficient attention given by the subdivision designer to the location of
the building site on lots for custom houses. Sometimes owners or architects will
select a site that impinges more than necessary on the character of the neighbor-
hood when another site on the same lot could provide equal living amenity. To be
equitable and effective, siting guidelines must be established at the tentative map
approval stage of development rather than after submission of a preliminary
architectural design. Alternative levels of detail of regulation will be offered.
Issues of concern will include:
— Possible limitations on vehicular access: Should access to all portions of the
site or even to main living levels be restricted on some sites?
— Shared use of access drives as a means of minimizing disturbance of natural
terrain. Pros and cons will be examined, together with market acceptance.
.. —
Area to be enclosed by fences; appearance; impact on adjoining property.
d. Grading
If final appearance is the major criterion, assuming safety and erosion control are
satisfactory, regulation should focus on limiting vegetation removal and blending
with natural slopes and revegetation. A combination of limitations on disturbance
of natural terrain or specific types of vegetation, and height and slope of cut and
fill slopes, could be used to minimize development impacts. In some cases,
minimizing grading may result in more intrusive development.
e. Roads and Driveways
Location criteria and design standards for roads and driveways require balancing
rural character, safety, speed, maintenance and construction cost, and cut and fill
standards. Alternative standards consistent with the Specific Plan will be
analyzed and reviewed with the public works staff.
3. Implementation Checklist
Following review of the options report, a checklist will be prepared listing all of the
policies in the Specific Plan and noting the recommended means of carrying out the
policy, the ordinance (if appropriate) that will contain the provisions, the
responsibility (consultant or staff) for ordinance preparation, and the date scheduled
for completion of the ordinance outline and the completed draft. This step will avoid
duplication or omission by defining the location of regulations that could be
incorporated in the zoning ordinance or grading ordinance or could be in other
ordinances.
4. Draft Zoning Ordinance District for Northwest hillside Area
The ordinance will be compatible with the City's current zoning ordinance, employing
the same definitions, organization, and procedures to the extent feasible. A tentative
outline will include:
— Purpose Statement: A clear statement of the reasons for the district will aid in
public understanding and will establish intent in the event of judicial review.
— Permitted Uses, including horses under specified conditions.
— Conditional Uses, including agriculture and plant nurseries, and criteria to be
applied in granting or denying approval of specific conditional uses.
— Geologic and Soils Report
— Design Review (Reference to Ordinance NS 3.47)
— Density: Basic density; rules based on slope /density formula, geological hazards, •
preservation of vegetation, and ridgeline preservation.
Density transfer provisions will be included as appropriate and necessary. Items
to be specified will include:
- Types of transfer permitted or required: Within same parcel; to non-
contiguous parcel in study area under same ownership; sale to receptor
parcel under different ownership within or outside the study area.
- Basis of determination of transferable credits.
- Limits on credits transferable to receptor parcels by location and zoning
district.
- Administrative provisions (including legal status of land from which
credits have been transferred).
— Building Site Designation; Access Requirements and Limitations: Building site
designations; provision for review. Access designation; provision for review.
Joint access. Access standards; width, grade.
— Development Standards for Ridgeline Lots
— Front Yard, Side Yard, Rear Yard: Provision for reduced or increased yards based
on building site designation, type of access, or transfer of density credits. Area •
to be enclosed by fences.
QE
ry
ND
'M
.1
— Building Height: Provisions based on location relative to ridgeline and road. Pro-
visions based on roof type, visible bulk, and grading. Greater height may be
permitted where there is minimum distrubance of the natural grade and existing
woodland is retained. Regulation of the maximum visible bulk may be appropri-
ate.
— Coverage; Floor Area Ratio Standards for buildings (consistent with design
review ordinance), impermeable area, and area enclosed by fences.
— Applicability to Existing Parcels and Structures .
— Open Space and Conservation Easements: When required; form of dedication.
5. Grading Ordinance
The present ordinance will be revised to carry out the intent of the Specific Plan and
the zoning regulations. Because the grading ordinance will apply citywide and because
it already is quite complete, it should remain focused on the procedure for monitoring
grading. Based on preliminary review, the erosion planting and driveway standards
sections are the only portions that appear to need substantial review.
The zoning district regulations will be written to discourage or prevent unnecessary
grading, but where grading is necessary the standards will be designed to produce the
best final result rather than the minimum total yardage. Where extensive grading
would result in loss of valuable natural vegetation, incentives or requirements to
minimize the area of disturbance will be prescribed.
-5-
SCHEDULE AND BUDGET 0
We will complete the Regulatory Options Report within 30 days following authoriza-
tion to proceed and will complete the ordinances in draft form within 30 days after
receiving policy direction on their content. If the City wishes us to select among the
regulatory alternatives with the advice of the City staff project team, the total time
from beginning to completion of ordinance drafts can be reduced to 60 days. We will
complete one revision of the reports and the ordinances at the time selected by the
City, and John Blayney will attend six public meetings within a maximum fee of
$18,000. Additional revisions and meeting attendance will be on a time and materials
basis at the rates listed if the maximum fee has been reached.
Our budget allocation is as follows:
Hours Rate Total
John Blayney, Partner, Project Manager 200 $65.00 $13,000
Michael Dyett, Partner 20 $60.00 1,200
Joan Young, Planner /Urban Designer 120 $27.50 3,300
Direct Costs 400
TOTAL 340 $17,900
This budget includes $3,250 for time and direct costs covering preparation and
attendance at six public meetings. If the City wishes to exclude meeting attendance
from the base fee, the guaranteed maximum would be $14,650. 9
We believe that the success of the program is dependent on a cooperative effort to
complete the tasks listed under City Staff Participation in the following section. We
are assuming at least one full-time equivalent City staff person effort during the
report and ordinance preparation period, and have allocated 10 to 15 percent of our
time to testing application of the regulations to specific conditions and sites in the
study area.
-6-
CITY STAFF PARTICIPATION
.0
We anticipate frequent working meetings with the City staff group that has responsi-
bility for the program. In addition to reviewing and commenting on drafts of each of
our products, we request the following staff contributions:
1. Identification of specific development (subdivisions) within the study area or else-
where in or near Saratoga that meets and does not meet the intent of the Specific
Plan. By looking at specific cases and the regulations applicable at the time of
approval, we can sharpen our understanding of community concerns and the City
Council's intent. Specific cases are likely to be brought up at public hearings.
2. Identification of specific ridgelines that have priority for rentention as open
space. Determination of the amount of developable land in parcels that include ridges
that could be developed using the standards of the Specific Plan will establish the need
for a development rights transfer system.
3. Test application of draft development regulations to one or more large parcels
capable of subdivision. If these are parcels for which subdivision maps previously have
been prepared, the amount of work will be reduced and the result of the regulations
will be more easily seen.
4. Consultation with the City Geologist to ensure correct interpretation of geological
and soils work already completed.
5. Consultation with City engineering staff road and driveway standards and grading
y
ordinance administration.
3*
6. Preparation of outlines or drafts of related ordinances to ensure coordination. The
scope covered by the zoning district regulations can vary depending on what is to be
covered elsewhere.
-7-
I
FIRM EXPERIENCE •
Blayney -Dyett was organized in January 1976 as John Blayney Associates and was
renamed Blayney -Dyett in September 1979. John Blayney was co -owner of Livingston
and,Blayney from 1959 -75. The firm was formed to offer public agencies and private
organizations comprehensive planning services. The Blayney -Dyett principals have
completed over 100 planning projects working together. Our current staff of nine is
engaged in a wide range of projects, including implementation regulations for the
Mendocino County Coastal Element; a new zoning ordinance for Austin, Texas;
revision of the Tracy General Plan; and preparation of a Specific Plan for a 13- square-
mile area surrounding the Redding Airport.
Blayney -Dyett capabilities include:
- Zoning Regulations
- Growth Management Strategies
- Environmental Assessment
- Development Standards
- General Plan Preparation
- Open Space and Recreation Plans
- Housing Studies
We highlight the following assignments as particularly relevant to the Saratoga
Hillside Ordinance Program and urge you to contact client references for their
appraisals of the quality of our work. •
Development Regulations
Mendocino County Coastal Element Implementation Program, 1980-81. Preparation of
zoning regulations and other ordinances necessary to carry out the policies of the land
use plan and ensure consistency with the Coastal Act were prepared under contract to
the Coastal Commission. B -D work also included preparation of a specific program
for public access; guidelines and review criteria for the historic town of Mendocino,
special communities, and viewsheds; and post- certification permit procedures. To
meet the requirements of the Coastal Act, the regulations prescribed detailed
standards to be met and review procedures similar to those that may be needed in the
Northwest Hillsides.
Client: California Coastal Commission
Reference: Noah Tilghman, Chief Planner, North Coast Region, (707) 443 -1623
Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, 1976 -77. New zoning regulations designed to implement
specific Comprehensive Plan programs and correct deficiencies in previous regulations
were prepared in a cooperative effort with the city's planning staff and with extensive
participation by the Planning Commission. The regulations include new multi- family
zones, new off - street parking regulations incorporating required bicycle parking and
administrative flexibility, and concepts to encourage housing in traditionally non-
residential areas. The ordinance was adopted by the City Council early in 1978.
Client: City of Palo Alto
Reference: Naphtali Knox, former Director of Planning and Community Environment,
(415) 321 -7874
• Downtown Portland Development Regulations, 1974 -75. New regulations adopted in
1979 are intended to maintain the small- scale, high intensity character of downtown.
Limitations are imposed on parking capacities and locations to implement the city's
policy of reducing air pollution and encouraging walking and transit use. Interruptions
of retail frontage, blank walls, and setbacks that threaten the vitality of the retail
core are regulated. Bonuses are awarded to stimulate downtown housing development.
A transfer of development rights system intended to preserve historical buildings was
included in the proposed ordinance.
Client: City of Portland
Reference: Rodney O'Hiser, Senior Planner, Downtown Plan Office, (503) 248 -4253
Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Ordinance, 1978 -79. Following completion of the Land Use
and Circulation elements of the new city's first General Plan, a zoning ordinance was
prepared to replace county regulations adopted as an interim measure. Problems to be
solved include simplifying administrative procedures; setting design standards that
reflect differences in the three communities —Alta Loma, Cucamonga, and Etiwanda-
that comprise the 35- square -mile city; and fitting regulations both to older areas
developed under permissive county zoning and to the two-thirds of the city that is not
yet urbanized. Particular attention was given to hillside development standards. The
adoption process has been delayed pending completion of the remaining elements of
the General Plan.
Client: City of Rancho Cucamonga
n
Reference: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, (714) 989 -1951
Santa Cruz Greenbelt Study, 1979 -80. In March 1979, Santa Cruz voters approved
Measure O, an initiative establishing a greenbelt around the city and mandating a
growth management program to implement greenbelt policies. B -D is working with
the City Attorney and Planning Department staff, evaluating environmental resources
and establishing allowable open space uses consistent with the policies set in the
IL initiative. Hillside development regulations including a provision of transfer of
development credits have been prepared. The draft ordinance includes detailed devel-
opment standards and provides for development agreements between the city and
landowners.
Client: City of Santa Cruz
Reference: Steve Russell, Senior Planner, (408) 429 -3571
Hillside Community Planning
Palo Alto Foothills Environmental Design Study (Open Space vs. Development),
1969 -70 (Livingston and Blayney). Analysis of alternative uses of 7,500 acres of open
land, including environmental studies and projection of governmental costs and
revenues, resulting in a conclusion that public purchase and retention of the land as
open space would be less costly to Palo Alto taxpayers than development by private
builders.
Client: City of Palo Alto
-9-
Hamilton New City Development Plan, Santa Clara County, California, 1964 -66 •
(Livingston and Blayney). Plan for a 10,000 -acre community for 100,000 population on
steep land in the Santa Clara Valley foothills. Contruction was deferred.
Client: Oceanic Properties
Visitacion Ranch Development Plan, 1961 -62 (Livingston and Blayney). Plan for high
density residential development on portion of Mt. San Bruno. Construction was
deferred pending resolution of the continuing conflict between proponents of open
space preservation and developers.
Client: Crocker Land Company
Saratoga and Santa Clara County Experience
Saratoga General Plan, 1959 -60, revised 1967 (Livingston and Blayney).
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1973 -76. Continuous assistance to the city staff
included programming, conceptual design, preparation of technical memoranda, report
writing, and participation in dozens of public meetings. The plan, adopted in 1976,
received a 1977 Northern California Section AIP Honor Award.
Client: City of Palo Alto
Reference: Naphtali Knox, former Director of Planning and Community Environment,
(415) 321 -7874
Criteria for Determining Whether a Residential Development Yields Net Benefit (San
Jose Measure B Study), 1975. This study, mandated by a 1973 initiative to stop or slow
residential development where schools were overcrowded or other public facilities
were lacking, was part of a comprehensive growth management study of optimum city
size, minimum necessary public facilities and services, costs and benefits of resi-
dential development housing for all income groups, and environmental impacts.
Recommendations: (1) A uniform system of charges to developers should be adopted
for relief of school overcrowding if it exists at the time a building permit is issued.
(2) A determination of the "net benefit" should be made before a residential devel-
opment is approved by finding that the sum of economic, fiscal, social, and
environmental benefits outweighs the disbenefits. (3) An urban service program, con-
sisting of a five -year program for financing minimum necessary public facilities,
should be adopted for each planning area. Fiscal net benefit for each project would be
based on conformity to the urban service program rather than on a cost - revenue
analysis of a single project. (4) All developments containing sale housing should
include a specified share selling at an unsubsidized "market minimum" price.
(5) Master Environmental Impact Reports should be prepared for each urban service
area to provide better analysis of cumulative effects and to reduce the need for
project EIRs. (6) Development taxes should be proportional to the value of the housing
unit and waived for market minimum housing.
Client: City of San Jose
Reference: Donald de la Pena, formerly with San Jose Office of Policy Research,
(408) 297 -8273 9
-10-
Varian Plant Location Study, 1961 (Livingston and Blayney). Search for a 100 -acre
,,-• site in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties for an electronics plant, comparing the
present value of short - and long -range costs and benefits. Vallco Park, a commercial -
industrial complex in Cupertino, resulted.
`I Client: Varian Associates
J Reference: Edward Ginzton, Chairman of the Board, Varian Associates
t 1
1
i
7
-11-
INDIVIDUAL QUALIFICATIONS 0
John Blayney, Partner, will be project manager and principal author of the report and
the ordinances. He will attend staff and public meetings in Saratoga. John Blayney is
a planner and architect with extensive experience in preparing zoning ordinances,
including hillside development regulations. He was co -owner of Livingston and
Blayney, City and Regional Planning Consultants, from 1959 -75, and has been a
principal in his present firm since 1975. Related experience as partner in charge or
participating partner includes:
— Preparation of zoning ordinances for Pleasanton, Riverside, Palo Alto, Rancho
Cucamonga, and Austin, Texas.
— Hillside development regulations, including requirements for preservation of
natural vegetation, Corte Madera.
— New City of Hamilton in foothills east of Morgan Hill (not built). This project
(for Oceanic Properties, developers of the Sea Ranch) explored alternatives for
development on steep hillsides.
— Development Plan for Visitacion Ranch Property, San Mateo County. Plan for
much denser hillside development than would be permitted in Saratoga was
blocked by the continuing debate on the future of Mt. San Bruno.
— Palo Alto Foothills Environmental Design Study (Open Space vs. Development) for •
the City of Palo Alto.
— Palo Alto General Plan Revision, 1973 -76.
— Saratoga General Plan, 1960.
— Mendocino Coastal Element Program. Detailed development regulations to meet
Coastal Act requirements comparable to Northwest Hillside Specific Plan.
— Portland Downtown Development Regulations, including transfer of development
rights provision for historic preservation.
— Moraga Meadows EIR. Review of subdivision design that proposes development
along ridges in a community with General Plan policies calling for avoidance of
ridgetop development.
John Blayney holds B.S. and B.Arch. degrees from the University of Southern
California (1949), an M.C.P. from the University of California (1954), and a California
architectural license. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners
and Lambda Alpha Honorary Real Estate and Urban Economics Society.
Michael Dyett, Partner, will provide critical review in the analysis of trade -offs under
alternative development regulations. Mr. Dyett has had extensive experience in
formulating policies and standards to manage land development in environmentally
sensitive habitats. Assignments particularly relevant to the Saratoga ordinance •
program include:
-12-
I`
G
le
it
j
— Partner in Charge, Santa Cruz Greenbelt Program. This project involved an
evaluation of the land capability and suitability for development of the city's
3,000 -acre greenbelt. Mr. Dyett prepared a resource management plan and
proposed development standards and implementing regulations, including an
analysis of hillside development options and including use of development
agreements to provide for TDR.
— Development impact analysis for San Jose and Del Mar.
— Author, Simi Valley Cost - Benefit Analysis Procedures
— Partner in Charge, San Francisco Bay Habitat Protection Progam
— General Plan studies for Santa Barbara County and Santa Rosa
Mr. Dyett received his B.A. and Master of Regional Planning degrees from Harvard
University, and is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners.
Joan Young, Planner /Urban Designer, will participate in the preparation of design
guidelines and development regulations, with particular emphasis on siting homes in
critical environmental areas. Her experience includes:
— Project Planner, Mendocino Coastal Element Implementation Program
— Urban Designer, Santa Cruz Greenbelt Study
— Project Planner, Redding Airport Land Use Plan
— Teaching Associate (Design and Planning Methodology), College of Environmental
Design, University of California at Berkeley
— Site Analysis, Hamilton Air Force Base (for Van Der Ryn, Calthorpe & Partners)
Ms. Young completed both her B.A. (highest honors) and M.A. in architecture at U.C.
Berkeley.
-13-
DRAFT AGREEMENT •
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into the day of , 1981 by
and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation of the State of
California, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Blayney - Dyett, A California
Corporation, 177 Post Street, Suite 750, San Francisco, California 94108, hereinafter
referred to as "Contractor."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, City desires to retain consulting services for preparation of
ordinances to implement the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, Contractor is qualified to conduct such studies; and
WHEREAS, Contractor is willing to render services required in accordance with
the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, agreement, and
conditions herein, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:
1. Contractor's Services. Contractor shall diligently perform the services and
furnish the materials hereinafter set forth:
a. Contractor shall complete the scope of work set forth on pages 2 through 5 of
the Contractor's July 31, 1981 proposal to the City, incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit A.
b. Contractor's principal will attend up to 6 public meetings, provided that
attendance at meetings more than 90 days following completion of all
products or in excess of 6 shall be charged at hourly rates plus direct costs if
the maximum fee has been reached.
c. Contractor will meet with the technical staff of the City and other pertinent
agencies involved as mutually agreed to be necessary for the effective con-
duct of the work.
d. Contractor shall furnish 10 review copies of all products, together with
originals suitable for further reproduction.
2. City Participation and Services. The City staff shall participate as described
under the section titled "City Staff Participation" of the Contractor's July 31,
1981 proposal.
n
U
-1-
TV ) +
3. Term. The work described inItem (la) shall be performed in accordance with the
time schedule set forth in the section titled "Schedule and Budget" of the
Contractor's July 31, 1981 proposal. The time schedules may be altered by
mutual agreement of the City and the Contractor.
4. Ownership of Work. All documents, data studies, surveys, drawings, maps, and
reports furnished to the Contractor by the City, as well as reports and supportive
i im data prepared by the Contractor under this contract, shall be considered the prop-
erty of the City and, upon completion of the services to be performed, be turned
over to the City.
5. Compensation and Payment. The City agrees to pay the Contractor for all ser-
vices rendered and materials provided in the performance of the specified work
scope a sum not to exceed $17,900, provided that additional services specified in
i,. paragraph 1(b) shall be charged at standard billing rates as set forth in Exhibit B
if the maximum fee has been reached.
Contractor shall bill the City monthly for work done and direct costs incurred
during the preceding month, and City shall pay within 30 days of receipt of bill-
ing. Personnel shall be billed in accord with the schedule shown in Exhibit B.
j Direct charges incurred by Contractor in the performance of services specified by
3 this Agreement shall include purchase of maps and photographs, reproduction -
costs, travel and subsistence, long distance telephone, delivery costs, and any
fees, insurance, permits, and licenses applicable to this Agreement only. Time
spent traveling is not charged when a full day is worked on this project.
Secretarial services are included in professional hourly rates.
6. Contractor's Status in the Performance of the Services Specified Herein. Con-
tractor is an independent contractor and shall not for any purpose be deemed to
be an employee, agent, or other representative of the City. Services called for
herein shall be deemed to be unique, personal services and Contractor shall not
assign, sublet, transfer, or otherwise substitute its interest in this Agreement, or
its obligation hereunder, without the written consent of the City.
7. Changes. The- City may, from time to time, request changes in the scope of
service performed by Contractor. Any increase or decrease in the amount of
Contractor's compensation occasioned by such changes shall be as mutually
agreed upon in writing between the City and Contractor.
8. Unqualified Right of Termination by City. City reserves the unqualified right to
terminate this Agreement at any time by depositing a notice of termination in the
U.S. mail to the Contractor that the Agreement is terminated, and no further
work shall be performed by Contractor. If the agreement is so terminated, the
Contractor shall be paid for services performed up to the time notice of termina-
tion is received for all services rendered and expenses incurred in accord with the
rates listed in Exhibit B.
9. Compensation for Testimony and Preparation Thereof. If any legal action is
brought against the City in connection with the services that are the subject of
this Agreement, by other than Contractor or subcontractor and not based upon
the wrongdoing of Contractor or subcontractor, and it becomes necessary for
-2-
r !
Contractor or any employee thereof to testify or provide information or material
in any such action, or if the City requests such involvement, the City shall
compensate Contractor for professional time at Contractor's standard rates and
for any expenses necessarily incurred in connection with such testimony and the
preparation thereof. Such compensation shall be in addition to the maximum
charge for the services to which reference is made in paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of
this Agreement.
10. Hold Harmless. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City,
its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, demands,
liability, costs, and expenses of whatever nature, including court costs and
counsel fees arising out of injury to or death of any person or persons or loss of or
physical damage to any property resulting in any manner from the willful acts or
negligence of Contractor, its subcontractors, agents, employees, licensees, or
guests in the making or performance of this Agreement.
11. Insurance. Contractor agrees to maintain in full force and effect during the
course of this Agreement bodily injury liability insurance in the amount of
$500,000 per occurrence and property damage liability insurance in the amount of
$100,000 per occurrence. In addition, Contractor shall be responsible for and pay
for all Workman's Compensation Insurance and agrees to furnish City with a copy
of its Workman's Compensation Insurance Policy, if requested.
•
12. Conflict of Interest. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest
and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any
manner or degree with the performance of his services hereunder. The Contrac- •
for further covenants that in the performance of this contract no person having
any such interest shall be employed.
13. Equal Employment Opportunity. Contractor is an Equal Opportunity and
Affirmative Action employer and agrees to comply with applicable requirements
governing equal employment opportunity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first written.
CITY OF SARATOGA
A Municipal Corporation
RN
ATTEST:
IM
-3-
Blayney -Dyett
A California Corporation
r�
U
•
•
EXHIBIT B
BLAYNEY -DYETT PERSONNEL COSTS
John Blayney, Partner
Michael V. Dyett, Partner
Other Professional Staff
$65 per hour
$60 per hour
2.75 times hourly payroll costs
(rates range from $20 to $40)
Rates include clerical costs.
Rates subject to adjustment effective July 1, 1982.